What we're seeing right now is a perfect example of second administration syndrome. The president has nothing to lose so he doesn't care who he pisses off. Once elected, he's supposed to work for everyone. It's very obvious he's not.
-
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
U.S. Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to Federal regulatory structure
- Thread starter ted chittenden
- Start date
What we're seeing right now is a perfect example of second administration syndrome. The president has nothing to lose so he doesn't care who he pisses off. Once elected, he's supposed to work for everyone. It's very obvious he's not.
This article lays out the situation with the FCC:
radioink.com
Gomez Exits Her Term Defiant as FCC's Future Remains Unclear - Radio Ink
With her term expired and SCOTUS clearing the runway for removal, FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez says she intends to serve for as long as she is able.
radioink.com
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Personally, I don't mind a polite discussion of POVs other than my own. Where I get upset, and my posts become more strident, is when that discussion turns into personal attacks, including attempts to discredit others by misquoting or deliberately misinterpreting facts about them.
I just went through that yesterday in the thread about KLOS in Los Angeles cutting the third hour of the long-popular Sunday morning "Breakfast With The Beatles". Thankfully, a moderator deleted not only the personal attacks (and some of my more forceful defenses which made no sense out of context, which I appreciate) but also banned the person who attacked me.
But that shouldn't happen. We're all adults here. We should be able to discuss our differences even when we don't agree with them. What we should all do -- but often don't -- is keep an open mind so that the lifelong process of learning can continue.
Isn't that just how society is now? Kinda reinforcement of my idea the media and especially social media plays a massive role in the dumbing down of society. I can literally post the most logical analysis on social media and the response I get is laugh reacts and insults. Or people being tribal. Disagree with A you automatically support B or they'll say you hate your country or are a traitor. Go on YouTube and watch the presidential debate between JKF and Nixon. And then ask yourself where we went wrong. Ask yourself if you can see the modern clutch of politicians or even their supporters being even half as civil.
Agreed. And I see a parallel in today's climbing of the antenna at the Empire State Building, which I see as being motivated by the huge social media attention that such stupidity generates.
We are in an era where "influencers" are an important aspect of society. So doing anything radical is applauded. Here, on a broadcast themed discussion board, "disagreement" has been weaponized and having "the wrong opinion" is demonized. This is part of an overall societal attitude that has come to encourage the tribalism you refer to.
There is no fairness doctrine on the internet. But to say disagreement has been "weaponized" is a huge stretch, since there is nothing at stake here.
It's not like a local TV station having its license denied because it carries a network show that made jokes about the president.
The FCC is using government regulatory power to control speech made by comedians. Isn't that what the first amendment was supposed to protect?
It's a very different thing when the government is doing the demonizing.
Last edited:
I'm actually working on a project where I remove the modern tribalism, remove the clickbait, ragebait etc and ask the investigative questions. Who, what, when, where, why and how. A way for people to discuss intelectually, not emotionally and where insults, name calling, mud slinging etc is completely banned. A place where it's not the opinion that matters as much as the system and how that opinion actually plays out.
A verbal personal attack is a weapon. It has the potential, like a club, a bat, an arrow or a bullet to harm a person.
Maybe mentally, but certainly not physically. The mental harm only occurs if the recipient takes it seriously.
What is it called when the president calls a reporter stupid or fat or attacks their credibility? Is that a verbal attack?
Trump lashes out at female reporters, calling them "ugly," "stupid" and "piggy"
President Trump has lashed out at several female reporters who have asked him questions or written critically of him in recent weeks, calling them "ugly," "stupid," and "piggy."
www.cbsnews.com
Once again, we need to compare this where the government is being weaponized and is demonizing free speech. The harm it's causing is financial in the case of those whose careers are being targeted. I'm fine with saying the president has free speech rights. The problem is when agencies of the government take action based not on policy, but on social media posts made on his own personal social media site that operates outside the control of the government and isn't subject to any rules that apply to presidents.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
In a word, yes. Yes, it is. And it is behavior unbecoming to anyone holding the office of the President, regardless of party affiliation.
