You've explained the obvious.... But thats important too. There are still a lot of igornant people out there who dont even try to challenge the information that is currently presentend by the maintstream media. If people wouldnt be so naive i strongly believe US would never have gone to war in Iraq...
Just keep the internet free - Service providers shouldn't be able to restrict content avialability or bandwidth for customers on various types of content (streams, Skype, etc.) The government has the duty to keep the net neutral - we set it up in the first place.
=> pro net neutrality
And it's a good thing that the FCC said to service providers that they cannot discriminate against certain forms of content.
In all technicalities the 1st Amendment would apply to Amazon because it is used as a public forum (as long as no existing policy was violated), however Assange could not invoke it because he's not an American. The FCC is altogether unconstitutional and evidence of what happens when you let Government assume any powers not delegated or enumerated. You get an unauthorized alphabet cereal gang of broken branches unconected to the tree that produce absolutely no fruit.
Another reason the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" reduced the amount of time devoted to public affairs was because, while the Right Wing "sells" [in other words, attracts listeners & viewers] the Left Wing doesn't - especially on Radio [remember, radio listeners thought Nixon won the 1960 Presidential Debates; TV watchers thought JFK won - perhaps proving the point about TV being more superficial???].
Obviously, both Radio & TV need to attract advertisers, which means attracting ears & eyeballs!
The commerce clause in the constitution was created to regulate trade. The original meaning was to make trade regular, as in to ensure that no state should interfere with commerce. The commerce clause has since been used to justify literally thousands of laws that limit trade and even bring force and coercion to regulate most aspects of our life's.
Net neutrality rules are intended to protect consumers from service providers who might alter or limit content and services. The intent is to protect access by giving the FCC the power to alter or limit content and services. The FCC is responsible for more censorship than any other organization or entity in the united states entire history. The FCC has repeatedly interfered in the content and services of every other medium they regulate is now tasked with ensuring the internet is regular.
@bullpcp I would make one correction to your statement... "Net neutrality rules are intended to protect consumers from service providers who might alter or limit content and services." I would simply interject that Net Neutrality are written to APPEAR to intend to protect consumers... Leiberman knows exactly what he's doing.
Wikki leaks did not steal the information it was supplied by an inside source of the US government and to date there is no evidence to support any other claim that Wikki leaks stole anything. They just released the documents that were supplied to them.
Wikileaks rocks. The "people" are no longer represented. Governments are secretive and work to undermine the rights of the masses to increase power and profit they and those they represent.
@USAGymnast. My goodness! U r a crafty 1 @ saying alot, but saying nothing @ all. Lets break down ur non-arguments. #1, whats a "regressive statist"? Is that a word Glen beck taught u? I luv having Freedom of Speech & own guns. A monopoly is any entity that controls 1 sector of industry 2 a point where it stifles competition (i.e. AT&T...look it up sonny boy). Kinda like the reason Y the Sherman Anti-trust act was passed in2 law. U should study the control the railroads had on free enterprise
@USAGymnast. Um? WTF r u talking about there dizzy? Networks not saying the $ they get aren't theirs? Huh? R u talking about networks like PBS that get 5% of their funding from Federal grants? Or r u talking about our govt that has Constitutional powers to tax "The People"? Ur showing how clouded ur neo-con thought process is. Poor fella, must suck 2B u. How did u graduate from school? Oh thats right, ur still in Jr. High. Keep up w/the video games! =))
@USAGymnast. Look up "the fairness doctrine" on wikipedia moron. It CLEARLY regulated ANYTHING that had to do with the PUBLIC AIRWAVES. What an idiot u r. Thats Y the FCC was the 1 implementing it u retard. Geezuz Christ! WTF is it w/u neo-con types? Dont u know how 2 use a simple google search? What confuses u that the FCC regulated ALL public airwaves (meaning NOT cable or satellite). We're talking AM/FM/UHF/VHF. Get it dummy? If u cant debate facts, just go away & play ur video games.
Excellent commentary! And I agree. While I may not agree with what a person has to say, I can certainly agree that they have a right to say it. Government control of speech is nothing more than propaganda and should be acknowledged as such.
@jboyko3. You could make the same argument of the "free speech" that was used in pre-WWII Germany to brainwash people into thinking Jews were bad & should be killed. Sometimes you have to call the kettle black & out the ones that are LYING to the public (that would be most conservatives & neo-con talking heads). The playing field has been seriously skewed using monopoly techniques that are supposed 2B illegal under the Sherman Anti-trust act. 1 entity owning 2 much media is bad 4 REAL journalism
@JSAautomotive By using the pre-WWII analogy against free speech, you aren't referring to true free speech. You're actually referring to one entity owning too much media. I.e, the German government. Hitlers decree "For the Protection of the German People" is a lot like the government controlled main stream media of today. But today we have the luxury of alternative news outlets via the internet which are not controlled and is true free speech in which people can debate issues in an open forum.
@jboyko3 Net Nuetrality Bill will soon do away with the free speech available via the internet. Wisconsin also passed a law where they deem to give themselves the authority to fine anyone, anywhere, for making political commentery within 60 days of an election. Our free speech is disappearing faster than anyone can come up with examples of it's continued existence.
@lovinghomeschoolmom. Ah yes, and the Liberals want to massacre millions of Jews. Right? Lol! Yeah...I can see it now. Liberals marching in line stock w/their Birkenstocks hugging their trees & murdering millions of innocent citizens. HAHA!! Thats a good one! I know Liberals are so scary w/their guns attached at their hips & Tea party rallies & killing abortion doctors or bombing them. Oh wait! Thats not Liberals, those were CONSERVATIVES!!! Whoops!
@JSAautomotive Actually Hitler and the Nazis did regulate the media on February 28th 1933. I don't see where lovinghomeschoolmom's comment about that fact would prompt you to go on the defensive by saying that she was somehow suggesting that liberals are trying to kill Jews. Where the hell did that come from? Regulating media means controlling public opinion no matter what the agenda. It's not limited to the extermination of Jews back in the 30's and 40's. It's a formula that works universally.
@jboyko3 "I don't see where lovinghomeschoolmom's comment about that fact would prompt you to go on the defensive by saying that she was somehow suggesting that liberals are trying to kill Jews."
Maybe they shouldn't make open-ended comparisons to nazis.
@Bleuski It wasn't exactly open-ended. It was a reference to a facist government that used the media in order to manipulate public opinion. Again, it's not much different than the main stream media today. The only major difference between then and now is that with the internet, it's a lot harder to suppress dissenting viewpoints. Which is why you're hearing more and more about net censorship being implemented in order to "protect the public". Because of course information is so dangerous to us..
@jboyko3 "It was a reference to a facist government that used the media in order to manipulate public opinion."
You're just insinuating that liberals are fascists that want to manipulate public opinion like nazis based on a ridiculous analogy. Even assuming that the inherently generalized presuming of liberals wanting to "regulate the media" were true, that doesn't mean they share any other aspects with anyone that might also have that stance.
@Bleuski Actually, you're making a presumption that I'm referring to liberals in my argument. I'm not. I'm not talking about liberals or conservatives. I'm talking about anyone who has the authoritarian view that it is their duty to sanitize information and cherry pick what I should and shouldn't read. I also used a valid historical reference to make my point regarding this topic. Which is "FCC Commissioner Wants to Control the News". So I'm sorry if historical facts offend you.
@jboyko3 "Actually, you're making a presumption that I'm referring to liberals in my argument."
The context was a comparison of liberals and nazis, though you do bring up a good point. Why not make a comparison to some other group that doesn't imply fascism or genocide? "Sanitizing information" does not define nazis.
And I'm not arguing the FCC commissioner's stance on wanting to "regulate" at least, but since when did he represent liberals?
@Bleuski If you took my post as a comparison of liberals and Nazis, then you took it entirely out of context. I never made one single comparison to lead you to that conclusion. If fact, I even made it a point to explain to you that was not my intention. So why are you still going on with this Nazi=liberal argument? Also, if I'm going to make a comparison here why not use Nazis? Government controlled corporate media is a great example of fascism. Genocide does not define fascism. Corporatism does
@jboyko3 To quote you again, "It was a reference to a facist government that used the media in order to manipulate public opinion." The "It" here referring to the comparison of liberals and nazis by lovinghomeschoolmom. It was wholly in context, and at no point did you suggest that liberals not fit that definition. If you weren't trying to imply that, then you need to work on your phrasing.
If your point is that fascism involves controlling the media, well..that's not really news to anyone.
@Bleuski The "it" I was referring to was the fact that arguments being made in favor of controlling media are the same ones that were used in 1930's Germany. Are you suggesting that it's my responsibility to clarify the thought process of someone else? If you were so concerned about lovinghomeschoolmoms comment about how liberals are somehow comparable to Nazis, maybe you should have addressed it to her. I never made that distinction. She did. And it's not my responsibility to answer for it.
@jboyko3 "I was referring to was the fact that arguments being made in favor of controlling media are the same ones that were used in 1930's Germany."
You're basically making the same comparison of "regulating media" and nazis then. As it is, if you've actually heard what the FCC commissioner had to say about regulation, you'd know it has nothing to do with "protecting the public." In fact, he said there isn't enough information being put out there via mainstream sources.
@Bleuski YOU might actually want to go back and listen to what he said. He wants news broadcasters to pass a "value test" in order to determine whether or not their license is renewed. A value test?!? A test in which a small group of people determine the standards of how a broadcasting service should best "serve peoples interest" (protecting the public). Control of the media is precisely what he is advocating. What are the standards based on and who ultimately decides the standards?
@USAGymnast. I'm a Marxist now? Lol! Sorry. Nice try w/ur Glen Beck labels. If u bothered 2 look @ my videos, I think its pretty clear that I'm not a class warfare type of person except 4 when 1 class monopolizes another. Like the way Wall St. took advantage of R markets & tanked the economy. Hence, the reason we need to start enforcing the Sherman Anti-trust act we have in the USA. Keep ur dated tags & come in2 the current world. Ur liberal vs. conservative labels are outdated & boring.
@JSAautomotive You should probably just ignore USAGymnast. They've pretty much stereotype and assume whatever they want about whoever doesn't agree with them.
@USAGymnast. Not whining, just stating facts. If u bothered to READ prior posts here, 1 of ur conservative morons said there were way more liberal talk stations than conservative. I told him he was wrong. So thanks for joining my side & agreeing with me...someone that bothers to check the facts. Re: the "Fairness doctrine", it DID apply to any bandwidths that the FCC regulated. And yes, that included television (non cable) & radio (non satellite). So once again, another conservative sans facts.
@USAGymnast. Yeah? Is that why O'Reilly said that it was the U.S. that massacred Germans at Malmudy!!?? Is that why Faux News said Obama's health care bill was to have "death panels"? Is that why Glen Beck blathers that somehow Obama had something to do w/Bush's 2 trillion $ war & his trillions in tax give aways from 2000-2007 that were never paid for? Give me a f-in break!! PBS & NPR are award winning journalism sources. Faux News is propaganda B.S. They don't research anything they spew.
When a conservative doesn't like a program, they change the station. When a liberal doesn't like a program, they want the program taken off the air so no one can see it. Again, the basic difference, liberals know best, and everyone should just let them do what they think is best.
The bit about life-forms allegedly using arsenic is actually misleading... read the article "Arsenic and Odd Lace" by Athena Andreadis, Ph.D. The life form wasn't "discovered," it was manipulated, and it's unlikely that it actually uses arsenic in lieu of phosphorus. NASA's public relations dept blew this story out of proportion, probably in an attempt to salvage funding if there are budget cuts.
I actually completely agree with you HTWW. I've long thought the FCC needed to be done away with. A free country has no need of any of their services. I personally do get tired of the conservative to liberal ratio on the radio, but that's just my taste. However, if people want to listen to a conservative show on the radio, then there's nothing wrong with that. If someone wanted to change that, then they should do it with their own, better radio show, not with regulations.
@WorldSutra And yet Murdoch can't hope to control a majority of any kind of media, wheveras the government can simply institute a rule and have total control not only of stations, but of the content they are allowed to produce. And there would be no way to oppose it because it would presumably be in the name of 'fairness.'
Countless poll show reporters STILL vote 80-95% liberal in every election. So whatever he's doing, it ain't having much of a dent. I wish it would.
Of course, I'm not going to argue that Amazon doesn't have the right to prevent someone from using Amazon's servers...it's Amazon's property to do with what they want.
I think WikiLeaks was trying to say that if Amazon believed in "people should be free to say what they want", it wouldn't matter what was said on their servers. They were being paid for the use of their property, and to prevent someone from using it just because u don't like what they're saying does kind speak to that point.
Look, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with what Amazon did. I'm just saying WikiLeaks has a point. If I was renting a bullhorn from u & then all of a sudden I said something u didn't like and u decided to take your bullhorn back, I wouldn't exactly be wrong in saying "apparently ur not as big of a defender of free speech as u might like to think."
It's not like Amazon was subsidizing WikiLeaks & said "not on my dollar." They were being paid
@WideWorldOfWisdom So you're saying they're not being free speech purists, hey, that's fine with me. Purists suck. Case in point, WikiLeaks, who are so radically obsessed with 'openness' (so they say though they only ever seem to expose American state secrets) that they are willing to side with terrorists and dictators by unnecessarily revealing all those who would oppose their evil purposes.
@Christobanistan Ah yes, the ol' misinterpretation of "fire in the crowded theater" hypothetical. I'm guessing next you'll tell us that "even the bible says money is the root of all evil." *rolleyes*
If (supposed) Idiot A screams "fire, fire!" in a crowded theater, and Amazon says "shut up you jackass"...and "Idiot A" wasn't lying....who is the idiot?
I suggest you go read what Justice Holmes actually said before you continue trolling this comment board.
@WideWorldOfWisdom Gotcha. So if there is no 'fire' then you must believe that even the person who did the leaking is not breaking any law. Ludicrous.
You know, if he had actually found some malfeasance and simply exposed that, I might be on this asshole's side, you know, if he actually gave a shit about protecting identities of those could die by helping us. But that's not what he's doing. He's exposing absolutely everything, no matter how innocuous. How in the fuck's name is THAT 'fire?'
@Christobanistan "if there is no 'fire' then you must believe that even the person who did the leaking is not breaking any law."
Lets try again. Ur argument is that if someone "screams fire, fire! in a crowded theater" the appropriate response should be "shut up you jackass", and the first person should be found guilty of some crime, I presume.
Notice how u now had to change ur story to include the part about whether the statement was true or not. Kind of an important detail, wouldn't u say?
@Christobanistan. Yeah, let me guess.....I bet u were up in arms when Scooter Libby & Dick Cheney outed Valerie Plame for being a CIA operative? Lol! U conservatives make me laugh! U call the guy from wikileaks siding w/terrirosts, but Dick Cheney & Scooter Libby are ok doing the same thing! And the Cons sided w/Cheney and Libby! Talk about treasonists!! Cheney and Libby AND BUSH should have HUNG for that! Even Bushs dad was quoted as saying outing a CIA agent is cause for treason!
@JSAautomotive You idiot, if you'd have been watching Fox you'd know it was Sinunu in the State department that "outed" Plame. That Fitgerald pursued a case he knew was a non crime, when he knew the outer, for 3 fucking years just to get something on someone.
Your take on Fox is just as stupid. You buy propaganda about Fox without even watching. You would have bought Goebbels who line about the Jews too you fucking propagandists idiot sheep fool.
@omegahpla. Ur pretty stupid if u think Faux News is truthful. There is just way 2 much actual footage here on Utube that shows CLEARLY their neo-con lying/nonfactual bias. The documentary "Outfoxed" shows FAUX NEWS clips & how they spin & lie. Faux News is not journalism, its pure propaganda B.S. At least CNN & MSNBC still do real news reporting & good investigative journalism. Something u can't say about Faux News. Ur such a sheep & its painfully obvious u haven't a skeptical cel in ur brain
@JSAautomotive You can make anyone look like anything. I've seen that shit & have known personally many times they took things out of context, lied about what they were supposedly talking about & all kinds of half truth tricks. You should see the KKK's bullshit, they'd have an idiot like you hating black people & yelling about race revolution in no time because you're that type of jello head. You can show anything VERY CLEARLY by cherry picking or leaving out all the democrats who comment on Fox
@omegahpla Not can show anything clearly, CAN'T show anything clearly. The only way to see clearly is to watch it, and have a context thats not twisted on which to judge it. More democrats watch Fox than CNN or MSNBC ... those are the ones with the brains. If you have the brains to find the truth you have the brains to judge what you see against what is true. Your dummy handlers don't want their idiot sheep to watch it, and you idiot sheep listen! lol! I'd never let anyone tell me what to watch
@omegahpla and as a result I know a hell of a lot more about what is going on in the world than you do. Lets face it, you're a propagandized moron who can't think for himself. You actually thought Plame was an agent that could be outed, she wasn't, and that someone in the Bush administration outed her, it was Sinunu in the State Department & he was NOT a Bush fan. They knew this for 3 years & still tried to find a reason to bust anyone they could before the election. You didn't know that ...gee
@omegahpla. All of WHAT democrats or liberals on Faux News? Lol!! I was just watching Hanitty 2nite, & sure as chit...he had some whiny chick playing the liberal role who was basically a nobody. Why is Hanitty so afraid of having a REAL liberals like mayB Michael Moore/Randi Rhodes/Rachel Maddow/Ed Shultz on his show? & then when he went 2 get comment on 2days fillibuster in the senate, who does he have? 2 Republican senators. R those the Dems ur talking about? U must think I dont watch watch.
I wonder if Julian Assange's stance on the release of confidential information would be shaken a bit if all of his bank accounts, credit card numbers, and passwords were to become public knowledge.
@Bleuski No, what Assange has done is far more dangerous - just not to him, personally. He leaked names, villages, and GPS coordinates of NATO informants - a virtual hit list for the Taliban. He told The Australian that the importance of releasing this information outweighed the risk to their lives - people he never met, and who certainly never gave their consent to his releasing their information. He doesn't care if people - civilians - die brutally, so long as he gets to be a hero to the Left.
@FreemanicParacusia That's pure speculation considering there has been no evidence that the leaks have lead to any casualties.
As long as we're talking about lives and liability, I'm sure you're aware that part of the leaks included information about illegal torture and how Rumsfeld and George Casey lied about the war in Iraq. Don't you think that preventing things like that in the future would save many more lives?
The point here is that those exposed were setting themselves up to fall.
@Bleuski They talk about how IRAQI security forces engaged in such torture methods (electroshock, etc), and American efforts to curtail it. I don't know where you got the Rumsfeld/Casey thing out of them; I don't blame you for not wanting to dig through thousands of files, but it seems like you've chosen to pretend for convenience' sake that they confirm everything the left has said since the war began. The public would be hearing an earful about it from our "objective" media were such the case.
@FreemanicParacusia "The public would be hearing an earful about it from our "objective" media were such the case."
That seems like a rather convenient assumption on your part, especially considering how "well" the media tends to cover things like this. In any case, why didn't we hear about anyone torturing then? I don't see why who was doing it would even matter if it was something we should know about.
@Bleuski Not to mention the gap that Cablegate has revealed between what news sources know and what they tell us, and/or the gap between what the government knows and what they tell news sources.
I choose to believe that people enter journalism with the ideals of truth. Note that doesn't include commentators like Beck and O'Reilly. They're just Leno/Letterman opening monologues without the funny.
@Bleuski Somehow I doubt that the same mainstream media which couldn't wait to screw George Bush to the wall with demonstrably forged documents back in 2004 would hold back if more tasty bits were to come out of primary sources. If there had been any proof of the things you said, they would have been bludgeoning the voting public to death with it - especially in an election year. Ultimately, I don't see either of us swaying each other's opinions on this matter, but that's just my take on it.
@Bleuski I could say the same of your bland reassurance that the fingering of informants hasn't led to any deaths. The taliban kills civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan on a daily basis, although very few of these incidents make it all the way to the western press. I'm not calling it proof - but still, it isn't like we can traipse up into the mountains and ask them whether or not Wikileaks influenced their targeting. Either way, leaking that information was still criminally irresponsible.
@FreemanicParacusia The burden of proof lies with you since you're claiming that the leaks are getting people killed. I would find it strange that the media been talking so much about how the the leaks endanger lives, are anti-american, a treachurous act , ect, yet there is not a single story about someone actually getting hurt as a result yet. You can't honestly say the media is ignoring that side of the issue.
@Bleuski I never said it was proof (see previous post). I said it was dangerous and irresponsible, and had the potential to get people killed. Indeed, it would be very difficult to prove, because (as I said) we can't exactly ask the other side. Hence my original comparison to a scenario where Assange's personal information was released. Would he not feel threatened if that were to happen? Would it not be a violation of his rights, his trust? He didn't a damn about the rights of the informants.
@FreemanicParacusia. The "mainstream media" is asleep at the wheel. Which is Y real news sources like PBS & NPR r the ones that bring 2 light people like the Bush Whitehouses codenamed "Curveball" (informant) Rafid Ahmed Alwan. THIS is the guy the Germans & even our own Europe/Asia 30 year Chief Tyler Drumheller said was a liar about Saddam having current WMD's. But, as soon as Bush & Cheney heard about this guy, they were all ears & used his B.S. intel to sell the American people the war.
