• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is borderline media malpractice

COTO said:
It was also Hitler's second favouritest day of the week. :shock:

Block after block, sliding into place...
Click to expand...

Heres a story im just willing to chock up to stupidity, not necessarily assume malice on Trump’s part.
 
bomberfox said:
Heres a story im just willing to chock up to stupidity, not necessarily assume malice on Trump’s part.
Click to expand...

How is it even "stupidity"? It was a five-day mourning period, just like other mass shootings were given.
 
bomberfox said:
Heres a story im just willing to chock up to stupidity, not necessarily assume malice on Trump’s part.
Click to expand...
How does it qualify as stupid?

When he's ordering the flag lowered to half-mast, do you really expect him to know that the date it will be raised again, translated into a number, translated into letters, will have some bass ackwards significance to neonazis? Would even one a million people who isn't a neonazi or an FBI spook studying neonazis make those connections?

So then you fall back to "He's stupid for not having somebody on his staff who can make that connection. He's the President. He has people for that."

Possibly he does have somebody, among the thousands of Washington bureaucrats, that would connect A to B to C to D to E and raise a red flag (no pun intended). Even so, Pres. Trump--or whoever was ultimately responsible for setting dates--isn't going to consult a circle of people broad enough to include FBI experts on neonazi semiotics to order a bloody flag flown at half-mast.

The kicker is that I'd bet you dollars to dimes 99% of American neonazis wouldn't have had a clue when the flag was raised, much less given a snow leopard's fuzzy arse about it, if Mr. Figluzzi hadn't run his mouth off on TV for glory.
 
COTO said:
How does it qualify as stupid?

When he's ordering the flag lowered to half-mast, do you really expect him to know that the date it will be raised again, translated into a number, translated into letters, will have some bass ackwards significance to neonazis? Would even one a million people who isn't a neonazi or an FBI spook studying neonazis make those connections?

So then you fall back to "He's stupid for not having somebody on his staff who can make that connection. He's the President. He has people for that."

Possibly he does have somebody, among the thousands of Washington bureaucrats, that would connect A to B to C to D to E and raise a red flag (no pun intended). Even so, Pres. Trump--or whoever was ultimately responsible for setting dates--isn't going to consult a circle of people broad enough to include FBI experts on neonazi semiotics to order a bloody flag flown at half-mast.

The kicker is that I'd bet you dollars to dimes 99% of American neonazis wouldn't have had a clue when the flag was raised, much less given a snow leopard's fuzzy arse about it, if Mr. Figluzzi hadn't run his mouth off on TV for glory.
Click to expand...

It's yet another one of those "dog whistles" only obsessed lefties seem to be able to hear.

I'm trying to imagine the process which brought that nitwit to his conclusions.
 
COTO said:
How does it qualify as stupid?

When he's ordering the flag lowered to half-mast, do you really expect him to know that the date it will be raised again, translated into a number, translated into letters, will have some bass ackwards significance to neonazis? Would even one a million people who isn't a neonazi or an FBI spook studying neonazis make those connections?

So then you fall back to "He's stupid for not having somebody on his staff who can make that connection. He's the President. He has people for that."

Possibly he does have somebody, among the thousands of Washington bureaucrats, that would connect A to B to C to D to E and raise a red flag (no pun intended). Even so, Pres. Trump--or whoever was ultimately responsible for setting dates--isn't going to consult a circle of people broad enough to include FBI experts on neonazi semiotics to order a bloody flag flown at half-mast.

The kicker is that I'd bet you dollars to dimes 99% of American neonazis wouldn't have had a clue when the flag was raised, much less given a snow leopard's fuzzy arse about it, if Mr. Figluzzi hadn't run his mouth off on TV for glory.
Click to expand...

So you're a neonazi?
 