While you are correct, when was the last presidential election that didn't have mud slinging and personal attacks? How many politicians rely on just their ability to persuade and not manipulate? Trump is a product of a society that wants that behavior. It's nothing new.
Remember we live in a society that decided to freak out because Taylor Swift decided to release a country song. People trash a fast food joint over wanting more sauces and a TV show or movie can get mercilessly and viciously attacked because the rabble decides they don't like an actor. Oh and celebrate the assassination of an activist because they didn't like what he said. Trumps behavior isn't right but it's literally everywhere
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
That still doesn't make it right, and not all of society wants that behavior. I have a feeling that there is a correlation between accepting all that and IQ ranking.
I don't care what Taylor Swift does, either professionally or personally. I don't want to make a scene over condiments. If I don't like a TV show or a movie, I will say so if asked but will neither start an argument over it nor be drawn into one. And to take a recent example of the assassination of an activist who I personally disagreed with -- Charlie Kirk -- it is my opinion that he was preaching to an audience that would never be convinced of his bigotry being misplaced, and I find no reason to celebrate his death. He was simply wrong, and someone who is part of the societal behavior that I condemn took drastic action that was unwarranted.
And I am sure that anyone here who also believes that kind of behavior is acceptable will try to discredit me for saying it. Bring it. You'll be the one exposing yourself.
You're right. I made a generalization. Not everyone wants that behavior. I would however argue it's not IQ but EQ. I think questioning a person's intelligence is a slippery slope that directly leads to all this mud slinging. Our Emotional Intelligence on the other hand leaves a lot to be desired
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
I'll accept that, although I have found (in general, with the occasional exception) that the higher the IQ, the greater the tendency of a person to be more calm and rational.
Which is why I chuckle when Trump calls himself a "genius". Also because so many of his schemes fail, which is hardly a testament to clear thinking and planning.
I don't know his actual IQ. But I can use observable evidence and suggest due to his frequent outbursts and referencing his intelligence and genius his emotional intelligence has serious issues due to his ego. Intelligence may affect how you think. Emotional intelligence affects how you treat people when they disagree with you.
Maybe mentally, but certainly not physically. The mental harm only occurs if the recipient takes it seriously.
What is it called when the president calls a reporter stupid or fat or attacks their credibility? Is that a verbal attack?
Trump lashes out at female reporters, calling them "ugly," "stupid" and "piggy"
President Trump has lashed out at several female reporters who have asked him questions or written critically of him in recent weeks, calling them "ugly," "stupid," and "piggy."
Once again, we need to compare this where the government is being weaponized and is demonizing free speech. The harm it's causing is financial in the case of those whose careers are being targeted. I'm fine with saying the president has free speech rights. The problem is when agencies of the government take action based not on policy, but on social media posts made on his own personal social media site that operates outside the control of the government and isn't subject to any rules that apply to presidents.
And yet, that is *exactly* what this U.S. Supreme Court decision (along with others) is allowing the U.S. president to do.
Keep in mind (and I'm veering away from topic, I know) that prior to this President, all of the U.S. presidents stopped behaving like they did in their campaign ads once the election was over and they assumed office.
I remember Trump becoming more reasonable when his first term began.
In my view, that's a misinterpretation of the role of the FCC. The commissioners aren't there to "exercise the President's power." That's the absolute wrong view of their role. They are there to implement and enforce the Communications Act as spelled out by congress. The only role the president plays in any of this is he gets to appoint the commissioners. Perhaps that's where the law needs to be changed. Because the current commission believes its there to carry out the president's agenda. That's not what the Communications Act says. This is why the commission is made up of career professionals. The only political appointees are the five commissioners.
This is what it says on FCC.gov:
Not the president. If I'm wrong, please show me where,
Last edited: