• 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!

Federal government shuts down after Senate talks fail

No agenda can exist in today's news business without a profit motive.
That is precisely why I challenged you to show me examples of news stories that aren't especially profitable.

We deal with problems of content by requiring all news outlets to adhere, to the best of their ability, to accepted and agreed upon journalistic standards.
The entire reason we have organizations like The Associated Press isn't just pooling of resources.
The well known and industry accepted "AP Style" exists because the AP CREATED it in response to what was termed "yellow journalism" back in the early days of newspaper moguls like William Randolph Hearst, and others.

AP Style isn't just about how to practice the business of WRITING news, it's about everything that encompasses the concept of news itself. The Stylebook offers a basic reference to grammar, punctuation and principles of reporting.

You don't just violate AP Style if you screw up your grammar or story layout, you violate AP Style if you mischaracterize the content or agenda behind the story itself.
The sections dealing with Briefing on Media Law, for example, are an overview of legal issues and ethical expectations for journalists.

So what you are really complaining about is the lack of regulation not profit motive. That is a horse of a different color and I certainly would agree that regulations like the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated. We have screwed up so much by ending regulations meant to prevent all sorts of abuse by corporations for their own profit. I can agree with that wholeheartedly. Deregulation has been the source of most of our problems in every area.
 
I think you have more than enough material for a great discussion on this topic.

I do apologize that this is turning into something of a hijack but I simply responded to ONE assertion, and it apparently grew legs. You're right, this deserves its own thread, but as there are definitely smarter people than I on this forum, I would "prefer to defer" to their decision to START one. The whole reason I decided to stick to being a stringer news CAMERA early on instead of trying to be a reporter was that I began to realize that I would be restricted by profit motives, and that went against everything I was taught as a journalism student.
(That plus rookie reporters didn't make much whereas if you got the footage, you COULD make decent money)
 
DACA is a violation of Immigration law and wasn't passed by Congress, DACA has absolutely no place in a budget bill. Sick and tired of the cafeteria liberal who picks and chooses laws to enforce.

A DACA fix is overwhelmingly favored by a large majority of Americans and a clean DACA bill that is not part of any budget bill is all that the Dems want. Neither congressional leader will allow a vote on a clean DACA fix. Why is that? The answer is critical since that is what is causing the shutdown. Yes it is that simple and the Republicans are that heartless. That they would shut the Govt. to gain an advantage.
 
Last edited:
A DACA fix is overwhelmingly favored by a large majority of Americans and a clean DACA bill that is not part of any budget bill is all that the Dems want. Neither congressional leader will allow a vote on a clean DACA fix. Why is that? The answer is critical since that is what is causing the shutdown. Yes it is that simple.

DACA has nothing to do with the Budget and I really don't give a damn about polls, DACA rewards Illegals and is wrong. You don't like the Immigration laws change it but enforce the laws until you do. DACA violates the immigration laws of the land.
 
In fact, my former brother-in-law, Kenley Jones of NBC News, (NBC News Atlanta Bureau) pointed out that when Ted Turner first purchased "SuperStation Channel 17" with the intention of rebranding it as "Cable News Network" and go with a 24 hour news model, EVERYONE at NBC News laughed and predicted failure within six months.
They were calling it "Chicken Noodle News".
They stopped laughing VERY quickly.

By the way, you may want to read the Reuters Trust Principles which govern ALL Reuters journalists.

https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/about-us/trust-principles.html

Excellent link, and if I am correct that was when Thompson made the move from print to net.
They mad a fortune IIRC, and as I am biased, Canadian as well.

As to Reuters, people read them due to standards. Trusted to be impartial.
 
You damn well know that the GOP is withholding a DACA fix so they can tack it on to their budget bill and dare the Dems to vote against it. That is not going to fly. Give us a clean DACA bill that Trump signs and the Govt. will reopen. Otherwise they can go fish,.

You have lost your mind if you think that a "clean" DACA bill is going to be presented. Who, in their right (pun intended) mind, is going to grant amnesty and then beg for funding for the Great Wall of Trump (among other immigration law matters)? If the immigration reform mess from 1986 (amnesty now and better border and interior enforcement "coming soon" we promise <wink, wink>) escapes your memory then you might want to refresh it.
 