@JSAautomotive Yes, the two GOVERNMENT FUNDED news sources in this country would of course be the most reliable. Did you miss the whole Juan Williams fiasco, or how George Soros just invested millions in NPR? Also, do a bit more research. In 2008, the US military recovered 550 metric tons of yellowcake from Iraq - even AP admitted as much. But by then, the whole "Bush lied, people died" meme (a useful one to some) was so embedded in the American psyche that the news was largely ignored.
@FreemanicParacusia I don't think that would be a big deal since many powerful people are calling for his execution. He's got bigger problems. Isn't it funny how our government is constantly doing illegal things and ties and wants to assassinate people who point this out LOL!!!!
@ahumancertainty A brilliant suggestion. Processing information from multiple sources and making your decisions accordingly is such a headache when you can simply latch onto a single source of information whose editorial commentary is most closely aligned with your personal viewpoint.
@FreemanicParacusia Alright, I'll admit that I watch Fox News also. One of the two seems to lack substance. I don't trust media operating for profit. And I don't trust media created by the government. Who can I trust?
@ahumancertainty The best answer I've found to that question is to trust yourself. Everyone has an agenda one way or another, and most bias in media is through omission - just dip into a variety of viewpoints and use your best judgment to build the whole picture.
@alexjonesdid911 And like I said, the religious right have themselves to blame for chasing gays away from the idea that they can exist in a free republic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What you seem to fail to grasp about the fairness doctrine is that although the amount of political speech has gone up, the quality has gone down. There is a very low signal to noise ratio when it comes to news and a very significant amount of misinformation. Journalistic standards are practically non-existent thanks to low quality tabloid channels like Fox. Conservative talk radio is a vast wasteland of misinformation and ignorant opinion.
I'm sorry John. I hear that mantra more and more and it isn't true. There is more factual information and news that people can read than at any time in human history. I can read the top German newspapers in English on my phone for god sakes.
And since you supported Obama in 2008, did these "right wing tabloids" suddenly disappear in 2008 and reappear in 2010. The fact is that any person can be more informed than anyone in human history.
@HowTheWorldWorks. That wasn't @j0hnwi11iams point. John was stating that the QUALITY of Faux News is below REAL journalistic standards. And if you don't see that, then thats the reason why you aren't being taken seriously by any news channel for commentary. Or at the very least why you get slapped around by guys like Cenk so easily. Its obivious to me that u pander 2 the brainless in the world & expect to make a living off of it. Would u like me to buy u a video camera?
@j0hnwi11iams I'd argue there's plenty of misinformation and ignorant opinion to go around, sir. The sheer number of sources is actually a blessing, I'd say, as you can check them against each other.
@LeQuack147. Good luck in hoping the sheeple out there in the public are so good as you are at discerning the truth from fiction. There's a reason why they called it "Tyranny of the majority". Look it up sometime. Or maybe even the Sherman Anti-Trust act. Again, a monopoly on anything in this country is a bad thing.
@j0hnwi11iams lol, boy are you way off. Fox News is the only source for information the left would completely shut down if it could. The only source of rebuttal for much disinformation put out there. The more information we have, the more choice we have and the more we can filter it ourselves to get the best we can get. Fox News is far superior to any Network or Cable operation in full coverage of news & the issues. I don't like Fox's trainwreck TV mentality with car chases ect. but it's choice
@omegahpla. That is such B.S. If you had a brain, you'd know Faux News is called exactly that because of its reputation. There was even a documentary done on it called "Out Foxed" that had ex-employees & industry people that commented on how their spin and propaganda machine works. Anybody with a critical mind or has bothered to do the research knows Faux News is propaganda. If U want real news & journalism, watch Jim Lehrer on PBS. Faux News is garbage entertainment tonight B.S. for sheep.
@JSAautomotive That's rich, you're a serious delusional moron telling me if I had a brain? lol ... You buy in to a load of pure propaganda. The fact is that Fox is much more accurate & gives a much better spectrum of views. That's why more Democrats watch Fox than Watch MSNBC or CNN ... it's not just for Republicans. It's for anyone with a brain who really wants information. If they start shutting down outlets, Fox should be the last one standing. None of the others are worth a flying dog shit.
@omegahpla Fox is too ideologically biased to be the last one standing. That and it's cable news, not broadcast. Not everyone pays for cable, especially in today's economy. And a lot of us have too much shit to do than tune in to the largest most overfunded 24/7 soap opera that is daily American news. Only way you can keep up with the news and have time to work is to become a journalist.
@ZeDingoBlag If there was a last one, it should be Fox. Fox is filling a market void of competition. They do it with much more honor than any other of the shit networks. I was making the point that of any network Fox should be the last to be called out for bias. You see all the news on Fox you see on others, but much you don't see on others, and more honest perspectives represented by a wider spectrum of contributors
Journalists I find often pretty ignorant, definitely stunted in cause & effect
@omegahpla. Dear brainless. How about u tell me how O'Reilly managed 2 get the Massacre at Malmedy wrong when he said that it was Americans who slaughtered Germans when it was the other way around? How is it that Hannitty constantly blathers that our recent Federal deficit was Obama's fault WHEN WE KNOW CLEARLY FROM MANY MANY ECONOMISTS THAT IT WAS THE REPBULCIANS FAULT FROM 2000-2006 GETTING US INTO 2 UNPAID WARS, NOT FUNDING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND & NOT FUNDING THE MEDICARE DRUG BILL. NEED MORE?
@j0hnwi11iams What you seem to fail to grasp about the fairness doctrine is the fact that just because Fox is one of the more right winged news sources doesn't mean that they deliver falsified information. If right winged news stations were more dominant over left winged then I think everyone would be crticizing those few news stations. Have you ever compared the normal news between a right winged station and a left winged? I can tell you that thye are pretty similar.
@rogging1 You gotta admit bro, Fox has some crazy shit on it. I live in Canada, so I haven't heard the left-wing stuff. I bet it's just as bat-shit crazy as Fox though.
@j0hnwi11iams - The public has the right to listen to what it wants to hear, and the radio stations have theright to broadcast what they want to broadcast. If they want to broadcst what YOU consider noise, that's their right. YOU do not have the right to decide what's noise and what's information based on what YOU think is correct. The fairness doctrine is a big step closer to government-controlled media. That might not bother liberals, but we believe in our rights.
@andyandymax its all about the politically correct media, like they have in europe where they never report islamic crime and speaking out makes you a racist. hmmm... sound familiar?
@j0hnwi11iams so when pulled back on the video that your other favorites were showing and calling the Tea Part racist homophobes who are toting guns.. All they showed was the mans back and a assault rifle.. Funny thing, FOX pulled back and showed the rest of the video,, OMG it was a black man at a rally carrying a gun.. And you want me to watch your channels?? At least Fox gives everyone a chance or I should say the opportunity to answer their critics The others dont. Quit drinking the koolaid.
Sadly there are only two viable options for news. 1st media is a business, which means that they have to market, and even dumb down news to keep business going. 2nd media is a gov't entity, and you end up with apparatchiks, who promote the state overall (see the BBC). 3rd citizen journalism which has become more popular but in the end is still a business because it can't be viable unless they find a market.
I do want to point that that between wikileaks and Amazon, the 'First Amendment Issue' comes from the suspicion that the US government strong armed or threatened Amazon into removing server support for the leaks.
Wikileaks is asking for Amazon insiders to come out about any threats made by the government.
The science article you mentioned is pretty interesting. I'm interested in biology and that's pretty controversial and ground breaking information. Thanks for that!
The internet isn't actually unlimited. We have a limited number of IP addresses and so far we've literarly used up about 97% of those. Quite simply, in short while, there will be no more IP addresses until everyone has agreed to upgrade to IPv6, which has something like a couple of trillion more IP-addresses.
@Slug99 We've also come up with ways of making the most of the current addressing scheme. Certain chunks of addresses were originally wasted due to the original design, but we've come up with ways to free up those addresses, which does give us some breathing room.
Wrong again Doren. The fairness doctrine did exactly what it was meant to do...promote equal time for differing views. & why do u ask? Well...its bcuz of things like the monopolization of certain industries....like...THE MEDIA. When 1 biased entity controls a majority of media in any country (like pre WWII Germany), then u get brainwashing like Faux News or Hitler did to tell everyday Germans Jews are bad. This is conservatisms last stronghold. They are afraid of differing opinions.
@JSAautomotive you have GOT to be kidding. Fox news is the ONLY conservative channel in a vast ocean of liberal hogwash. Every other big name media channel has Obama balls firmly inserted in their mouth. Had it not been for NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS and ABC, Obama would never have taken office.
Now that said, I would NEVER condone law that would force there to be a Fox news for every one of those counterparts, that is total bullshit, anti-freedom of speech, and unamerican.
The "conservative" Fox News is 80% Democrat, according to political donations of its staff, last I checked (about a year ago).
Everyone is so thoroughly steeped in Leftist Fundie mythology, from the moment they are born, by all forms of media and education, they aren't even aware of it anymore. Today, anyone less devout to socialism than Mao, Hitler and Stalin are considered "right-wing neo-con homophobic racist bigots".
@TylerNull. No knuclehead, its has nothing to do with right or left. It has to do with facts and myth, spin & omission, propaganda & real journalism. Faux News is probably the worst news channel out there. & I already know what ur limited mind will think, "Oh! But they have the best ratings!!". Guess what, great ratings doesn't mean factual reporting. Faux News wouldn't know facts or journalism if it hit them in the head. I can cite MANY MANY examples. They are FAMOUS for it.
Your long winded post is a mix of baseless assertions and illogical notions.
Even life-long Liberals have written about the Leftist Fundie ideological monolith that is big media. E.g., Goldberg's "A Slobbering Love Affair". You can see my video upload series on it.
Here's one of my personal favorites on the Dem'rat run fraud engines comprising 99% of big media. It's how they anointed their latest secular messiah ...
@TylerNull. Nope, my posts are based in fact. Sorry. I experience it everyday bcuz I record Hanity, Beck, O'reilly & watch Faux News. On the radio I toggle between Rush, Hanitty, Laura Ingram & others between the ONLY 2 lib radio stations here in L.A. out of FIVE CONSERVATIVR talk stations. I've traveled cross country MANY times, & GOOD LUCK trying to find ONE lib talk station in ANY of the southern or midwestern states. THEY DON"T EXIST!! So please, save ur non-facts 4 some1 easily fooled.