Lutherf said:
If you choose to see only hatred and conspiracy in everything Trump says or does you will definitely find it but that's not because it's the truth, it's because you only see what you choose to see.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, if you choose to turn a blind eye to the divisive hatred Trump spews you are only seeing what you choose to see. The blind allegiance to the letter "R" is on full display with Trump. He is literally the opposite of what Republicans have stood for for decades. But that "R" makes it so he is blindly followed. Trump is proof that there are no values, or hard beliefs when it comes to political lean, just blind allegiance.
 
swing_voter said:
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced.

The broadcast news stations, NBC, CBS, and ABC nightly shows all fall under the "fairness doctrine". Maybe it's time to extend the "fairness doctrine" to cable channels too.
Click to expand...

I think at some point the fairness doctrine was thrown out in favor of free speech.
 
Kreton said:
Alternatively, if you choose to turn a blind eye to the divisive hatred Trump spews you are only seeing what you choose to see. The blind allegiance to the letter "R" is on full display with Trump. He is literally the opposite of what Republicans have stood for for decades. But that "R" makes it so he is blindly followed. Trump is proof that there are no values, or hard beliefs when it comes to political lean, just blind allegiance.
Click to expand...

A lot of Americans voted for Trump because he wasn’t cut from the standard political cloth. A lot of Americans voted for Trump because they figured he’d be better for out immigration and economic policy. A lot of Americans voted for Trump because he wasn’t Hillary and was the only one running who might, possibly prevent the Supreme Court from being turned full blown anti-Constitutional.

I didn’t talk to anybody that voted for Trump because he was a Republican. I also didn’t talk to anybody who voted for Trump because they wanted to split the nation in half. That crap came entirely from the left.

Look, a couple of weeks ago a user on this forum that I disagreed with politically but totally respected and liked as a person decided to call it quits here because of my politics. He managed to so personalize the political crap that was going on that he bailed. He didn’t bail because of anything I said directly to him because, knowing how much anxiety Trump was causing him, I avoided anything but a cursory response whenever he blew his top. It wasn’t me that was being divisive in anything being discussed. It was him finding a reason to see something divisive because that’s what he felt he needed to see. It was him that chose to personalize his politics and that’s the kind of thing that’s been happening for the past two and a half years.

Yeah, there is an ideological divide in America these days but it’s generally those on the left who have chosen to turn it into a personal divide...and a lot of Americans are going to vote against that too come next November.
 
Lutherf said:
The malpractice part comes in when Brian Williams, instead of challenging Figluzzi or presenting an alternate theory (such as "Maybe Trump just wanted the flags at half staff for two days, one for El Paso and the other for Dayton") simply rolls with the conspiracy.

Listen, if you guys really believe that everything Trump says can reasonably be interpreted as promoting domestic terrorism then you can't logically deny that Figluzzi and Williams did the same.
Click to expand...

It's quite possible that Trump is unaware of the significance of 8/8. I wasn't till this came up. The problem here is how the 8/8 date will be received by the white supremacists. Trump has staff and intelligence to help him with this kind of thing. There's every reason to think that the FBI is aware of 8/8 implications. Their job is to inform the president and his job is to listen to them. It looks to me like there is a breakdown somewhere.
 
Lutherf said:
A lot of Americans voted for Trump because he wasn’t cut from the standard political cloth. A lot of Americans voted for Trump because they figured he’d be better for out immigration and economic policy. A lot of Americans voted for Trump because he wasn’t Hillary and was the only one running who might, possibly prevent the Supreme Court from being turned full blown anti-Constitutional.

I didn’t talk to anybody that voted for Trump because he was a Republican. I also didn’t talk to anybody who voted for Trump because they wanted to split the nation in half. That crap came entirely from the left.

Look, a couple of weeks ago a user on this forum that I disagreed with politically but totally respected and liked as a person decided to call it quits here because of my politics. He managed to so personalize the political crap that was going on that he bailed. He didn’t bail because of anything I said directly to him because, knowing how much anxiety Trump was causing him, I avoided anything but a cursory response whenever he blew his top. It wasn’t me that was being divisive in anything being discussed. It was him finding a reason to see something divisive because that’s what he felt he needed to see. It was him that chose to personalize his politics and that’s the kind of thing that’s been happening for the past two and a half years.