I do apologize that this is turning into something of a hijack but I simply responded to ONE assertion, and it apparently grew legs. You're right, this deserves its own thread, but as there are definitely smarter people than I on this forum, I would "prefer to defer" to their decision to START one. The whole reason I decided to stick to being a stringer news CAMERA early on instead of trying to be a reporter was that I began to realize that I would be restricted by profit motives, and that went against everything I was taught as a journalism student.
(That plus rookie reporters didn't make much whereas if you got the footage, you COULD make decent money)

No need to apologize- what you posted should be in a separate thread ref media concentration- hijacking of the news for profit.
This man was before my time, Edward R Morrow, a man who could move a nation as he did with McCarthy, and why could he, he told the truth.- and people cannot understand why he could and we are poorer because these types for the most part no longer exist.
So pls do take the time and start a thread on this.
 
So what you are really complaining about is the lack of regulation not profit motive. That is a horse of a different color and I certainly would agree that regulations like the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated. We have screwed up so much by ending regulations meant to prevent all sorts of abuse by corporations for their own profit. I can agree with that wholeheartedly. Deregulation has been the source of most of our problems in every area.

Hey, broadcast outlets never needed to make a profit off HARD news.
There's a movie called "Broadcast News" starring William Hurt and Holly Hunter, directed by James L. Brooks.
It was originally pitched as a cute romantic comedy but the sub-plot was the real winner, that of the commercialization of news.
There's a scene where Jack Nicholson visits the Washington DC bureau to show solidarity during a round of layoffs, and he wisecracks, "Wow, this IS a brutal layoff, and all because the damn network couldn't program Wednesday nights."

But the fact is, networks did not use to suffer from the costs of running news departments because the losses, if any, were small, and more often than not news departments could break even or even post a small profit.
When networks started to realize that outlets like CNN and Fox News Channel were running on a profit incentive, they scrambled to keep up and began to sacrifice journalistic integrity, then later began laying off news staff and downsizing local bureaus. But once they began "selling a news PRODUCT" they were able to turn it around, and even venture into the 24 hour cable news cycle as competitors. And that was only possible because of the erosion of The Fairness Doctrine.

If you take a hard look at what cable news channels offer today, not that much of it is actual HARD NEWS anymore, is it?
If you look back at the CNN of the 1980's, they did not have all that many news "SHOWS" like "State of the Union" etc.
I wouldn't dream of demanding that a cable news channel stop making a profit off their programming, just stop labeling slanted editorial content as "NEWS" and start adhering to proper journalistic rules of integrity when they ARE reporting news.
And stop orienting around the "access" model of news reporting. If a policy maker or politician refuses to "grant access" then guess what?
Their refusal to grant access IS part of the news story.

By the way, it is not going to be easy to unravel and unwind all of this. The model has been conditioned and so have the audiences for almost an entire generation. It's just that some old farts like myself remember what news used to look and sound like. I suspect it was decades before you were born, and that's not a slight or an insult, just my gut feeling.
I am sixty-one years old now.
 
You have lost your mind if you think that a "clean" DACA bill is going to be presented. Who, in their right (pun intended) mind, is going to grant amnesty and then beg for funding for the Great Wall of Trump (among other immigration law matters)? If the immigration reform mess from 1986 (amnesty now and better border and interior enforcement "coming soon" we promise <wink, wink>) escapes your memory then you might want to refresh it.

Illegal immigration can be virtually eliminated with strict enforcement of laws restricting employers from hiring them. That is not done because we depend on those illegals for picking our crops. Who's fault is that? But I am glad you admit it is the Republicans and Trump shutting down the Govt. because they want to gut our social programs and cut Medicare and social security and force the Dems to vote for it or allow the dreamers to be deported. That is not going to happen and the govt. will remain shut until they give up that ploy. 2 can play that game and the Dems have the upper hand in this one.
 
Republicans, when they exercise power, are happy to get everything they want without asking Democrats and locking them out of discussions. If Dems can use power to address concerns it's not illegitimate, as you suggest.

Oh, and democrats never locked out republicans from any negotiations when they were in power?

Democrats lock Republicans out of committee room | TheHill

Just remember, DACA has NOTHING to do with funding the government, and democrats are hurting themselves with this unnecessary #Schumershutdown
 
Illegal immigration can be virtually eliminated with strict enforcement of laws restricting employers from hiring them. That is not done because we depend on those illegals for picking our crops. Who's fault is that? But I am glad you admit it is the Republicans and Trump shutting down the Govt. because they want to gut our social programs and cut Medicare and social security and force the Dems to vote for it or allow the dreamers to be deported. That is not going to happen and the govt. will remain shut until they give up that ploy. 2 can play that game and the Dems have the upper hand in this one.

I would only reply that one of the main reasons Mexicans never respected our immigration laws is because of the continual waves of hypocrisy that ran in regular cycles.

Our government would look the other way and tacitly approve of the big growers sending buses down INTO Mexico to recruit "braceros" to work the fields. Then suddenly with the Eisenhower administration we had "Operation Wetback" which deported millions of braceros, often dropping them off in the middle of the Mexico desert without even so much as WATER.
Then in the 60's, the braceros started coming back again!

Cesar Chavez would fight back because most of HIS people either had Green Cards (much easier to get back then!!!) or were "Chicanos", native born Americans of Mexican descent and he wanted better pay and conditions for his United Farm Workers.
But originally, the flow of the first braceros was initially started to marginalize the Dust Bowl Okies anyway so Chavez and his UFW were regarded largely as an upstart (three decades later) and a minor speed bump until the Huelgas (strikes) started to gain support. The growers never expected a worker strike movement to gain traction.
Ed Murrow's docu series "Harvest of Shame" and Steve Allen's (yes, THAT "Steve Allen") "The Ground Is Our Table" book started informing Americans on the plight of workers in the fields, and suddenly the plight of migrant farm workers was on everyone's mind.

Back and forth, back and forth. How does one make any sense out of the shifting priorities of a Mexican immigration policy when it changes not only with every administration but with every blip in the economic cycle? How is a Mexican expected to have ANY respect from such a fickle, transient and disingenuous set of policies? So in essence, the typical Mexican came to regard the entire immigration policy of Estados Unidos as a big fat sick joke.

I'll be honest, I do not have any problem with shifting US immigration policy to a merit based system.
It's just that I do not trust US immigration policy toward Central America and Mexico to be anything other than the corporate whore it has always been. Most Western democracies operate off a point or merit based system with regard to their immigration policies, so if we were to do so, and STICK TO IT, I think it's a healthy and bipartisan compromise.

But why do we have to destroy millions of people's lives in the process? The Dreamers are here with us now and this IS now their country, because they HAVE been here, and they have been productive. And with regard to El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala, there is something to be said for refugee status. See Reagan, CIA and COCAINE for background.
 
And he has always had great contempt for the Cronkite types, he has taken great glee in rubbing out journalism standards of fairness and subject matter expertise.

“Today television news is watched more often than people read newspapers, than people listen to the radio, than people read or gather any other form of communication. The reason: people are lazy. With television you just sit – watch – listen. The thinking is done for you.”

Roger Ailes - "A Plan For Putting The GOP On TV News" (1970)

If that above quote was on a CRAWLER at the bottom of the screen on Fox News Channel I wager their viewership numbers would drop like a rock very quickly. Murdoch's head would explode.
 
Oh, and democrats never locked out republicans from any negotiations when they were in power?

Democrats lock Republicans out of committee room | TheHill

Just remember, DACA has NOTHING to do with funding the government, and democrats are hurting themselves with this unnecessary #Schumershutdown

The lack of even one vote on a DACA fix has plenty to do with Dems refusing to vote for anything the GOP wants. That is their prerogative and all that needs to be done is to fulfil Trumps promise to sign a fix for DACA instead of doing what his radical base wants. The refusal to do that only serves to drive home what is increasingly apparent. That there will be no DACA fix and they plan to blame Democrats for that too. This is even more unacceptable than a Govt. shutdown hands down. The pain will be mostly Trump's and that is a good thing.
 
Last edited:
I would only reply that one of the main reasons Mexicans never respected our immigration laws is because of the continual waves of hypocrisy that ran in regular cycles.

Our government would look the other way and tacitly approve of the big growers sending buses down INTO Mexico to recruit "braceros" to work the fields. Then suddenly with the Eisenhower administration we had "Operation Wetback" which deported millions of braceros, often dropping them off in the middle of the Mexico desert without even so much as WATER.
Then in the 60's, the braceros started coming back again!

Cesar Chavez would fight back because most of HIS people either had Green Cards (much easier to get back then!!!) or were "Chicanos", native born Americans of Mexican descent and he wanted better pay and conditions for his United Farm Workers.
But originally, the flow of the first braceros was initially started to marginalize the Dust Bowl Okies anyway so Chavez and his UFW were regarded largely as an upstart (three decades later) and a minor speed bump until the Huelgas (strikes) started to gain support. The growers never expected a worker strike movement to gain traction.
Ed Murrow's docu series "Harvest of Shame" and Steve Allen's (yes, THAT "Steve Allen") "The Ground Is Our Table" book started informing Americans on the plight of workers in the fields, and suddenly the plight of migrant farm workers was on everyone's mind.

Back and forth, back and forth. How does one make any sense out of the shifting priorities of a Mexican immigration policy when it changes not only with every administration but with every blip in the economic cycle? How is a Mexican expected to have ANY respect from such a fickle, transient and disingenuous set of policies? So in essence, the typical Mexican came to regard the entire immigration policy of Estados Unidos as a big fat sick joke.

I'll be honest, I do not have any problem with shifting US immigration policy to a merit based system.
It's just that I do not trust US immigration policy toward Central America and Mexico to be anything other than the corporate whore it has always been. Most Western democracies operate off a point or merit based system with regard to their immigration policies, so if we were to do so, and STICK TO IT, I think it's a healthy and bipartisan compromise.

But why do we have to destroy millions of people's lives in the process? The Dreamers are here with us now and this IS now their country, because they HAVE been here, and they have been productive. And with regard to El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala, there is something to be said for refugee status. See Reagan, CIA and COCAINE for background.

I remember Chavez's grape boycott well. I also remember that Vietnam became the largest importer of grapes because Nixon was buying them for the "troops".
I really doubt that immigration is really the sticking point now though. The refusal to allow a DACA bill is because they want to use it to get 60 votes for their draconian cuts in social programs in the "real" budget they hope to pass somehow. Ryan will try and pay for those tax cuts on the backs of the old and the poor.
 
I agree with the bolded.

They still may get CHIP. But the smart move might have been to take CHIPnow, then make their stand as the CR expires.

Well, no, the smart move is to not block the federal budget over illegal aliens altogether. They can win or lose that as a policy bill, not shoehorn it in to a budget bill.
 
I remember Chavez's grape boycott well. I also remember that Vietnam became the largest importer of grapes because Nixon was buying them for the "troops".
I really doubt that immigration is really the sticking point now though. The refusal to allow a DACA bill is because they want to use it to get 60 votes for their draconian cuts in social programs in the "real" budget they hope to pass somehow. Ryan will try and pay for those tax cuts on the backs of the old and the poor.

Oh I agree completely, that is the overarching reason.
Poison pills and hostage taking is what substitutes for reasoned compromise.
I wager that the Democrats would fold on the stupid wall if they could get the hostage taking and poison pill tactics to stop.
But they know that's never going to happen.
There is a segment of hardcore libertarian Republicans that has been hostile to Medicare and Social Security forever. You can call them libertarians, Birchers, Tea Party or whatever but the fact is, that's been their wet dream all along, to scrap those programs and maybe privatize them by giving the money to their criminal friends on Wall Street. Now that a large number of moderates have been drummed out in the purges of 2010 and 2014, and again in 2016, they feel that they have the numbers needed to actually make it finally happen.

But immigration is a wonderful whipping boy and the perfect diversionary tactic. It's a "SHINY THING".
 
The lack of even one vote on a DACA fix has plenty to do with Dems refusing to vote for anything the GOP wants. That is their prerogative and all that needs to be done is to fulfil Trumps promise to sign a fix for DACA instead of doing what his radical base wants. The refusal to do that only serves to drive home what is increasingly apparent. That there will be no DACA fix and they plan to blame Democrats for that too. This is even more unacceptable than a Govt. shutdown hands down. The pain will be mostly Trump's and that is a good thing.

Sorry, I just don't see how you can say that when in 2013 when repubs blocked funding the government over HealthCare



It is exactly what he is doing now....Schumer caused this, and Democrats own this shutdown period.
 
Roger Ailes - "A Plan For Putting The GOP On TV News" (1970)

If that above quote was on a CRAWLER at the bottom of the screen on Fox News Channel I wager their viewership numbers would drop like a rock very quickly. Murdoch's head would explode.

My dad worked for the Rockford Newspapers for a lot of years both before and after Gannett ruined the place, his dad spent over 30 years as a Kenosha Wi printer and had a life long love of all things print especially newspapers......Plus I have been a heavy life long consumer of journalism as my curiosity romps....

You Know.........

I am exceedingly pessimistic about the way forward for America based upon the current state of journalism, and then we are more lazy than ever too....






YUK
 
You keep on digging your heels in, he made valid points as to how News has changed, and for the worse.

