Liberal Forum

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 1:24 pm » wrote: You think you know that.

Please enloighten us and tell us what standards you are talking about. What exactly do you want the big bad government to regulate regarding journalists, whether the FCC regulated airwaves, or the cable channels?

I'd like to go back to the same rules we had before the madness, **** - back when phil donahue was "out ther on the edge."

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 1:24 pm » wrote: As a bonus question please tell us what cable news networks were around pre reagan? Or hell, pre clinton? CNN was around from 1980. And yes, please prove that a station not using public airways was regulated by the FCC.

Thanks.

A bonus would be for you to stop effeminately pretending that cable news doesn't use public resources. Cable companies are regulated monopolies.

Are we to take it that you defend that status quo, then? I keep putting that question, then answering yours, then putting it again.

You sure shy away from direct questions, mister wiggly piggly.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 12:32 pm » wrote: Depends on your definition of objective standards. That pesky first amendment gets in the way.

But I notice you are still reframing.

I notice that you edited the post I quoted after I quoted it.

But anyway, what specific standards?

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 1:29 pm » wrote:I'd like to go back to the same rules we had before the madness, **** - back when phil donahue was "out ther on the edge."
A bonus would be for you to stop effeminately pretending that cable news doesn't use public resources. Cable companies are regulated monopolies.

Are we to take it that you defend that status quo, then? I keep putting that question, then answering yours, then putting it again.

You sure shy away from direct questions, mister wiggly piggly.

What standards, pops? Stop the cluster ****. You haven't asked a direct quesion yet. You put out a generality and refuse to be specific. Explain what specific standards you want so it can be discussed. As far as the question in the thread title, I directly answered it.

Your **** problem is you do not like to be questioned.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 1:31 pm » wrote: I notice that you edited the post I quoted after I quoted it.

That happens to all of us - I've seen it happen to you. Never felt the need to make mention of it, as if there was some dark magic being played.

If you feel there's been foul play, name it.

Show us the change, and tell us my base motive for it.

If not, refrain from idle sissy chatter.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 1:31 pm » wrote: But anyway, what specific standards?

Asked and answered. I would like to go back to the regulations of the pre-1980s, TO WIT: Mass Media must serve the public good, or it stands to lose its licensing.

That was the status quo in the America we grew up in. I would like to go back to that preferred status quo. And that is a conservative stance, son.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 1:33 pm » wrote: What standards, pops? Stop the cluster ****. You haven't asked a direct quesion yet.

Just because you slide sideways at answer time, that doesn't mean the questions aren't asked, Dancey McDancealot.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 1:33 pm » wrote: Your **** problem is you do not like to be questioned.

The supreme irony.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 1:38 pm » wrote:Just because you slide sideways at answer time, that doesn't mean the questions aren't asked, Dancey McDancealot.
The supreme irony.

What specific sstandards pops?

Remember, as you twist and turn I have offered no opinion other than to directly answer the question in your thread title. By law, CNN has done nothing wrong. Anything else you are trying to pin on me is your usual psycho babble ****.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 1:36 pm » wrote:That happens to all of us - I've seen it happen to you. Never felt the need to make mention of it, as if there was some dark magic being played.

If you feel there's been foul play, name it.

Show us the change, and tell us my base motive for it.

If not, refrain from idle sissy chatter.
Asked and answered. I would like to go back to the regulations of the pre-1980s, TO WIT: Mass Media must serve the public good, or it stands to lose its licensing.

That was the status quo in the America we grew up in. I would like to go back to that preferred status quo. And that is a conservative stance, son.

Well, cable media does not use public airways, does not have an FCC license. THey are out of the equation.

Again, are you talking about the fairness doctrine for the news on public airways? Who determines the public good? Again, you throw out a general question and then expect me to answer.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 1:42 pm » wrote: What specific sstandards pops?

Asked and answered. PRECISELY.

Keep dancing.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 1:45 pm » wrote: Well, cable media does not use public airways, does not have an FCC license. THey are out of the equation.

How is their product delivered to market?

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 1:46 pm » wrote:How is their product delivered to market?

They are a paid subscriber cable network. Or thru sattelite.

They do not use the airwaves put aside by government.

Hence, no license like a radio or TV station.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 1:45 pm » wrote:Asked and answered. PRECISELY.

Keep dancing.

Well, since you continue to speak in generalities, refuse to specify, I have no answer. I haven't danced. I have made no comment other than to directly answer the question you asked in the thread title.

By law, cnn has done nothing wrong.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 1:47 pm » wrote: They are a paid subscriber cable network. Or thru sattelite.

Cable companies are regulated monopolies. They can be told to drop stations which violate public standards. As to who should promulgate those standards, that has always been the FCC.

Sattelites likewise use ground based towers to bounce off, all over the place - and those frequencies ARE set aside and licensed, and can be policed.

A nation which has an out of control, utterly unanswerable mass-media, operated by multinational corporations, can hardly be considered sovereign.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 1:47 pm » wrote: They are a paid subscriber cable network. Or thru sattelite.

They do not use the airwaves put aside by government.

Hence, no license like a radio or TV station.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 1:51 pm » wrote:Cable companies are regulated monopolies. They can be told to drop stations which violate public standards. As to who should promulgate those standards, that has always been the FCC.

Sattelites likewise use ground based towers to bounce off, all over the place - and those frequencies ARE set aside and licensed, and can be policed.

A nation which has an out of control, utterly unanswerable mass-media, operated by multinational corporations, can hardly be considered sovereign.

You are conflating the cable company with the broadcast company. Who is your issue with?

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 1:53 pm » wrote: You are conflating the cable company with the broadcast company. Who is your issue with?

Both - thanks for asking.