Yeah, there is an ideological divide in America these days but it’s generally those on the left who have chosen to turn it into a personal divide...and a lot of Americans are going to vote against that too come next November.
Click to expand...

There is ao much wrong here.

Immigration policy has worsened under Trump.

Economically we are worse under Trump.

Therefore if that was the case people wouldn't still support Trump.

Regardless of if they wanted him to split the country this severely he was doing long before and long after yet people still support him.

You can pretend that the political divide in this country is completely fabricated by the left but you are simply lying to yourself. The political divide in this country was/is caused by both sides with Trump ramping up the divide to new levels. There is nothing about Trump that embodies right wing values. Nothing. If you don't support him based on the "R" then what do you support him on? His ability to generate debt? His ability to allow hoards of more immigrants in? His ****ty public treatment of immigrants to shift public sympathy even further to the side of the illegals?

Trump is not cut from standard political cloth but he is not a Republican. He is not doing anything to further any actual policy that benefits this country. There has been no single person that has generated more hate between Americans. He makes the left hate the right, and he makes the right hate the left. The hate is not one sided.
 
bearpoker said:
It's quite possible that Trump is unaware of the significance of 8/8. I wasn't till this came up. The problem here is how the 8/8 date will be received by the white supremacists. Trump has staff and intelligence to help him with this kind of thing. There's every reason to think that the FBI is aware of 8/8 implications. Their job is to inform the president and his job is to listen to them. It looks to me like there is a breakdown somewhere.
Click to expand...

I understand that some people might take something a certain way. Some people, for example, see racism and hate in the American flag itself. Just because some people see some significance in certain things doesn't mean that we change our way of life because those people might be offended or because they might see it as a sign that their hatred is being validated.
 
bearpoker said:
I think at some point the fairness doctrine was thrown out in favor of free speech.
Click to expand...


We citizens own the airwaves. What's wrong with requiring that news media is unbiased and fair?
 
swing_voter said:
We citizens own the airwaves. What's wrong with requiring that news media is unbiased and fair?
Click to expand...

Who says something is fair? Who enforces it?
 
Harshaw said:
It's yet another one of those "dog whistles" only obsessed lefties seem to be able to hear.

I'm trying to imagine the process which brought that nitwit to his conclusions.
Click to expand...
I don't think he's a nitwit. I think he possessed some expertise, some esoteric knowledge, and made some far-reaching connections on that basis. It put a fire in his belly, like a juicy piece of gossip. It afforded him the opportunity to be the expert who divulged to the nation the hidden scandals of the US presidency. For glory. For personal validation as an expert.

If he'd held his tongue and said nothing, where would be the glory? He'd have been one more talking head in a sea of expert talking heads, regurgitating the same mundane facts as a thousand others. Worse, another expert on neonazism might make the same connection and beat him to the punch.

So he chose glory over discretion, and here we are.

Do I believe he was legitimately concerned the flag raising was a nod to neonazis or would truly be interpreted as such by them? No. It's not a reasonable theory, and even if it was, he would know that speculating about it on cable news is the worst thing he could possibly do.
 
COTO said:
I don't think he's a nitwit. I think he possessed some expertise, some esoteric knowledge, and made some far-reaching connections on that basis. It put a fire in his belly, like a juicy piece of gossip. It afforded him the opportunity to be the expert who divulged to the nation the hidden scandals of the US presidency. For glory. For personal validation as an expert.

If he'd held his tongue and said nothing, where would be the glory? He'd have been one more talking head in a sea of expert talking heads, regurgitating the same mundane facts as a thousand others. Worse, another expert on neonazism might make the same connection and beat him to the punch.

So he chose glory over discretion, and here we are.