Which is true. We really need to go back to something that existed in the 70s, where any media outlet was required, as a consequence of their FCC license, to have educational programming whether they wanted to do it or not. This time, we need to require commercial-free news programming, at least an hour per day. Zero commercials, zero advertising, means less reason to be as biased as they currently are. Any company that doesn't want to do it can just go off the air. I suppose we can make exceptions for completely non-political networks like Cartoon Network and Syfy, but anyone who has any kind of political bent needs to provide an open and honest and BALANCED block of programming that they can't make a bloody penny off of.
 
So if we banned all profit from news don't you think the GOP would fund FOX news? Then the Dems would fund MSNBC and how would that fix anything?

Iggy, if a policy similar to The Fairness Doctrine was in place, direct or even soft money funding of a news outlet would be in violation. But even if it weren't, I already said that this would be difficult to unwind.
One reason is because something that works like The Fairness Doctrine used to cannot stand alone.
Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United would also have to be reworked or even reversed.
We have undone so many of the protections against bribery and corruption that many in the judicial and legal system now believe that outright political bribery isn't even ILLEGAL anymore.

Forty years of chipping away at longstanding American values, even values which could be argued as CONSERVATIVE values, has created a banana republic environment. I will be the first to say that you cannot just implement a modern day Fairness Doctrine and just leave it at that, anymore than you could just give a lifelong smoke a lung transplant and let them go back to their Marlboros.
 
Sarge...your nation funds the blessed UN. Why do you care what these 'Klingons' think? France is aghast...hell as a Canuck I find it pathetic...why the hell do you give a sh1t? Personally I think the UN could use a good spanking.

Well, I'm no fan of the UN. But the UN's worth is not the topic. You stated that you see no difference in the obtuse nonsense used to criticize Obama's first year and the very legitimate issues that Trump has presented.

You broke it...I suppose.
It's not like I don't sympathize, I was just born with a natural aversion to horse kaka. It fascinates me that most of ya have known for years, what's at the heart of the American political sludge. Ya just can't seem to clean it up. Instead...ya let your representatives...make it f&%kin' blatant. Fascinating.

Well, the problem is that our two-Party system removes "the people" from having a hand in anything. Fixing the "sludge" means nothing when every election presents either a douche or an asshole. Systems that present multiple Parties, in which they have to form coalitions of agreement in order to have power (which forces them to represent the people better), do more to combat the "sludge" that each bring.

It's not that fascinating. America's experiment with democracy is simply stuck in a rut and will continue to do this until our economy implodes or we move our politics into a multi-Party system.

Ever heard the saying...'Every time the US sneezes, Canada gets a cold'? US interests own most of our economy. You bet ur ass I pay attention.

Cynicism is what keeps me grounded. It looks like you've been up close and personal with the military. I've been in foreign affairs. I was jaded long ago. But you're right, Europe is a mess. Which is why I wish y'all would quit worrying about that fat asshole in Asia.

See? Your attitude is exactly why I detest Donald Trump and the morons who continue to cling to his ball sack for an identity. Of course the world cares about what America does every day. We are the elephant in the room. When we move, the whole room looks over. This is why I roll my eyes whenever foreigners pretend that the U.S. doesn't matter. Foreigners, however, are also far too quick to criticize. You think Americans sit around and eagerly check out what Canada or France or Zimbabwe is doing today? No. The vast majority of America has no idea what is going on from one European country to the next. Of course, there are the Fox News watchers who love a good story about how Muslims are taking over Europe and how they can translate that into a need for border security and not giving the local Arab any business in his corner store.

But this is also exactly why the U.S. has to be far more than the unstatesman-like, undiplomatic, immature, immoral, integrity-absent piece of **** in the White House right now.

And Jung-un is a distraction. I'm not worried. He is just yet another topic for Trump to show his ass over and embarrass the country.
 
Well, no, the smart move is to not block the federal budget over illegal aliens altogether. They can win or lose that as a policy bill, not shoehorn it in to a budget bill.

That's the smart thing to do? To give the GOP another hostage like CHIP?
 
My dad worked for the Rockford Newspapers for a lot of years both before and after Gannett ruined the place, his dad spent over 30 years as a Kenosha Wi printer and had a life long love of all things print especially newspapers......Plus I have been a heavy life long consumer of journalism as my curiosity romps....

You Know.........

I am exceedingly pessimistic about the way forward for America based upon the current state of journalism, and then we are more lazy than ever too....






YUK

You wouldn't have known Chad Brooks, the long-time editor of the Rockford papers, would you?
 
Back
Top Bottom