@TylerNull. Yes, LETS perform a reality check. I don't even have 2 google this to know CLEARWATER is THE LARGEST radio conglomerate in the USA. PERIOD. BAR NONE. Rush Limbaugh is syndicated with Clearwater. & how many liberal talk show hosts does Clearwater have? ONE. & that would be Randi Rhodes. All the others, Hanitty, Ingram, Beck, O'Reilly, Dennis Miller, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Neal Boorts, Medved, etc are ALL ON CLEARCHANNEL. Further proof in next post.
Americans DESELECT Liberal idiocies whenever and wherever they have the CHOICE. Get over it.
Yes, whenever and wherever the citizenry enjoy the LIBERTY to vote -- be it at the voting booth or by changing channels -- they REJECT Liberal Fascism.
Yes, that fact holds, whether its of radio shows or of rejecting the queer fantasy of so-called "gay marriage".
@JSAautomotive What is your point about Clearwater? Air America existed for a while, and there was no technological or bandwidth problem that pushed them off the air (that was because they already had liberal NPR which was much higher quality).
Anyone who has the inclination and money to do so today can open a radio station. Carving out a frequency is no longer the barrier.
@TylerNull. Its obvious u didn't even look @ the link u provided. Air America? Um...they've been gone for yrs now. & look at the coding they use, U-C-orLT does not qualify as liberal talk. Then look at the Los Angeles stations where I live. They list 1150am (which is correct) & 1260 KGIL as liberal talk. Lol! KGIL is old folks music & CONSERVATIVE TALK. Its obvious whoever put this together is biased & doesn't add in 640am KFI (home of Rush), 790am (Hannity), 980am (Ingram).
@TylerNull. Sorry if I shot down your lies and non facts that talk radio is ruled by liberal or progressive talk. I've provided the facts. You've provided nothing but non cited information. See...thats the problem w/u conservatives. When you've been destroyed, u resort to insults. Poor fella.
You have much to apologize for; however, the fact that Americans tune out Liberal gibberish whenever and wherever the have the CHOICE to do so isn't one of them.
@TylerNull. And take a close look at the stations they listed. MAYBE 100 stations in the whole country out of 10's of thousands of stations that carry CONSERVATIVE talk radio! Give me a fricken break son. Go here to radiotime. radiotime(dot)com/channel/c_57917/Conservative.aspx And you'll see over 200 different conservative talkers, not 5 or 6 liberal talkers like u listed over thousands of radio channels across the USA. U obviously haven't done ur homework on this issue.
I'm from Michigan and there are TONS of liberal talk stations. If you can honestly say flat out that they DON'T EXIST than your a leftist extremist on cloud 9. Seriously you've never heard of WJR (760 AM) Detroit? No? they have one of the most powerful signals in the country. Mitch Albom, Dr.Laura ect.. Also you've never heard of Mark Levine marklevineradio(dot)com? I guess you just don't know what your talking about.
@blurbum9. I guess you're missing my point. If you were to total the number of liberal talk vs. conservative talk radio stations all across the country, and especially in rural areas, you'd find that there are THOUSANDS more conservative talk stations. And thats a fact if you've ever bothered to do the research.
Even if that was true which i don't really believe it but look at the number of national liberal news stations vs the number of conservative ones you'll find that they're all liberal except one. Also look at how many liberal newspapers and there are and the biggest thing how liberal the teachers all are in all of our public schools and how they push their bs belief on a bunch of children. The facts are liberals control far more media that conservatives can hope to match.
@blurbum9. What exactly is your problem w/school & liberal thinking? Our forefathers were the KINGS of liberal & progressive thinking! Do ur realize that the Constitution was the MOST LIBERAL & PROGRESSIVE DOCUMENT OF ITS TIME!! There was no other country in the world that was professing its people should have the right to freedom of speech, being able to redress its govt 4 grievances or allowed the right to bear arms. U fool. Tell me EXACTLY what issues u have w/liberal thought. Be specific.
@TylerNull Um, no Fox News is not 80% Democrat (that all the other networks, well 80%-95%). Fox was about 40% Democrat, 55% Republican, an even split compared to the rest.
@xXshinzoXx Um...so your belief is that if a certain percentage of the newsroom votes one way, their viewers must match that number closely? What in Zeus' Bolt brings you to that conclusion?
Are you aware that in newsrooms around the country (and this is confirmed by countless studies and polls), the staff is very highly slanted left? Using your logic all people who watch the news must vote Democrat at least 80% of the time!
LOL Fox News has more views than all any one of the liberal news channels. You can probably say that Fox News is bigger than any two of the liberal news stations at the same time.. why don't you take a look at their ratings.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@VegasBilgeRat. If u mean "conservative" to mean lack of facts & loving to be indoctrinated into propaganda Hitler style, then I agree w/u. The problem w/Faux News is, its not real journalism. They spew non facts, omit facts & create their own propaganda that is devoid any of the information one could find on the internet on their own. I can cite thousands of cases where Faux News outright lies & omits the truth or the real story behind the story. Certainly not journalism. Its fake news.
@JSAautomotive for Christ's sake, stick to the issues. Don't spit your Fox news hate, its 100% irrelevant. We're talking about left vs right, and the fairness Doctrine. I dont give a fuck what you think about Fox news.
@fishblades. And I still can't believe people like you who still idolize George W. Bush (by video of him & his dad on ur webpage) still exist. Hey "fishblades", get a job & stop playing so many video games. Ok? The real world is out there. Get out of your moms basement & make something of yourself. Ok? Whats funny about that GW video is, his dad doesn't have respect for his own son. I can at least appreciate George H.W. Bush, and I'm a liberal! Lol!
@JSAautomotive So since liberals utterly dominate the newsroom in every single network TV station plus virtually every newspaper and magazine in America and Europe, would you then be willing to apply the Fairness Doctrine to them as well?
I thought not. Go back to your hole little hypocrit.
@Christobanistan I think you're confusing liberals in American media with actual liberals. If those liberals you're referring to are legitimate liberals, then they're doing a good job of concealing their liberalism on camera and in print. I yearn for the day when liberal media has the balls to say what needs to be said, and it hasn't come yet. The vast majority of media are little more than actors who will agree or disagree with anything just to stay in front of the camera.
@ToTheConquered I'm not sure your point. Mine is that they vote Democrat by massive margins and are 'liberal' by modern definitions , so their viewpoints are skewed.
@Christobanistan The modern concept of liberal in this country is in fact not actually liberal. That is my point.
Actual liberals don't agree with democrats, so there's really no point in bashing them for the faults of the democrats. I'm liberal and I voted for two democrats, four republicans, and 4 tea party members. So please, don't assume that actual liberals are that different from you. We need to focus on what we agree on before complaining about our disagreements, or we're screwed.
Anyone who supports the FCC is not for free speech in any way. Thanks for the vid, great points and everyone should see this.
KittenKoder 1 month ago
EY MAN! DISABLE THE COMMENTS
TheAnimeStreamer 5 months ago
You've explained the obvious.... But thats important too. There are still a lot of igornant people out there who dont even try to challenge the information that is currently presentend by the maintstream media. If people wouldnt be so naive i strongly believe US would never have gone to war in Iraq...
dilic 7 months ago
Just keep the internet free - Service providers shouldn't be able to restrict content avialability or bandwidth for customers on various types of content (streams, Skype, etc.) The government has the duty to keep the net neutral - we set it up in the first place.
=> pro net neutrality
And it's a good thing that the FCC said to service providers that they cannot discriminate against certain forms of content.
ShinjukuHH 7 months ago
the fcc is a criminal orginization
OregonOutlaw2000 11 months ago
In all technicalities the 1st Amendment would apply to Amazon because it is used as a public forum (as long as no existing policy was violated), however Assange could not invoke it because he's not an American. The FCC is altogether unconstitutional and evidence of what happens when you let Government assume any powers not delegated or enumerated. You get an unauthorized alphabet cereal gang of broken branches unconected to the tree that produce absolutely no fruit.
PlainSight52 1 year ago
Another reason the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" reduced the amount of time devoted to public affairs was because, while the Right Wing "sells" [in other words, attracts listeners & viewers] the Left Wing doesn't - especially on Radio [remember, radio listeners thought Nixon won the 1960 Presidential Debates; TV watchers thought JFK won - perhaps proving the point about TV being more superficial???].
Obviously, both Radio & TV need to attract advertisers, which means attracting ears & eyeballs!
vince33x 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The commerce clause in the constitution was created to regulate trade. The original meaning was to make trade regular, as in to ensure that no state should interfere with commerce. The commerce clause has since been used to justify literally thousands of laws that limit trade and even bring force and coercion to regulate most aspects of our life's.
bullpcp 1 year ago
Net neutrality rules are intended to protect consumers from service providers who might alter or limit content and services. The intent is to protect access by giving the FCC the power to alter or limit content and services. The FCC is responsible for more censorship than any other organization or entity in the united states entire history. The FCC has repeatedly interfered in the content and services of every other medium they regulate is now tasked with ensuring the internet is regular.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp I would make one correction to your statement... "Net neutrality rules are intended to protect consumers from service providers who might alter or limit content and services." I would simply interject that Net Neutrality are written to APPEAR to intend to protect consumers... Leiberman knows exactly what he's doing.
YippyKiAye1 1 year ago
Wikki leaks did not steal the information it was supplied by an inside source of the US government and to date there is no evidence to support any other claim that Wikki leaks stole anything. They just released the documents that were supplied to them.
helobelow 1 year ago
Amen brother.
ourmanthejoker 1 year ago
Wikileaks rocks. The "people" are no longer represented. Governments are secretive and work to undermine the rights of the masses to increase power and profit they and those they represent.
TDK4play 1 year ago
ALL SPEECH SHOULD BE FREE and protected in all forums, Public and Private. Period.
raggenx 1 year ago
Accutally Qatar ( almost like saying cutter) is really kick ass
realhxq 1 year ago
@USAGymnast. My goodness! U r a crafty 1 @ saying alot, but saying nothing @ all. Lets break down ur non-arguments. #1, whats a "regressive statist"? Is that a word Glen beck taught u? I luv having Freedom of Speech & own guns. A monopoly is any entity that controls 1 sector of industry 2 a point where it stifles competition (i.e. AT&T...look it up sonny boy). Kinda like the reason Y the Sherman Anti-trust act was passed in2 law. U should study the control the railroads had on free enterprise
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@USAGymnast. Um? WTF r u talking about there dizzy? Networks not saying the $ they get aren't theirs? Huh? R u talking about networks like PBS that get 5% of their funding from Federal grants? Or r u talking about our govt that has Constitutional powers to tax "The People"? Ur showing how clouded ur neo-con thought process is. Poor fella, must suck 2B u. How did u graduate from school? Oh thats right, ur still in Jr. High. Keep up w/the video games! =))
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@USAGymnast. Look up "the fairness doctrine" on wikipedia moron. It CLEARLY regulated ANYTHING that had to do with the PUBLIC AIRWAVES. What an idiot u r. Thats Y the FCC was the 1 implementing it u retard. Geezuz Christ! WTF is it w/u neo-con types? Dont u know how 2 use a simple google search? What confuses u that the FCC regulated ALL public airwaves (meaning NOT cable or satellite). We're talking AM/FM/UHF/VHF. Get it dummy? If u cant debate facts, just go away & play ur video games.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
Thumbs up. This channel is getting better.: )
winterstellar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USAGymnast "At least I don't go around hypocritically like you do preaching against stereotypes."
Damn right I'm against stereotypes, but the only person I'm accusing of stereotyping is you.
Bleuski 1 year ago
Excellent commentary! And I agree. While I may not agree with what a person has to say, I can certainly agree that they have a right to say it. Government control of speech is nothing more than propaganda and should be acknowledged as such.
jboyko3 1 year ago 3
@jboyko3. You could make the same argument of the "free speech" that was used in pre-WWII Germany to brainwash people into thinking Jews were bad & should be killed. Sometimes you have to call the kettle black & out the ones that are LYING to the public (that would be most conservatives & neo-con talking heads). The playing field has been seriously skewed using monopoly techniques that are supposed 2B illegal under the Sherman Anti-trust act. 1 entity owning 2 much media is bad 4 REAL journalism
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive By using the pre-WWII analogy against free speech, you aren't referring to true free speech. You're actually referring to one entity owning too much media. I.e, the German government. Hitlers decree "For the Protection of the German People" is a lot like the government controlled main stream media of today. But today we have the luxury of alternative news outlets via the internet which are not controlled and is true free speech in which people can debate issues in an open forum.
jboyko3 1 year ago 8
@jboyko3 You mean that "government controlled main stream media of today" that you're commenting on right now?
Juvenile dumbasses, the lot of ya.
Christobanistan 1 year ago
@jboyko3 Net Nuetrality Bill will soon do away with the free speech available via the internet. Wisconsin also passed a law where they deem to give themselves the authority to fine anyone, anywhere, for making political commentery within 60 days of an election. Our free speech is disappearing faster than anyone can come up with examples of it's continued existence.
YippyKiAye1 1 year ago
@USAGymnast Lol. I suppose I should thank you for so clearly illustrating my point.
Bleuski 1 year ago
Hitler and the nazis also supported regulating the news media. They wanted to decide what was good for everyone.
As do the liberals.
lovinghomeschoolmom 1 year ago
@lovinghomeschoolmom. Ah yes, and the Liberals want to massacre millions of Jews. Right? Lol! Yeah...I can see it now. Liberals marching in line stock w/their Birkenstocks hugging their trees & murdering millions of innocent citizens. HAHA!! Thats a good one! I know Liberals are so scary w/their guns attached at their hips & Tea party rallies & killing abortion doctors or bombing them. Oh wait! Thats not Liberals, those were CONSERVATIVES!!! Whoops!
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive Actually Hitler and the Nazis did regulate the media on February 28th 1933. I don't see where lovinghomeschoolmom's comment about that fact would prompt you to go on the defensive by saying that she was somehow suggesting that liberals are trying to kill Jews. Where the hell did that come from? Regulating media means controlling public opinion no matter what the agenda. It's not limited to the extermination of Jews back in the 30's and 40's. It's a formula that works universally.
jboyko3 1 year ago 4
@jboyko3 "I don't see where lovinghomeschoolmom's comment about that fact would prompt you to go on the defensive by saying that she was somehow suggesting that liberals are trying to kill Jews."
Maybe they shouldn't make open-ended comparisons to nazis.
See Godwin's law.
Bleuski 1 year ago
@Bleuski It wasn't exactly open-ended. It was a reference to a facist government that used the media in order to manipulate public opinion. Again, it's not much different than the main stream media today. The only major difference between then and now is that with the internet, it's a lot harder to suppress dissenting viewpoints. Which is why you're hearing more and more about net censorship being implemented in order to "protect the public". Because of course information is so dangerous to us..
jboyko3 1 year ago 4
@jboyko3 "It was a reference to a facist government that used the media in order to manipulate public opinion."
You're just insinuating that liberals are fascists that want to manipulate public opinion like nazis based on a ridiculous analogy. Even assuming that the inherently generalized presuming of liberals wanting to "regulate the media" were true, that doesn't mean they share any other aspects with anyone that might also have that stance.
Bleuski 1 year ago
@Bleuski Actually, you're making a presumption that I'm referring to liberals in my argument. I'm not. I'm not talking about liberals or conservatives. I'm talking about anyone who has the authoritarian view that it is their duty to sanitize information and cherry pick what I should and shouldn't read. I also used a valid historical reference to make my point regarding this topic. Which is "FCC Commissioner Wants to Control the News". So I'm sorry if historical facts offend you.
jboyko3 1 year ago 4
@jboyko3 "Actually, you're making a presumption that I'm referring to liberals in my argument."
The context was a comparison of liberals and nazis, though you do bring up a good point. Why not make a comparison to some other group that doesn't imply fascism or genocide? "Sanitizing information" does not define nazis.
And I'm not arguing the FCC commissioner's stance on wanting to "regulate" at least, but since when did he represent liberals?
Bleuski 1 year ago
@Bleuski If you took my post as a comparison of liberals and Nazis, then you took it entirely out of context. I never made one single comparison to lead you to that conclusion. If fact, I even made it a point to explain to you that was not my intention. So why are you still going on with this Nazi=liberal argument? Also, if I'm going to make a comparison here why not use Nazis? Government controlled corporate media is a great example of fascism. Genocide does not define fascism. Corporatism does
jboyko3 1 year ago 3
@jboyko3 To quote you again, "It was a reference to a facist government that used the media in order to manipulate public opinion." The "It" here referring to the comparison of liberals and nazis by lovinghomeschoolmom. It was wholly in context, and at no point did you suggest that liberals not fit that definition. If you weren't trying to imply that, then you need to work on your phrasing.
If your point is that fascism involves controlling the media, well..that's not really news to anyone.
Bleuski 1 year ago
@Bleuski The "it" I was referring to was the fact that arguments being made in favor of controlling media are the same ones that were used in 1930's Germany. Are you suggesting that it's my responsibility to clarify the thought process of someone else? If you were so concerned about lovinghomeschoolmoms comment about how liberals are somehow comparable to Nazis, maybe you should have addressed it to her. I never made that distinction. She did. And it's not my responsibility to answer for it.
jboyko3 1 year ago 3
@jboyko3 "I was referring to was the fact that arguments being made in favor of controlling media are the same ones that were used in 1930's Germany."
You're basically making the same comparison of "regulating media" and nazis then. As it is, if you've actually heard what the FCC commissioner had to say about regulation, you'd know it has nothing to do with "protecting the public." In fact, he said there isn't enough information being put out there via mainstream sources.
Bleuski 1 year ago
@Bleuski YOU might actually want to go back and listen to what he said. He wants news broadcasters to pass a "value test" in order to determine whether or not their license is renewed. A value test?!? A test in which a small group of people determine the standards of how a broadcasting service should best "serve peoples interest" (protecting the public). Control of the media is precisely what he is advocating. What are the standards based on and who ultimately decides the standards?
jboyko3 1 year ago 11
@JSAautomotive Nothey were liberal.
lovinghomeschoolmom 9 months ago
@USAGymnast. I'm a Marxist now? Lol! Sorry. Nice try w/ur Glen Beck labels. If u bothered 2 look @ my videos, I think its pretty clear that I'm not a class warfare type of person except 4 when 1 class monopolizes another. Like the way Wall St. took advantage of R markets & tanked the economy. Hence, the reason we need to start enforcing the Sherman Anti-trust act we have in the USA. Keep ur dated tags & come in2 the current world. Ur liberal vs. conservative labels are outdated & boring.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive You should probably just ignore USAGymnast. They've pretty much stereotype and assume whatever they want about whoever doesn't agree with them.
Bleuski 1 year ago
@Bleuski. Yes. I realize this. They live on some other planet or probably don't have a job.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@USAGymnast. Not whining, just stating facts. If u bothered to READ prior posts here, 1 of ur conservative morons said there were way more liberal talk stations than conservative. I told him he was wrong. So thanks for joining my side & agreeing with me...someone that bothers to check the facts. Re: the "Fairness doctrine", it DID apply to any bandwidths that the FCC regulated. And yes, that included television (non cable) & radio (non satellite). So once again, another conservative sans facts.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@USAGymnast. Yeah? Is that why O'Reilly said that it was the U.S. that massacred Germans at Malmudy!!?? Is that why Faux News said Obama's health care bill was to have "death panels"? Is that why Glen Beck blathers that somehow Obama had something to do w/Bush's 2 trillion $ war & his trillions in tax give aways from 2000-2007 that were never paid for? Give me a f-in break!! PBS & NPR are award winning journalism sources. Faux News is propaganda B.S. They don't research anything they spew.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
the MSM is in the tank with obama, what's the point in controlling it.
duckbar2 1 year ago
When a conservative doesn't like a program, they change the station. When a liberal doesn't like a program, they want the program taken off the air so no one can see it. Again, the basic difference, liberals know best, and everyone should just let them do what they think is best.
xXevilgnomeXx 1 year ago
You say "I'm sorry" a lot. don't.
APPLESAUCE50 1 year ago
The bit about life-forms allegedly using arsenic is actually misleading... read the article "Arsenic and Odd Lace" by Athena Andreadis, Ph.D. The life form wasn't "discovered," it was manipulated, and it's unlikely that it actually uses arsenic in lieu of phosphorus. NASA's public relations dept blew this story out of proportion, probably in an attempt to salvage funding if there are budget cuts.
XiaoGui17 1 year ago
Excellent analysis as always.
pinegrove33 1 year ago
More local news? Sounds amazing to me. Let the communist revolution begin!
SPQRomantic 1 year ago
I actually completely agree with you HTWW. I've long thought the FCC needed to be done away with. A free country has no need of any of their services. I personally do get tired of the conservative to liberal ratio on the radio, but that's just my taste. However, if people want to listen to a conservative show on the radio, then there's nothing wrong with that. If someone wanted to change that, then they should do it with their own, better radio show, not with regulations.
ToTheConquered 1 year ago
@WorldSutra And yet Murdoch can't hope to control a majority of any kind of media, wheveras the government can simply institute a rule and have total control not only of stations, but of the content they are allowed to produce. And there would be no way to oppose it because it would presumably be in the name of 'fairness.'
Countless poll show reporters STILL vote 80-95% liberal in every election. So whatever he's doing, it ain't having much of a dent. I wish it would.
Christobanistan 1 year ago
Yeah to hell with the 1st Amendment let's let the FCC tell us what to say . Well is say to hell with FCC .
haibane13 1 year ago
Of course, I'm not going to argue that Amazon doesn't have the right to prevent someone from using Amazon's servers...it's Amazon's property to do with what they want.
I think WikiLeaks was trying to say that if Amazon believed in "people should be free to say what they want", it wouldn't matter what was said on their servers. They were being paid for the use of their property, and to prevent someone from using it just because u don't like what they're saying does kind speak to that point.
WideWorldOfWisdom 1 year ago 2
@WideWorldOfWisdom And being obligated to support another's speech that you don't agree with is a violation of your own association rights.
Christobanistan 1 year ago
@Christobanistan Who said they were obligated?
Look, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with what Amazon did. I'm just saying WikiLeaks has a point. If I was renting a bullhorn from u & then all of a sudden I said something u didn't like and u decided to take your bullhorn back, I wouldn't exactly be wrong in saying "apparently ur not as big of a defender of free speech as u might like to think."
It's not like Amazon was subsidizing WikiLeaks & said "not on my dollar." They were being paid
WideWorldOfWisdom 1 year ago 2
@WideWorldOfWisdom So you're saying they're not being free speech purists, hey, that's fine with me. Purists suck. Case in point, WikiLeaks, who are so radically obsessed with 'openness' (so they say though they only ever seem to expose American state secrets) that they are willing to side with terrorists and dictators by unnecessarily revealing all those who would oppose their evil purposes.
Christobanistan 1 year ago
@Christobanistan Thank you for agreeing WikiLeaks wasn't wrong about Amazon.
WideWorldOfWisdom 1 year ago
@WideWorldOfWisdom But they were wrong.
Amazon says "we support free speech."
Idiot A screams "fire, fire!" in a crowded theater.
Amazon says "shut up you jackass."
Idiot A says "aha! you don't really support free speech."
Now, do you really think Idiot A has a point? Of course not.
Christobanistan 1 year ago
@Christobanistan Ah yes, the ol' misinterpretation of "fire in the crowded theater" hypothetical. I'm guessing next you'll tell us that "even the bible says money is the root of all evil." *rolleyes*
If (supposed) Idiot A screams "fire, fire!" in a crowded theater, and Amazon says "shut up you jackass"...and "Idiot A" wasn't lying....who is the idiot?
I suggest you go read what Justice Holmes actually said before you continue trolling this comment board.
WideWorldOfWisdom 1 year ago
@WideWorldOfWisdom Gotcha. So if there is no 'fire' then you must believe that even the person who did the leaking is not breaking any law. Ludicrous.
You know, if he had actually found some malfeasance and simply exposed that, I might be on this asshole's side, you know, if he actually gave a shit about protecting identities of those could die by helping us. But that's not what he's doing. He's exposing absolutely everything, no matter how innocuous. How in the fuck's name is THAT 'fire?'
Christobanistan 1 year ago
@Christobanistan "if there is no 'fire' then you must believe that even the person who did the leaking is not breaking any law."
Lets try again. Ur argument is that if someone "screams fire, fire! in a crowded theater" the appropriate response should be "shut up you jackass", and the first person should be found guilty of some crime, I presume.
Notice how u now had to change ur story to include the part about whether the statement was true or not. Kind of an important detail, wouldn't u say?
WideWorldOfWisdom 1 year ago
@Christobanistan. Yeah, let me guess.....I bet u were up in arms when Scooter Libby & Dick Cheney outed Valerie Plame for being a CIA operative? Lol! U conservatives make me laugh! U call the guy from wikileaks siding w/terrirosts, but Dick Cheney & Scooter Libby are ok doing the same thing! And the Cons sided w/Cheney and Libby! Talk about treasonists!! Cheney and Libby AND BUSH should have HUNG for that! Even Bushs dad was quoted as saying outing a CIA agent is cause for treason!
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive Were you? Now mutiply that by thousands and why aren't you?
Christobanistan 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive You idiot, if you'd have been watching Fox you'd know it was Sinunu in the State department that "outed" Plame. That Fitgerald pursued a case he knew was a non crime, when he knew the outer, for 3 fucking years just to get something on someone.
Your take on Fox is just as stupid. You buy propaganda about Fox without even watching. You would have bought Goebbels who line about the Jews too you fucking propagandists idiot sheep fool.
Fox is the only source for much important info
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla. Ur pretty stupid if u think Faux News is truthful. There is just way 2 much actual footage here on Utube that shows CLEARLY their neo-con lying/nonfactual bias. The documentary "Outfoxed" shows FAUX NEWS clips & how they spin & lie. Faux News is not journalism, its pure propaganda B.S. At least CNN & MSNBC still do real news reporting & good investigative journalism. Something u can't say about Faux News. Ur such a sheep & its painfully obvious u haven't a skeptical cel in ur brain
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive You can make anyone look like anything. I've seen that shit & have known personally many times they took things out of context, lied about what they were supposedly talking about & all kinds of half truth tricks. You should see the KKK's bullshit, they'd have an idiot like you hating black people & yelling about race revolution in no time because you're that type of jello head. You can show anything VERY CLEARLY by cherry picking or leaving out all the democrats who comment on Fox
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Not can show anything clearly, CAN'T show anything clearly. The only way to see clearly is to watch it, and have a context thats not twisted on which to judge it. More democrats watch Fox than CNN or MSNBC ... those are the ones with the brains. If you have the brains to find the truth you have the brains to judge what you see against what is true. Your dummy handlers don't want their idiot sheep to watch it, and you idiot sheep listen! lol! I'd never let anyone tell me what to watch
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla and as a result I know a hell of a lot more about what is going on in the world than you do. Lets face it, you're a propagandized moron who can't think for himself. You actually thought Plame was an agent that could be outed, she wasn't, and that someone in the Bush administration outed her, it was Sinunu in the State Department & he was NOT a Bush fan. They knew this for 3 years & still tried to find a reason to bust anyone they could before the election. You didn't know that ...gee
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla. All of WHAT democrats or liberals on Faux News? Lol!! I was just watching Hanitty 2nite, & sure as chit...he had some whiny chick playing the liberal role who was basically a nobody. Why is Hanitty so afraid of having a REAL liberals like mayB Michael Moore/Randi Rhodes/Rachel Maddow/Ed Shultz on his show? & then when he went 2 get comment on 2days fillibuster in the senate, who does he have? 2 Republican senators. R those the Dems ur talking about? U must think I dont watch watch.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
"Information wants to be free!"
I wonder if Julian Assange's stance on the release of confidential information would be shaken a bit if all of his bank accounts, credit card numbers, and passwords were to become public knowledge.
FreemanicParacusia 1 year ago 3
@FreemanicParacusia That's not the same thing at all and you know it.
Bleuski 1 year ago
@Bleuski No, what Assange has done is far more dangerous - just not to him, personally. He leaked names, villages, and GPS coordinates of NATO informants - a virtual hit list for the Taliban. He told The Australian that the importance of releasing this information outweighed the risk to their lives - people he never met, and who certainly never gave their consent to his releasing their information. He doesn't care if people - civilians - die brutally, so long as he gets to be a hero to the Left.
FreemanicParacusia 1 year ago
@FreemanicParacusia That's pure speculation considering there has been no evidence that the leaks have lead to any casualties.
As long as we're talking about lives and liability, I'm sure you're aware that part of the leaks included information about illegal torture and how Rumsfeld and George Casey lied about the war in Iraq. Don't you think that preventing things like that in the future would save many more lives?
The point here is that those exposed were setting themselves up to fall.
Bleuski 1 year ago
@Bleuski They talk about how IRAQI security forces engaged in such torture methods (electroshock, etc), and American efforts to curtail it. I don't know where you got the Rumsfeld/Casey thing out of them; I don't blame you for not wanting to dig through thousands of files, but it seems like you've chosen to pretend for convenience' sake that they confirm everything the left has said since the war began. The public would be hearing an earful about it from our "objective" media were such the case.
FreemanicParacusia 1 year ago
@FreemanicParacusia "The public would be hearing an earful about it from our "objective" media were such the case."
That seems like a rather convenient assumption on your part, especially considering how "well" the media tends to cover things like this. In any case, why didn't we hear about anyone torturing then? I don't see why who was doing it would even matter if it was something we should know about.
That's just one of many examples.
Bleuski 1 year ago
@Bleuski Not to mention the gap that Cablegate has revealed between what news sources know and what they tell us, and/or the gap between what the government knows and what they tell news sources.
I choose to believe that people enter journalism with the ideals of truth. Note that doesn't include commentators like Beck and O'Reilly. They're just Leno/Letterman opening monologues without the funny.
ZeDingoBlag 1 year ago
@Bleuski Somehow I doubt that the same mainstream media which couldn't wait to screw George Bush to the wall with demonstrably forged documents back in 2004 would hold back if more tasty bits were to come out of primary sources. If there had been any proof of the things you said, they would have been bludgeoning the voting public to death with it - especially in an election year. Ultimately, I don't see either of us swaying each other's opinions on this matter, but that's just my take on it.
FreemanicParacusia 1 year ago
@FreemanicParacusia "If there had been any proof of the things you said, they would have been bludgeoning the voting public to death with it."
Insisting that something must not be so because the media isn't reacting the way you think it would is an incredibly weak argument.
Bleuski 1 year ago
@Bleuski I could say the same of your bland reassurance that the fingering of informants hasn't led to any deaths. The taliban kills civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan on a daily basis, although very few of these incidents make it all the way to the western press. I'm not calling it proof - but still, it isn't like we can traipse up into the mountains and ask them whether or not Wikileaks influenced their targeting. Either way, leaking that information was still criminally irresponsible.
FreemanicParacusia 1 year ago
@FreemanicParacusia The burden of proof lies with you since you're claiming that the leaks are getting people killed. I would find it strange that the media been talking so much about how the the leaks endanger lives, are anti-american, a treachurous act , ect, yet there is not a single story about someone actually getting hurt as a result yet. You can't honestly say the media is ignoring that side of the issue.
Bleuski 1 year ago
@Bleuski I never said it was proof (see previous post). I said it was dangerous and irresponsible, and had the potential to get people killed. Indeed, it would be very difficult to prove, because (as I said) we can't exactly ask the other side. Hence my original comparison to a scenario where Assange's personal information was released. Would he not feel threatened if that were to happen? Would it not be a violation of his rights, his trust? He didn't a damn about the rights of the informants.
