The unofficial official "SMMFH" thread

Another shooting.....at a NorCal school.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nia-elementary-school/?utm_term=.cd644187db40

 

Just one more iteration of the same biased reporting.
Nothing new and no proof at all.

 

Interesting story but it says that Obama was good and Trump bad yet the large increase of ownership occurred under saint barrack when it almost doubled. So more bureaucrats AND more consolidation occurred under Obama.

 

There is a LOT of crazy to go around in that story.

I liked the comment from the drama queen a mile down the road claiming she could hear the kids laughing. Only with bionic ears.

Then add in professional pot farmer, who claims neighbors are cooking meth.

Sad result but a wild tale.

 

In your haste to assign political disfavor, you somehow missed the regulatory response to aggregation of ownership and what is in play right now. But no one in their right mind would assign you as a proponent of fairness doctrine, so there is that. Maybe you and IYC can go crawl under a rock and pretend none if this is happening, then come on here and say so. Oh, that's already happened.

 

It seems this is only big news because they somehow have a conservative tilt... ?

I dont see anything about them in ATL. I doubt the Tennis Channel is spewing political diatribes. If they broke rules about broadcasting an infomercial w/o the 'paid programming' lead in, then fine them.

What is the fear here? Could it not be said that the liberal tilt of ABC, NBC, and CBS far outweigh what this company could do? Do you believe they will stop broadcasting the ABC/CBS/NBC Nightly News on their stations?

 

So the doubling under Obama was fine but now it is evil The only 2 comments I made was the article ignored the run up under the king while blaming Trump which was a flaw in their logic. The other was earlier when I stated one of our 4 local stations belongs to them.

But since you attempted sheep rape here is the response. Why is it bad? Would it not be good to have a multitude of medium/large owners that are more capable of self generating content? If not what is the approved number of networks or content generators? I would argue that the networks impact opinion far more than the station owner as the content is mostly network generated.

So maybe we should imply fairness to them. Do you want Trump deciding how liberal content can be? Or can it only occur when a progressive is in charge? IMO the fairness doctrine is largely censorship and you only have to look back to when it was in force to see that the party in power will use it to silence opposition. Something that is bad for freedom regardless of who is in control.

EDIT: Let me add that the one controlled by them had a local father/son team that did news/events and it was kind cool but very down homish. That has stopped by either their decision, public support or retirement of the father. Regardless when they used the evil owner power my mother who was a fan of that show turned to one of the other three stations...... the horror!

 

The topic was mentioned to counteract a claim made that all media was liberal biased. The reality is not so clear, and the ramifications of mass ownership to the airwaves has obvious-- to some anyway -- significant downsides. The fact that the fairness doctrine is impugned by sheep, as above, should be enough evidence for anyone to see it. It would be so whether the mass was left-biased or right-biased. The airwaves are a common pool resource, and as such deserve protection from oligopoly.

 

Provided the protection is evenly applied?

 

The predictability of "it's unfair" vs "suck it up" responses in the dungeon are starting to make this place dull.

 

suck it up.

 

...that doesn't seem very fair.

 

whiner

 

Yep he failed to address a single question I had. I actually agree mass ownership is bad but then I think the content is more dangerous and currently there is a tiny number that control 95+% of creation. Also what is mass ownership? I also stated I did not care which party was in control it was bad. I guess it was easier for him to dismiss and denigrate that elaborate

 

Yes. In our system, wealth equates to power. Often, nay, most times, that disproportionally impacts the commoner.

I don't think you even read the article. If you mean your question about why the buildup under the previous administration, that would be evidence that the regulations passed were necessary. As for what is going on now, hence the reason it is critical of the current administration, its a process of rollback. The question why is it bad? That's been covered: oligopoly. And if you think I denigrated you by assigning you a dissenter to the fairness doctrine, you must have magically forgot what you wrote in your previous post. Jeezus.

 

So you're upset that it's out in the open (so to speak) while Soros' influence is all cloak and dagger like?

 

Oh, you mean the money he gave me for attending the Women's march? Damn. Do I have to report that to the IRS?

Jeezus.

 

Pretend none of what is happening?

 

So they passed them after 4 years of buildup? Or did they pass a bunch of regulations that had no effect? As to the fairness doctrine I made no comment though it is an act of censorship. Amusing how the left claims Trump is a fascist yet they want to censor opposition ('fairness'), surveil the press, use the government to coerce people (IRS) and control companies. As to the oligopoly I see your point but return to the greater evil of the networks which was not addressed by regulation. The networks are few and owned by the oligarchs also. Unlike the company in discussion their control is far closer to 100%.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-navy-pilot-draws-obscene-pictures-washington-state/ U.S. Navy confirms aircrew drew obscene pictures in sky over Washington state