I have bent over backwards to be clear in what I want - just as far over backwards as you have bent to leave yourself escape hatches and avoid direct questions. Instead of taking a stand, you keep trying to attack mine, and pretending that my position is opaque. Why don't you call it a day, son? This is a peanut gallery thread, and I paid for the privilege of either getting honest answers, or deleting what I consider spam posts.

If you do not wish to share your feeling on the issue of out of control media, do just please be on your way.

charles.thompson » 20 Jan 2017 1:23 pm » wrote:What straw man suggested arresting the CEO of CNN or any of their employees? can you find me one? Conservatives are simply correctly pointing out that CNN sucks. It is not a reliable news source.

I can show you conservatives stating they should lose their license to operate, but I won't bother.

It's clear that you feel they should go unpunished - and you have a right to that opinion. Thanks for stopping by.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 1:51 pm » wrote: A nation which has an out of control, utterly unanswerable mass-media, operated by multinational corporations, can hardly be considered sovereign.

This.^

The truth is that the days of being able to demand that "the media" communicates information based on verifiable (and verified) facts is past - and it's an issue.

As technologies converge, start-ups are cheap and easy to initiate and massive audiences are only a click (or a viral post) away, who should be regulated, and by who?

At what point does an organisation become "mass media"? Is it a certain number of employees? A certain "readership"/audience? A newspaper or a cable company is easily identifiable, but what about a group of 6 people working in someone's basement? One person? Where does the line get drawn?

What about media created by the public? Facebook? Twitter?

Do we look at the channels and regulate those to the point that we place impossible demands on new companies? Could Facebook verify every post or share? Not realistically.

So we are left with us, the recipients. We could make it easier to sue, I guess - at least make the publication of lies about us constitute libel/slander (without having to show malicious intent as well - which may encourage at least a modicum of verification).

It isn't enough. We're ****. Unless someone has a plan that doesn't gut free speech.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 11:58 am » wrote:This has to do with your philosophy, FAR more than it has to do with existing law.

Existing law is irrelevant, as enforcement mechanisms have been corrupted.

A big part of the corruption is your corrupt philosophy of government. Under the rules of FDR, corporations were required to operate in the public good, and THEN to the benefit of share holders.

Under Reagan's rules, their requirements were reduced to only the latter - benefiting share holders.

Since there is a mighty screech going on from conjobs about fake news, I'm checking in with you girls to see whether you are merely whining and crying even while winning, or if you have come around to MY view that corporations should be required to operate in the public interest or not at all.

From your answer, I divine that it's whining and crying, as regards fake news. Y'all don't want ot actually DO anything - just wanna bellyache.

You are also historically wrong. The FCC under Reagan abolished the fairness doctrine.

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/ ... s-doctrine

What led to massive corporate ownership, particularly in the radio industry, was the Telecommunications Act of 1996 signed by Bill Clinton:

https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996

Your hatred of all things Reagan has led to make major mistakes on this thread.

This is why I asked you to be specific. All Reagan did was support the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine. So no, I do not believe that is needed today.

What you meant to ask is should we return to the rules that Clinton removed.

I have been waiting for you to realize this, pops. I worked in the radio industry following the enactment of that bill.

Huey » 21 Jan 2017 10:10 am » wrote: You are also historically wrong. The FCC under Reagan abolished the fairness doctrine.

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/ ... s-doctrine

What led to massive corporate ownership, particularly in the radio industry, was the Telecommunications Act of 1996 signed by Bill Clinton:

https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996

Your hatred of all things Reagan has led to make major mistakes on this thread.

I don't hate reagan, dimwit - I hate trickledown.

You act as if you're ambushing me with the knowledge that his successors stayed the trickle down course - including obama. I point that out because most of you people are so stupid, you thought he was different than bush.

Given the number of times I have told YOU that my enemy is tricke down,which is a direct assault on the middle class, I have to assume you're slow on the uptake - and I think it would be unfair of ANYONE to blame me for it.

Huey » 21 Jan 2017 10:10 am » wrote: This is why I asked you to be specific. All Reagan did was support the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine. So no, I do not believe that is needed today.

What you meant to ask is should we return to the rules that Clinton removed.[/quote[ The rules reaganomics, aka voodoo economics, aka trickle down, removed. I give a **** which president signed it - if it had been reagan, that would have meant a democrat congress sent it to is desk. Thanks for defending them and putting the blame where it belongs: on one neocon president working hand in glove against America with a republican house and senate.

You waitin on me, chubby hubby, you're walkin backwards.

Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2017 1:53 pm » wrote:I don't hate reagan, dimwit - I hate trickledown.

You act as if you're ambushing me with the knowledge that his successors stayed the trickle down course - including obama. I point that out because most of you people are so stupid, you thought he was different than bush.

Given the number of times I have told YOU that my enemy is tricke down,which is a direct assault on the middle class, I have to assume you're slow on the uptake - and I think it would be unfair of ANYONE to blame me for it.
You waitin on me, chubby hubby, you're walkin backwards.

Spin ya **** Dishonest turd, spin.

The reason I point out which president did it was because you keep whI gave about what Reagan did to gut the rules. That is why I kept asking what the **** you were asking specifically because all that the FCC did under Reagan was abolish the fairness doctrine. Then in typical whiny fashion you refused to specify. I asked your ignorant *** numerous **** times if you wanted a return to the fairness doctrine. I did not ambush you ya **** psycho, I gave you every god damn opportunity to correct yourself. You are too **** arrogant, king ****, to ever admit you were at fault,

Now, ya piece of ****, specify what exactly you want me to comment on, or shut **** up because I have thoroughly kicked your miserable *** yet again.

Grow the **** up, little man.