Do I believe he was legitimately concerned the flag raising was a nod to neonazis or would truly be interpreted as such by them? No. It's not a reasonable theory, and even if it was, he would know that speculating about it on cable news is the worst thing he could possibly do.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he's not a nitwit regarding everything, but going to the air with that theory was most definitely nitwitISH.
 
swing_voter said:
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced.

The broadcast news stations, NBC, CBS, and ABC nightly shows all fall under the "fairness doctrine". Maybe it's time to extend the "fairness doctrine" to cable channels too.
Click to expand...

The reason that isn't possible is manifold and complex.

1. Cable television content is not FCC regulated because cable does not use the public airwaves and it is a subscriber service.

2. The Fairness Doctrine had "public service" hard baked into it as a function of a station's transmitter license, which WAS regulated by the FCC. The idea was that news had to function as a public service in exchange for the FCC allowing the transmitter to be licensed.
Via a gentleman's agreement between the major networks and local affiliates, news was operated as a "loss leader" to attract advertisers based on the prestige of the news operation, and profit was generated by local and network prime time and daytime entertainment programming, like dramas, movies and sitcoms.

Cable news networks don't have dramas, movies and sitcoms. They only sell one "product", news and news centered programming. The news on cable is a CONSUMER PRODUCT, and if it doesn't sell, the cable network goes bankrupt.

The 24/7 cable news cycle made the Fairness Doctrine obsolete and unenforceable because it was designed around FCC licensing of transmitters operated by network owned and affiliate owned stations that broadcast on the public airwaves.
 
bearpoker said:
I think at some point the fairness doctrine was thrown out in favor of free speech.
Click to expand...

Not exactly.
Cable news channels only have the one product to sell and that product is the "news" they present.
In order to "sell" this product, it has to resonate with their target demographic.

Free speech has nothing to do with it, ratings and profits are all they're concerned with.
 
swing_voter said:
We citizens own the airwaves. What's wrong with requiring that news media is unbiased and fair?
Click to expand...

Fine, as long as your "cable" system uses an antenna and you don't have to subscribe to it.
See the problem?
If it goes out of an antenna and gets received "free to air" BY an antenna, the FCC can regulate it.
If it comes over a fiber or a wire, and you subscribe to the wire or fiber, the FCC has no jurisdiction because wires and fiber are not the airwaves.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Not exactly.
Cable news channels only have the one product to sell and that product is the "news" they present.
In order to "sell" this product, it has to resonate with their target demographic.

Free speech has nothing to do with it, ratings and profits are all they're concerned with.
Click to expand...

It's so much more than that and always has been going back to Pulitizer and Hearst and before. Powerful media sources have very strong, influential positions in the political arena and they know it. Their "reporting" is nothing more than just propaganda for the political party and policies they back.
 
Josie said:
It's so much more than that and always has been going back to Pulitizer and Hearst and before. Powerful media sources have very strong, influential positions in the political arena and they know it. Their "reporting" is nothing more than just propaganda for the political party and policies they back.
Click to expand...

You're presenting opinions.
I was talking about FACTS regarding the FCC's enforcement of policy.
It is NOT "so much more than that", it is exactly that, nothing more, nothing less.

The FCC regulates the airwaves by licensing broadcasting transmitters.
If you don't broadcast over a transmitter on the airwaves, the FCC does not license you because you are not under their jurisdiction. This is a FACT.

The Fairness Doctrine centered around a station's right to get, keep and renew the license for their transmitter.
Again, this is FACT.
 
swing_voter said:
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced.

The broadcast news stations, NBC, CBS, and ABC nightly shows all fall under the "fairness doctrine". Maybe it's time to extend the "fairness doctrine" to cable channels too.
Click to expand...

Well, the Fairness Doctrine was done away with under the Reagan administration. The FCC was pretty well defanged during those years. And it it local stations, not the networks who are licensed by the FCC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom