• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

NERW: The FCC in Authoritarian Times

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder if some of the low ratings problems at CNN have to do with its image having been tarnished due to so many attempts to "re-balance" that nobody cares any longer? The ratings continue to slide or stay at the bottom, and all the shuffling of hosts is confusing.
I miss the days of Bernard Shaw, when CNN was the place for breaking news (and the term meant something). With apps, that probably isn't even needed now.
 
The upper middle class has money and is spending it. The traditionally-called-blue-collar worker is unable to pay for a dozen eggs, let alone rent a vacation property or do the other things you mention. And that is precisely the group that moved its "color" in the past elections.
Utter nonsense. I live in a far-from-populated with upper middle class area. Every restaurant has been plenty full long before January 20. Vacations abounded Theme parks and similar attractions plenty full.

And yet somehow the "price of eggs" was the argument? The thing that's gone up since January and they don't make a peep about? Those eggs.

Spare us.

Eggs and the like were little more than a fig leaf.
 
That's the problem. Conservatives want representation on MSM, but it alienates the audience. Just as adding liberals to conservative radio shows. Balance of opinion, while a great idea in theory, doesn't translate to ratings. People want what people want. They're not searching for balance.
Check out any of the Sunday shows. There are usually several conservatives on them, often getting little in the way of pushback.
 
That is a fallacious argument worthy of a medal.

The upper middle class has money and is spending it. The traditionally-called-blue-collar worker is unable to pay for a dozen eggs, let alone rent a vacation property or do the other things you mention. And that is precisely the group that moved its "color" in the past elections.
Tell me you've never been to Gatlinburg without telling me you've never been to Gatlinburg.

I've never had trouble buying eggs. Sometimes you have to know where to shop, but that's kind of ridiculous.
 
If so, it's backfired spectacularly in Canada. Pierre Polievre suddenly had his best talking points evaporate.

Meanwhile, Trudeau, who already announced he is stepping down ahead of the next election, has seen his popularity in Canada soar over his patriotic response to Trump's threats. His successor will ride the Liberal party's sudden momentum into a very competitive position in Canada's election thanks to Trump.
 
When (not if)? Canada is a confederation of 10 provinces. Canadian provinces have more authority than do US states. If anything, Canada should be 10 states but 10 or one, Canada would not submit voluntarily. The US first tried to conquer Canada in 1812. It didn't work then. It won't work now.

There is also the smallish issue of Canada being apart of the Brittish Commonwealth. Does Trump really want to pick a fight the UK?

Meanwhile, Trudeau, who already announced he is stepping down ahead of the next election, has seen his popularity in Canada soar over his patriotic response to Trump's threats. His successor will ride the Liberal party's sudden momentum into a very competitive position in Canada's election thanks to Trump.

A good "hot mike" moment can do that in a crisis.
 
By calling out BS for what it is? Not that they’d use that term in such genteel shows, but a host should not just let guests or semi-regular pundits just get away with pure lies.

Once again, when a host does that, it makes THEM the target. If the idea is "unbiased reporting," the reporter can't take sides.

Harping on all of the president's faults, all of his lies, all of his crimes, and all of his threats to democracy didn't stop the people from voting for him.
 
Once again, when a host does that, it makes THEM the target. If the idea is "unbiased reporting," the reporter can't take sides.
The truth doesn’t have sides. It is not biased to call a lie a lie.
Harping on all of the president's faults, all of his lies, all of his crimes, and all of his threats to democracy didn't stop the people from voting for him.
Never said it did. But letting the lies go without basic fact checking is journalistic malpractice. The results are the results.
 
I wonder if some of the low ratings problems at CNN have to do with its image having been tarnished due to so many attempts to "re-balance" that nobody cares any longer? The ratings continue to slide or stay at the bottom, and all the shuffling of hosts is confusing.
Balance can work if done right (Newsnation comes close), but the way CNN does it is too ancient Rome-like, all for the spectacle. Essentially, it would work if it would try not to be sensational and more "boring."
 
The truth doesn’t have sides. It is not biased to call a lie a lie.

Clearly calling a lie a lie doesn't work. All it does is turn the reporter into the enemy, who gets hate mail, who gets threats against their life, and ultimately gets fired for putting the company's license at risk.

The media has to find a better way to do it's job. Because just telling the truth isn't working. The 60 Minutes folks were very careful with the Harris interview, did all the right things, and now they're being hung out to dry. I can go through the list. Being right doesn't matter if you get fired.
 
It came out of Usenet, actually, and the thing that people misunderstand about it was that it was descriptive in nature, not normative. I would see people in Usenet newsgroups try to use it as a brake on discussions. That never worked.

The idea was "The first person who introduces Hitler or Nazi Germany into an argument/thread loses the argument," right? While the discussions may have continued, the offending poster became a joke afterward, and any valid points the OP might have made could no longer be used in the discussion by any other poster. That's putting a brake on the discussion as far as I'm concerned.
 
The idea was "The first person who introduces Hitler or Nazi Germany into an argument/thread loses the argument," right?

Right, because comparisons to Hitler or accusations of fascism were too serious and inappropriate to invoke during petty arguments on internet message boards.

However, when there is an actual fascist takeover of the nation being conducted by a man following Hitler's playbook, then it's totally valid to bring it up. Not enough journalists seem to understand this right now.
 
Clearly calling a lie a lie doesn't work.
No, it actually does because that’s the job. Much like the job of that bishop was to address the actual teachings of her religion. It won’t “work” in the sense that he’s not going to do what she asked. But it’s still her job.


All it does is turn the reporter into the enemy, who gets hate mail, who gets threats against their life, and ultimately gets fired for putting the company's license at risk.
So because the FCC has turned into another arm of the vendetta campaign, reporters should not traffic in facts. Great plan.
The media has to find a better way to do its job.
Calling a lie a lie is a pretty good way to do the job. It’s actually the only good way to do it.
Because just telling the truth isn't working.
And ignoring the truth…accomplishes what?
The 60 Minutes folks were very careful with the Harris interview, did all the right things, and now they're being hung out to dry.
Ok, and? They should bow to the king? We have plenty of state approved media already. We don’t need more.
I can go through the list. Being right doesn't matter if you get fired.
It actually does matter. Contributing to the downfall of the republic doesn’t matter because you get to stay comfortable.

We are in a fight for survival. We can roll over and let any last vestige of our democratic republic die, or we can fight.

This is not differences of opinion over how much expenditure some such program gets, or the appropriate marginal tax rate for people earning whatever. This is literally life and death. The funding cuts to colleges will kill people as research grinds to a halt. Epidemics running rampant because the government hides information (and flat out lies) will kill people. The wholesale ending of foreign aid that supports clinics and provides desperately needed medicine and food will kill people. The rise of bigotry and violence against whoever the target of the president’s ire is in a given week will kill people. The demonizing of the LGBTQIA community will kill people who feel isolated and hopeless with no resources. The end of the affordable care act, as repeatedly promised, will kill people.

But by all means, let’s make sure the host of whatever program doesn’t run afoul of someone with a short fuse and dubious intellect by daring to point out a lie is….a lie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom