Feinstein wants to limit who can be a journalist
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
57Brave
Well-known member
"In a proposed amendment to a media shield law being considered by Congress, "
Not sure how a) this article b) this thread doesn't support Sen Feinstein's "... language ..."
or how much more conditional / what if the article could be
Seriously though -- journalism has changed from traditional print and how the new means will be legally codified -- .
And, it will be legally codified
I disagree with the Senators proposal and doubt it ever gets beyond Watchdog.org or other such niche political blogs
/////////////////
"tyrannical Liberal"
I don't get that saying - heard it this morning on the local "American Thinker" readers radio show
Does it mean one forces free thought on people or forcing people to ... I don't know.
Seems either one is a tyrant or a Liberal but dont get how one gets to be both. But, we lived through Obama being a Socialist,Communist and a Fascist simultaneously so I guess anything is possible
Not sure how a) this article b) this thread doesn't support Sen Feinstein's "... language ..."
or how much more conditional / what if the article could be
Seriously though -- journalism has changed from traditional print and how the new means will be legally codified -- .
And, it will be legally codified
I disagree with the Senators proposal and doubt it ever gets beyond Watchdog.org or other such niche political blogs
/////////////////
"tyrannical Liberal"
I don't get that saying - heard it this morning on the local "American Thinker" readers radio show
Does it mean one forces free thought on people or forcing people to ... I don't know.
Seems either one is a tyrant or a Liberal but dont get how one gets to be both. But, we lived through Obama being a Socialist,Communist and a Fascist simultaneously so I guess anything is possible
mossy
<B>Hysterical Girlfriend<BR>That Storms Out and</B
What we really need is a law that mandates the separation of fact/opinion in the news.
If Fox wants to shamelessly promote the GOP (or MSNBC), I really don't care. What pisses me off is when they or any other cable news network tells a story, and immediately has a "discussion" over how it's all Obama's fault/Cheney's fault, etc...
I get Fox shoved down my throat all day at work, and it amazes me that people accept all their opinions being force fed to them during a "news" hour. I for one proudly see right thru that nonsense.
If Fox wants to shamelessly promote the GOP (or MSNBC), I really don't care. What pisses me off is when they or any other cable news network tells a story, and immediately has a "discussion" over how it's all Obama's fault/Cheney's fault, etc...
I get Fox shoved down my throat all day at work, and it amazes me that people accept all their opinions being force fed to them during a "news" hour. I for one proudly see right thru that nonsense.
57Brave
Well-known member
I am going to agreewith my Libertarian friends and say we don't need a law defining fact from opinion. What we need is people that can tell the difference.
For the record, MSNBC does not promote itself or claim to be a news organization. They are politics and analysis. NBC does the news.
Fox claims to be a news organization. MSNBC talks about current events -- Fox claims to be the last and defining word on current events. News? Fox News!
That is why we don't need a law separating fact from opinion. All one has to do is read and understand what they are reading . Common mistake -- no, a false equivalency and lazy reading.
For the record, MSNBC does not promote itself or claim to be a news organization. They are politics and analysis. NBC does the news.
Fox claims to be a news organization. MSNBC talks about current events -- Fox claims to be the last and defining word on current events. News? Fox News!
That is why we don't need a law separating fact from opinion. All one has to do is read and understand what they are reading . Common mistake -- no, a false equivalency and lazy reading.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
There are no uninterpreted facts. So the line you want drawn mossy will always be wrong. And the danger once you think you've got it drawn properly is that you think the "fact" side is w/o bias.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
But to think NBC's "news" is opinion neutral is naive.
57Brave
Well-known member
It wasn't that long ago that Fox promoted the fledgling Tea Party rallies.
All the while the sponsors of the rallies were also Fox News on air sponsors ..
Trying to remember when NBC ... this goes beyond "news neutral" this is not even subtle .
I thought you didnt watch TV . Fox or MSNBC or any of them --
All the while the sponsors of the rallies were also Fox News on air sponsors ..
Trying to remember when NBC ... this goes beyond "news neutral" this is not even subtle .
I thought you didnt watch TV . Fox or MSNBC or any of them --
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
57Brave
Well-known member
The GOP’s Boycott of CNN and NBC News Is On
By Margaret Hartmann
The Republican National Committee is following through on its threat to boycott CNN and NBC News by refusing to participate in the networks' primary debates if they don't scrap a planned Hillary Clinton documentary and miniseries. Time obtained the full non-binding resolution on the boycott, which is expected to pass easily when put to a vote Friday at the RNC's Summer Meeting. Priebus told Time that the last paragraph is the most important bit, suggesting (as many have surmised) that the RNC's shock and disappointment that news outlets – or rather their unrelated entertainment and documentary divisions – would show bias toward a particular candidate or political party isn't entirely genuine.
It states that the party "shall endeavor to bring more order to the primary debates and ensure a reasonable number of debates, appropriate moderators and debate partners are chosen, and that other issues pertaining to the general nature of such debates are addressed." The RNC is drafting formal rules on the debates, which may include severe penalties for candidates who go rouge and participate in unsanctioned events. Why subject Republican candidates to twenty debates when you can have a handful of dignified exchanges on a fair and balanced network like Fox News?