FreemanicParacusia 1 year ago
@FreemanicParacusia. The "mainstream media" is asleep at the wheel. Which is Y real news sources like PBS & NPR r the ones that bring 2 light people like the Bush Whitehouses codenamed "Curveball" (informant) Rafid Ahmed Alwan. THIS is the guy the Germans & even our own Europe/Asia 30 year Chief Tyler Drumheller said was a liar about Saddam having current WMD's. But, as soon as Bush & Cheney heard about this guy, they were all ears & used his B.S. intel to sell the American people the war.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive Yes, the two GOVERNMENT FUNDED news sources in this country would of course be the most reliable. Did you miss the whole Juan Williams fiasco, or how George Soros just invested millions in NPR? Also, do a bit more research. In 2008, the US military recovered 550 metric tons of yellowcake from Iraq - even AP admitted as much. But by then, the whole "Bush lied, people died" meme (a useful one to some) was so embedded in the American psyche that the news was largely ignored.
FreemanicParacusia 1 year ago
@FreemanicParacusia I don't think that would be a big deal since many powerful people are calling for his execution. He's got bigger problems. Isn't it funny how our government is constantly doing illegal things and ties and wants to assassinate people who point this out LOL!!!!
ahumancertainty 1 year ago
Fuck this guy and fuck the FCC. Democracy Now! is the only news source in America worth watching.
ahumancertainty 1 year ago
@ahumancertainty A brilliant suggestion. Processing information from multiple sources and making your decisions accordingly is such a headache when you can simply latch onto a single source of information whose editorial commentary is most closely aligned with your personal viewpoint.
FreemanicParacusia 1 year ago
@FreemanicParacusia Alright, I'll admit that I watch Fox News also. One of the two seems to lack substance. I don't trust media operating for profit. And I don't trust media created by the government. Who can I trust?
ahumancertainty 1 year ago
@ahumancertainty The best answer I've found to that question is to trust yourself. Everyone has an agenda one way or another, and most bias in media is through omission - just dip into a variety of viewpoints and use your best judgment to build the whole picture.
FreemanicParacusia 1 year ago
Fox can't be all that bad if the majority seem willing to even pay for their programming!
visualvirtue 1 year ago
Stupid fucking FCC, let the public know of everything as they wish. Fuck you FCC Commissioner!
FascismIsTheAnswer 1 year ago
There is more news dissemination today and it has proven to be a check against government power.
Also, journalism is dead in this country.
And thank god for Fox News.
Rofl
hallavast 1 year ago
@alexjonesdid911 And like I said, the religious right have themselves to blame for chasing gays away from the idea that they can exist in a free republic.
SgtHydra 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What you seem to fail to grasp about the fairness doctrine is that although the amount of political speech has gone up, the quality has gone down. There is a very low signal to noise ratio when it comes to news and a very significant amount of misinformation. Journalistic standards are practically non-existent thanks to low quality tabloid channels like Fox. Conservative talk radio is a vast wasteland of misinformation and ignorant opinion.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams
I'm sorry John. I hear that mantra more and more and it isn't true. There is more factual information and news that people can read than at any time in human history. I can read the top German newspapers in English on my phone for god sakes.
And since you supported Obama in 2008, did these "right wing tabloids" suddenly disappear in 2008 and reappear in 2010. The fact is that any person can be more informed than anyone in human history.
HowTheWorldWorks 1 year ago 25
@HowTheWorldWorks You must admit though, Fox has some absolutely garbage segments on it.
Chewy8240 1 year ago
@Chewy8240 I see and hear more garbage from NPR/PBS which is funded with my taxes.
lovinghomeschoolmom 1 year ago 2
@HowTheWorldWorks. That wasn't @j0hnwi11iams point. John was stating that the QUALITY of Faux News is below REAL journalistic standards. And if you don't see that, then thats the reason why you aren't being taken seriously by any news channel for commentary. Or at the very least why you get slapped around by guys like Cenk so easily. Its obivious to me that u pander 2 the brainless in the world & expect to make a living off of it. Would u like me to buy u a video camera?
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive
Would the Fairness Doctrine allow equal air time for anarchists?
thegillotine09 1 year ago
j0hn: What part of "Congress shall make no law" do you fail to comprehend?
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago 2
@j0hnwi11iams I'd argue there's plenty of misinformation and ignorant opinion to go around, sir. The sheer number of sources is actually a blessing, I'd say, as you can check them against each other.
LeQuack147 1 year ago
@LeQuack147. Good luck in hoping the sheeple out there in the public are so good as you are at discerning the truth from fiction. There's a reason why they called it "Tyranny of the majority". Look it up sometime. Or maybe even the Sherman Anti-Trust act. Again, a monopoly on anything in this country is a bad thing.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams lol, boy are you way off. Fox News is the only source for information the left would completely shut down if it could. The only source of rebuttal for much disinformation put out there. The more information we have, the more choice we have and the more we can filter it ourselves to get the best we can get. Fox News is far superior to any Network or Cable operation in full coverage of news & the issues. I don't like Fox's trainwreck TV mentality with car chases ect. but it's choice
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla. That is such B.S. If you had a brain, you'd know Faux News is called exactly that because of its reputation. There was even a documentary done on it called "Out Foxed" that had ex-employees & industry people that commented on how their spin and propaganda machine works. Anybody with a critical mind or has bothered to do the research knows Faux News is propaganda. If U want real news & journalism, watch Jim Lehrer on PBS. Faux News is garbage entertainment tonight B.S. for sheep.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive That's rich, you're a serious delusional moron telling me if I had a brain? lol ... You buy in to a load of pure propaganda. The fact is that Fox is much more accurate & gives a much better spectrum of views. That's why more Democrats watch Fox than Watch MSNBC or CNN ... it's not just for Republicans. It's for anyone with a brain who really wants information. If they start shutting down outlets, Fox should be the last one standing. None of the others are worth a flying dog shit.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Fox is too ideologically biased to be the last one standing. That and it's cable news, not broadcast. Not everyone pays for cable, especially in today's economy. And a lot of us have too much shit to do than tune in to the largest most overfunded 24/7 soap opera that is daily American news. Only way you can keep up with the news and have time to work is to become a journalist.
ZeDingoBlag 1 year ago
@ZeDingoBlag If there was a last one, it should be Fox. Fox is filling a market void of competition. They do it with much more honor than any other of the shit networks. I was making the point that of any network Fox should be the last to be called out for bias. You see all the news on Fox you see on others, but much you don't see on others, and more honest perspectives represented by a wider spectrum of contributors
Journalists I find often pretty ignorant, definitely stunted in cause & effect
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla. Dear brainless. How about u tell me how O'Reilly managed 2 get the Massacre at Malmedy wrong when he said that it was Americans who slaughtered Germans when it was the other way around? How is it that Hannitty constantly blathers that our recent Federal deficit was Obama's fault WHEN WE KNOW CLEARLY FROM MANY MANY ECONOMISTS THAT IT WAS THE REPBULCIANS FAULT FROM 2000-2006 GETTING US INTO 2 UNPAID WARS, NOT FUNDING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND & NOT FUNDING THE MEDICARE DRUG BILL. NEED MORE?
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams What you seem to fail to grasp about the fairness doctrine is the fact that just because Fox is one of the more right winged news sources doesn't mean that they deliver falsified information. If right winged news stations were more dominant over left winged then I think everyone would be crticizing those few news stations. Have you ever compared the normal news between a right winged station and a left winged? I can tell you that thye are pretty similar.
rogging1 1 year ago
@rogging1 You gotta admit bro, Fox has some crazy shit on it. I live in Canada, so I haven't heard the left-wing stuff. I bet it's just as bat-shit crazy as Fox though.
Chewy8240 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams - The public has the right to listen to what it wants to hear, and the radio stations have theright to broadcast what they want to broadcast. If they want to broadcst what YOU consider noise, that's their right. YOU do not have the right to decide what's noise and what's information based on what YOU think is correct. The fairness doctrine is a big step closer to government-controlled media. That might not bother liberals, but we believe in our rights.
andyandymax 1 year ago 5
@andyandymax its all about the politically correct media, like they have in europe where they never report islamic crime and speaking out makes you a racist. hmmm... sound familiar?
abortabraham 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams so when pulled back on the video that your other favorites were showing and calling the Tea Part racist homophobes who are toting guns.. All they showed was the mans back and a assault rifle.. Funny thing, FOX pulled back and showed the rest of the video,, OMG it was a black man at a rally carrying a gun.. And you want me to watch your channels?? At least Fox gives everyone a chance or I should say the opportunity to answer their critics The others dont. Quit drinking the koolaid.
ABGrhino 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams. Perfectly said John.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
germany again world cup... :) would be way better
gos3fraba21 1 year ago
Sadly there are only two viable options for news. 1st media is a business, which means that they have to market, and even dumb down news to keep business going. 2nd media is a gov't entity, and you end up with apparatchiks, who promote the state overall (see the BBC). 3rd citizen journalism which has become more popular but in the end is still a business because it can't be viable unless they find a market.
goingalt 1 year ago
I do want to point that that between wikileaks and Amazon, the 'First Amendment Issue' comes from the suspicion that the US government strong armed or threatened Amazon into removing server support for the leaks.
Wikileaks is asking for Amazon insiders to come out about any threats made by the government.
TuesdaysThursdays 1 year ago
"If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' what is the opposite of 'progress'?"-Paul Harvey
sldeyo 1 year ago
that bacteria feeding on arsenic is amazing. research for the applications in the medical field needs to get going asap.
MSSC73 1 year ago
@bag04u that is true but right now, you have options. soon there will be none, just one govt option. even abc cbs nbc will cut their own throats.
MSSC73 1 year ago
The science article you mentioned is pretty interesting. I'm interested in biology and that's pretty controversial and ground breaking information. Thanks for that!
TheTrueSocialCircle 1 year ago
The internet isn't actually unlimited. We have a limited number of IP addresses and so far we've literarly used up about 97% of those. Quite simply, in short while, there will be no more IP addresses until everyone has agreed to upgrade to IPv6, which has something like a couple of trillion more IP-addresses.
Slug99 1 year ago
@Slug99 We've also come up with ways of making the most of the current addressing scheme. Certain chunks of addresses were originally wasted due to the original design, but we've come up with ways to free up those addresses, which does give us some breathing room.
LeQuack147 1 year ago
Wrong again Doren. The fairness doctrine did exactly what it was meant to do...promote equal time for differing views. & why do u ask? Well...its bcuz of things like the monopolization of certain industries....like...THE MEDIA. When 1 biased entity controls a majority of media in any country (like pre WWII Germany), then u get brainwashing like Faux News or Hitler did to tell everyday Germans Jews are bad. This is conservatisms last stronghold. They are afraid of differing opinions.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive you have GOT to be kidding. Fox news is the ONLY conservative channel in a vast ocean of liberal hogwash. Every other big name media channel has Obama balls firmly inserted in their mouth. Had it not been for NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS and ABC, Obama would never have taken office.
