• 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!

Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

This alone scares the **** out of me.

070410_waxman4.jpg

Hmmm, seperated at birth?

images
 
He stated it wrong, but all his policies are doing is making sure newspapers survive.

If newspapers can't survive on the basis that they are in demand, they should not be propped up by government. They should be allowed to fail just as all the banks doing shoddy business and GM should have been.

He isn't saying certain newspapers with certain viewpoints. All he's saying is that newspapers are the best, most reliable sources of news, and he's absolutely right about that.

Whatever the federal government funds, it tries to control the activities and the content of.
 
Uhm... no commentary?

Do people not see the utter danger implicit in the above suggestions?

I do.

The government does not have the right to moderate the media. This is the first step to the removal of the first amendment.
 
I do.

The government does not have the right to moderate the media. This is the first step to the removal of the first amendment.

Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Lenin, and others would disagree.
 

Print is sadly dying, there's nothing the government can or should do about it. It's time to change up models. Maybe if the media can make some form of electronic delivery. There's the internet, but I'm thinking of something that's not exactly a computer, but rather a display of sorts which receives information from a news agency. Then instead of getting a paper each day, you just flip on some thin device and it uploads the news and you can still sit at the breakfast table and read it. And also, articles can be updated easier as is done on the internet. I don't know if it will work, but maybe the media needs to be thinking along lines like that. Come up with something new which can compete. The online news will still be read though, and they can focus there.
 
Not really. He stated it wrong, but all his policies are doing is making sure newspapers survive. He isn't saying certain newspapers with certain viewpoints. All he's saying is that newspapers are the best, most reliable sources of news, and he's absolutely right about that.

He's absolutely wrong. Government's job is not to save businesses that cannot adapt to changes in the business climate. Where was the Government when Monkeywards went under? Or Kmart collapsed? When was the last time you shopped at a Woolsworth?

There is no danger whatsoever of the Journalism Industry going out of business, only a danger of certain elements/companies going under because they cannot adapt to the changing times.

Government needs to stay out, let the market sort it out. Sure, business will cease to be, new ones will arise, and journalism will evolve.
 
He's absolutely wrong. Government's job is not to save businesses that cannot adapt to changes in the business climate. Where was the Government when Monkeywards went under? Or Kmart collapsed? When was the last time you shopped at a Woolsworth?

Okay, but that's a different issue.
 
I do.

The government does not have the right to moderate the media. This is the first step to the removal of the first amendment.

Your mean like all the other single party states like venezuela, cuba, and china?
 
No it's not.

The Government should stay as far away from the Media as possible.
This is how they circumvent the 1st Amendment.
 
This is how they circumvent the 1st Amendment.

Kinda. It's more "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" Syndrome. When suddenly your business (journalism) is reliant on Government monies, do you really think you'll be doing stories that are critical of said government?

It's a slippery slope argument to be sure, but history shows the merits of fearing such.
 
Kinda. It's more "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" Syndrome. When suddenly your business (journalism) is reliant on Government monies, do you really think you'll be doing stories that are critical of said government?

Yeah, that explains why FOX is so timid in the face of FCC control.

:roll:
 
Yeah, that explains why FOX is so timid in the face of FCC control.

:roll:

That's a much different issue. The FCC doesn't give monetary support to broadcasters, it regulates them. This issue is about the federal government providing money to failing media outlets.
 
Yeah, that explains why FOX is so timid in the face of FCC control.

:roll:

Someone obviously is unable to comprehend the issue at hand. I suggest you cease posting on this issue, lest you look more ignorant.
 
News-gathering is a public service?...

Further proof that there is no limit to how far Progressives will go to control a nation.
 
That's a much different issue. The FCC doesn't give monetary support to broadcasters, it regulates them. This issue is about the federal government providing money to failing media outlets.

Why is that so different though?
 
Someone obviously is unable to comprehend the issue at hand. I suggest you cease posting on this issue, lest you look more ignorant.

How about you engage in debate instead of being a troll? Explain what the issue is at hand. Or maybe I have a new issue to add.
 
How about you engage in debate instead of being a troll? Explain what the issue is at hand. Or maybe I have a new issue to add.

You are ignoring the relevant issue, of Government funding, directing, and "saving" media and bringing irrelevancies. I am not being a troll, I am marginalizing your points as they well should be.
 
Why is that so different though?

Are you serious?:confused: You don't see a difference between the implications of government paying for a select group of media outlets and FCC regulation of all media outlets?
 
so the troll accusation is an excuse for censorship around here. that doesn't seem to jive with the spirit of libertarianism, now does it?
 
Back
Top Bottom