By Margaret Hartmann
The Republican National Committee is following through on its threat to boycott CNN and NBC News by refusing to participate in the networks' primary debates if they don't scrap a planned Hillary Clinton documentary and miniseries. Time obtained the full non-binding resolution on the boycott, which is expected to pass easily when put to a vote Friday at the RNC's Summer Meeting. Priebus told Time that the last paragraph is the most important bit, suggesting (as many have surmised) that the RNC's shock and disappointment that news outlets – or rather their unrelated entertainment and documentary divisions – would show bias toward a particular candidate or political party isn't entirely genuine.
It states that the party "shall endeavor to bring more order to the primary debates and ensure a reasonable number of debates, appropriate moderators and debate partners are chosen, and that other issues pertaining to the general nature of such debates are addressed." The RNC is drafting formal rules on the debates, which may include severe penalties for candidates who go rouge and participate in unsanctioned events. Why subject Republican candidates to twenty debates when you can have a handful of dignified exchanges on a fair and balanced network like Fox News?
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I am talking about the network as a whole. Not individuals or programs. I agree there's a problem with news and commentary being confused but that's on the watcher to discern not for the government to decide.
57Brave
Well-known member
not to decide but to define.
"We the people ..." which to my mind is the government
I'm thinking a news outlet reporting a fire in a movie theater as opposed to an individual yelling fire.
I'm sure you have seen some bloggers not opposed to hollering fire tout suite. Why should they get the same 1st Amendment protections as say David Corn or Charlie Savage? And the other side being how do we as a society protect ourselves from the guy yelling fire? I think there needs to be clear distinctions.
The Bill of Rights is great -- but there are those that will abuse / stretch those rights then try to hide behind them. To me that is what government is there to do. And where the Libertarian cause falls short.
"We the people ..." which to my mind is the government
I'm thinking a news outlet reporting a fire in a movie theater as opposed to an individual yelling fire.
I'm sure you have seen some bloggers not opposed to hollering fire tout suite. Why should they get the same 1st Amendment protections as say David Corn or Charlie Savage? And the other side being how do we as a society protect ourselves from the guy yelling fire? I think there needs to be clear distinctions.
The Bill of Rights is great -- but there are those that will abuse / stretch those rights then try to hide behind them. To me that is what government is there to do. And where the Libertarian cause falls short.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Why would I have to watch the news to know that there are no uninterpreted, brute, facts? Why would I have to watch when the very nature of a time limited broadcast of news, by its very nature slants what is perceived to be news? Etc.
Are there degrees to the level of overt bias? Sure - but at least the way out there ones are readily seen for what they are.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
The problem is to think that they are two separate things - news and opinion.
57Brave
Well-known member
of course they are two different things. The Five W's from Journalism 101
Who?What?When?Where? and Why?
The programs we (or at least I) are talking about play fast and loose with the W's and are awfully proud of their O's.
Who? Alex Rodriquez
What? PED use
When? (how do you make an infinity sign in a world where *** gets blanked out???)
Where? Miami
Why? Guessing this is where the opinion sneaks in. But, I rely on quotes from the person in question
Seems if the "news" puts words or motive in the mouth of "who" that is the line twixt news and opinion. Fox News has no qualms attaching words or motives to an issue where their "why" is completely made up and passed as news.
Who?What?When?Where? and Why?
The programs we (or at least I) are talking about play fast and loose with the W's and are awfully proud of their O's.
Who? Alex Rodriquez
What? PED use
When? (how do you make an infinity sign in a world where *** gets blanked out???)
Where? Miami
Why? Guessing this is where the opinion sneaks in. But, I rely on quotes from the person in question
Seems if the "news" puts words or motive in the mouth of "who" that is the line twixt news and opinion. Fox News has no qualms attaching words or motives to an issue where their "why" is completely made up and passed as news.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
That's so old school 57. People aren't neutral beings - they have their biases and they are never not there. They can try with all their might to keep them in check, but they always will be reflected somehow - in the words they choose to frame their reports with, to the tone they use, the series of questions they ask and don't ask, the items they do report on, those they don't. By the time you actually read or hear certain quotes, the "news" has been through numerous people each with their own presuppositions, their own attitudes, their own present life-situation, their views of right and wrong, their aspirations, their education and their individual experiences, their friendships and relationships and their voting preferences. It all affects what product you receive.
57Brave
Well-known member
That being the case, what difference does it make what Sen Feinstein proposes or what bill gets passed. If it is all opinion and everyone says whatever they want and sells it as fact // data?
Going back the the difference between Channel 6 Action News reporting on a theater fire and a random person yelling fire.
Or, a news organization showing lines of voters and Brietbart selling voter fraud. Two opinions // bias' // sides of voting in America.
The lines of voters are photographed and documented. Brietbarts version is (how do I politly put this?) a bit more abstract!.
Do they deserve equal protection under the 1st Amendment? Through what means do we draw that line?
Going back the the difference between Channel 6 Action News reporting on a theater fire and a random person yelling fire.
Or, a news organization showing lines of voters and Brietbart selling voter fraud. Two opinions // bias' // sides of voting in America.
The lines of voters are photographed and documented. Brietbarts version is (how do I politly put this?) a bit more abstract!.
Do they deserve equal protection under the 1st Amendment? Through what means do we draw that line?