Now that said, I would NEVER condone law that would force there to be a Fox news for every one of those counterparts, that is total bullshit, anti-freedom of speech, and unamerican.
VegasBilgeRat 1 year ago 5
@VegasBilgeRat
"... the ONLY conservative channel ..."
The "conservative" Fox News is 80% Democrat, according to political donations of its staff, last I checked (about a year ago).
Everyone is so thoroughly steeped in Leftist Fundie mythology, from the moment they are born, by all forms of media and education, they aren't even aware of it anymore. Today, anyone less devout to socialism than Mao, Hitler and Stalin are considered "right-wing neo-con homophobic racist bigots".
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull. No knuclehead, its has nothing to do with right or left. It has to do with facts and myth, spin & omission, propaganda & real journalism. Faux News is probably the worst news channel out there. & I already know what ur limited mind will think, "Oh! But they have the best ratings!!". Guess what, great ratings doesn't mean factual reporting. Faux News wouldn't know facts or journalism if it hit them in the head. I can cite MANY MANY examples. They are FAMOUS for it.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive
Your long winded post is a mix of baseless assertions and illogical notions.
Even life-long Liberals have written about the Leftist Fundie ideological monolith that is big media. E.g., Goldberg's "A Slobbering Love Affair". You can see my video upload series on it.
Here's one of my personal favorites on the Dem'rat run fraud engines comprising 99% of big media. It's how they anointed their latest secular messiah ...
YouTube Video: "CNN: The Politics of Planting"
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull. Nope, my posts are based in fact. Sorry. I experience it everyday bcuz I record Hanity, Beck, O'reilly & watch Faux News. On the radio I toggle between Rush, Hanitty, Laura Ingram & others between the ONLY 2 lib radio stations here in L.A. out of FIVE CONSERVATIVR talk stations. I've traveled cross country MANY times, & GOOD LUCK trying to find ONE lib talk station in ANY of the southern or midwestern states. THEY DON"T EXIST!! So please, save ur non-facts 4 some1 easily fooled.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive
Is your Googler broken? Let's perform a reality check. ...
Google: "liberal talk radio stations" ....
... About 6,670,000 results (0.17 seconds)
... top of the list: is a website: "Liberal Talk Radio Wiki" ...
... there's a long list of stations right there, each of which links to its own list of affiliates.
Liberalism -- an endless panic that reality might seep in and ruin everything.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull. Yes, LETS perform a reality check. I don't even have 2 google this to know CLEARWATER is THE LARGEST radio conglomerate in the USA. PERIOD. BAR NONE. Rush Limbaugh is syndicated with Clearwater. & how many liberal talk show hosts does Clearwater have? ONE. & that would be Randi Rhodes. All the others, Hanitty, Ingram, Beck, O'Reilly, Dennis Miller, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Neal Boorts, Medved, etc are ALL ON CLEARCHANNEL. Further proof in next post.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive
"... is the largest..."
... and therefore ... what, exactly?
Americans DESELECT Liberal idiocies whenever and wherever they have the CHOICE. Get over it.
Yes, whenever and wherever the citizenry enjoy the LIBERTY to vote -- be it at the voting booth or by changing channels -- they REJECT Liberal Fascism.
Yes, that fact holds, whether its of radio shows or of rejecting the queer fantasy of so-called "gay marriage".
Keep whining.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive What is your point about Clearwater? Air America existed for a while, and there was no technological or bandwidth problem that pushed them off the air (that was because they already had liberal NPR which was much higher quality).
Anyone who has the inclination and money to do so today can open a radio station. Carving out a frequency is no longer the barrier.
Christobanistan 1 year ago
@TylerNull. Its obvious u didn't even look @ the link u provided. Air America? Um...they've been gone for yrs now. & look at the coding they use, U-C-orLT does not qualify as liberal talk. Then look at the Los Angeles stations where I live. They list 1150am (which is correct) & 1260 KGIL as liberal talk. Lol! KGIL is old folks music & CONSERVATIVE TALK. Its obvious whoever put this together is biased & doesn't add in 640am KFI (home of Rush), 790am (Hannity), 980am (Ingram).
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive
It's obvious that your politics don't allow for reality to seep in.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull. Sorry if I shot down your lies and non facts that talk radio is ruled by liberal or progressive talk. I've provided the facts. You've provided nothing but non cited information. See...thats the problem w/u conservatives. When you've been destroyed, u resort to insults. Poor fella.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive
"Sorry..."
You have much to apologize for; however, the fact that Americans tune out Liberal gibberish whenever and wherever the have the CHOICE to do so isn't one of them.
Liberals know so many "facts" that aren't so.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive Air America went bankrupt because no one wanted to advertise with them and no one with a half a brain listened to them.
It sounds like the free market working the way it should without government meddling. You stupid retard.
ThunderAppeal 1 year ago
@TylerNull. And take a close look at the stations they listed. MAYBE 100 stations in the whole country out of 10's of thousands of stations that carry CONSERVATIVE talk radio! Give me a fricken break son. Go here to radiotime. radiotime(dot)com/channel/c_57917/Conservative.aspx And you'll see over 200 different conservative talkers, not 5 or 6 liberal talkers like u listed over thousands of radio channels across the USA. U obviously haven't done ur homework on this issue.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive
Actually, there were over 6,000,000 listings. I merely pointed to the top listing to expose your blatant lie that there were none.
Your lie was so blatant that it didn't take "homework" to expose it.
You lied.
I outed your lie.
Get over it.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive
I'm from Michigan and there are TONS of liberal talk stations. If you can honestly say flat out that they DON'T EXIST than your a leftist extremist on cloud 9. Seriously you've never heard of WJR (760 AM) Detroit? No? they have one of the most powerful signals in the country. Mitch Albom, Dr.Laura ect.. Also you've never heard of Mark Levine marklevineradio(dot)com? I guess you just don't know what your talking about.
blurbum9 1 year ago
@blurbum9. I guess you're missing my point. If you were to total the number of liberal talk vs. conservative talk radio stations all across the country, and especially in rural areas, you'd find that there are THOUSANDS more conservative talk stations. And thats a fact if you've ever bothered to do the research.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive
Even if that was true which i don't really believe it but look at the number of national liberal news stations vs the number of conservative ones you'll find that they're all liberal except one. Also look at how many liberal newspapers and there are and the biggest thing how liberal the teachers all are in all of our public schools and how they push their bs belief on a bunch of children. The facts are liberals control far more media that conservatives can hope to match.
blurbum9 1 year ago
@blurbum9. What exactly is your problem w/school & liberal thinking? Our forefathers were the KINGS of liberal & progressive thinking! Do ur realize that the Constitution was the MOST LIBERAL & PROGRESSIVE DOCUMENT OF ITS TIME!! There was no other country in the world that was professing its people should have the right to freedom of speech, being able to redress its govt 4 grievances or allowed the right to bear arms. U fool. Tell me EXACTLY what issues u have w/liberal thought. Be specific.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@TylerNull Um, no Fox News is not 80% Democrat (that all the other networks, well 80%-95%). Fox was about 40% Democrat, 55% Republican, an even split compared to the rest.
But it's FOX that is biased. Riiiight....
Christobanistan 1 year ago
Lol. whaat a twist~ That's exactly why 87% of Fox new's viewers would vote republican, cause you know, democrats tend to vote republicans anyways~
Even if your statement is correct (40% democrats and 55%), that only shows Fox News is having VERY LITTLE viewers.
Sorry, but you're either batshit crazy or a fucking liar, and I hope you're a fucking liar, for I'd feel sorry if you were mentally handicapped.
xXshinzoXx 1 year ago
@xXshinzoXx Um...so your belief is that if a certain percentage of the newsroom votes one way, their viewers must match that number closely? What in Zeus' Bolt brings you to that conclusion?
Are you aware that in newsrooms around the country (and this is confirmed by countless studies and polls), the staff is very highly slanted left? Using your logic all people who watch the news must vote Democrat at least 80% of the time!
Real smart.
Christobanistan 1 year ago
@xXshinzoXx
LOL Fox News has more views than all any one of the liberal news channels. You can probably say that Fox News is bigger than any two of the liberal news stations at the same time.. why don't you take a look at their ratings.
blurbum9 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@VegasBilgeRat. If u mean "conservative" to mean lack of facts & loving to be indoctrinated into propaganda Hitler style, then I agree w/u. The problem w/Faux News is, its not real journalism. They spew non facts, omit facts & create their own propaganda that is devoid any of the information one could find on the internet on their own. I can cite thousands of cases where Faux News outright lies & omits the truth or the real story behind the story. Certainly not journalism. Its fake news.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive for Christ's sake, stick to the issues. Don't spit your Fox news hate, its 100% irrelevant. We're talking about left vs right, and the fairness Doctrine. I dont give a fuck what you think about Fox news.
VegasBilgeRat 1 year ago
@VegasBilgeRat. Pay atttention retard and read some of my past posts where I address the very issue of left vs right & the Fairness Doctrine.
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive
I still have a hard time believing people like you exist.
fishblades 1 year ago
@fishblades. And I still can't believe people like you who still idolize George W. Bush (by video of him & his dad on ur webpage) still exist. Hey "fishblades", get a job & stop playing so many video games. Ok? The real world is out there. Get out of your moms basement & make something of yourself. Ok? Whats funny about that GW video is, his dad doesn't have respect for his own son. I can at least appreciate George H.W. Bush, and I'm a liberal! Lol!
JSAautomotive 1 year ago
@JSAautomotive So since liberals utterly dominate the newsroom in every single network TV station plus virtually every newspaper and magazine in America and Europe, would you then be willing to apply the Fairness Doctrine to them as well?
I thought not. Go back to your hole little hypocrit.
Christobanistan 1 year ago
@Christobanistan I think you're confusing liberals in American media with actual liberals. If those liberals you're referring to are legitimate liberals, then they're doing a good job of concealing their liberalism on camera and in print. I yearn for the day when liberal media has the balls to say what needs to be said, and it hasn't come yet. The vast majority of media are little more than actors who will agree or disagree with anything just to stay in front of the camera.
ToTheConquered 1 year ago
@ToTheConquered I'm not sure your point. Mine is that they vote Democrat by massive margins and are 'liberal' by modern definitions , so their viewpoints are skewed.
Christobanistan 1 year ago
@Christobanistan The modern concept of liberal in this country is in fact not actually liberal. That is my point.
Actual liberals don't agree with democrats, so there's really no point in bashing them for the faults of the democrats. I'm liberal and I voted for two democrats, four republicans, and 4 tea party members. So please, don't assume that actual liberals are that different from you. We need to focus on what we agree on before complaining about our disagreements, or we're screwed.
ToTheConquered 1 year ago