Should government shut down media sources that tell "lies"?

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
You're engaging in name calling and personal attacks but I'm the "dick"? Thanks bud.
If the shoe fits, wear it. I didn't actually call you a dick by the way, insofar as you didn't call everyone who argues with you a hateful bigot who lacks the intelligence to hold their own in an argument. Civil or snarky, either ways fine by me.
Anyway, back to the topic, wouldn't our country be better if the government was empowered to shut down media outlets that tell lies?
Given your obvious political leanings, and your vehement defense of Fox News, I suppose the question would be what news outlets you consider to be liars.
 

nicecircjob

Cherished Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2008
Posts
1,007
Media
0
Likes
272
Points
148
Location
Dallas Texas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm opposed to any form of censorship. That is a dangerous path to take. Who decides who can speak and who can't have a say? Crazy idea if you ask me. Why give away that right to freely speak? Freedom of speech should be protected for everyone. Gee.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,851
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
That's because the views you are expressing have been propagated by a MISUNDERSTANDING of the values from a single study. Even after such views were debunked, they have continued to perpetuate themselves, and they have only done so in a small portion of HIGHLY CONSERVATIVE circles. So yes, it narrows down the tone of what you've been listening to.

Here's a fact for you. If I make a sandwich and sell it on the street corner, the prices at Subway do not decrease. If I make a million sandwiches, Subway doesn't care. Supply has increased, but not enough to matter compared to the mammoth that is Subway. Additionally, Subway's prices are controlled by their corporate headquarters, and even the Subways in an area saturated with my sandwiches WILL NOT lower their prices.

It would be much the same with the oil. Here's the unbridled truth from that study, If we harnessed all oil resources under US control, nationalized them to prevent use or price fixing by other countries or OPEC, and extracted enough to cover the oil consumption of the US, our oil reserves would be completely depleted in about one year. We do not have enough here to realistically affect the prices. Furthermore, if it was being extracted at that rate, the fact of the matter is that the companies extracting it are not under US control, and will have absolutely no reason to sell it cheap enough to make $2 gas a reality.

JT:banghead2:panda

Buddy you'll give yourself a headache trying to get through to him
 

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
You wouldn't have called me out if I was posting a pro-liberal point of view, would you?

Absolutely. I don't have a party or political affiliation. I am neither a liberal, a conservative, a whatever. Buuut--and I'm sure that you saw this coming--the fact that you immediately attributed my disagreement with your tactics to being a liberal says a lot. Do you always label people with whom you disagree, or am I special :biggrin1:?
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
JT:banghead2:panda

Buddy you'll give yourself a headache trying to get through to him
Nah, I've got a pretty hard head. I actually kind of enjoy counter trolling. People come in, expecting to shout "Fire!" get everyone all in a tizzy, and I like meeting them with calm sensible arguments that make people step back and realize what's really going on. I'm sure many may judge by the frequency of my posts that I actually care about the subject to the extent that I'm getting upset, but I actually enjoy matching trolls tit for tat. It amuses me to watch them dance back and forth, retract and represent arguments, dissect your posts to try to play victim. I find it very entertaining. When it's no longer the case, I leave.

I realize I'll never get through to Panda, but I'm not really trying to, much like he's not really trying to convince others with his passive aggressive inflammatory comments. If I care about the subject at all though, I'll debate them anyway. If I make them look like an uneducated fool and then leave when I'm done, they may think they won because I left first. But if everyone watching saw them exposed for what they are, who really won that argument?
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
Absolutely. I don't have a party or political affiliation. I am neither a liberal, a conservative, a whatever. Buuut--and I'm sure that you saw this coming--the fact that you immediately attributed my disagreement with your tactics to being a liberal says a lot. Do you always label people with whom you disagree, or am I special :biggrin1:?

I didn't call you a liberal but it was my mistaken hunch that you were. Sorry.
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
Here's a fact for you. If I make a sandwich and sell it on the street corner, the prices at Subway do not decrease. If I make a million sandwiches, Subway doesn't care. Supply has increased, but not enough to matter compared to the mammoth that is Subway. Additionally, Subway's prices are controlled by their corporate headquarters, and even the Subways in an area saturated with my sandwiches WILL NOT lower their prices.

It would be much the same with the oil. Here's the unbridled truth from that study, If we harnessed all oil resources under US control, nationalized them to prevent use or price fixing by other countries or OPEC, and extracted enough to cover the oil consumption of the US, our oil reserves would be completely depleted in about one year. We do not have enough here to realistically affect the prices. Furthermore, if it was being extracted at that rate, the fact of the matter is that the companies extracting it are not under US control, and will have absolutely no reason to sell it cheap enough to make $2 gas a reality.

So you're of the belief that, if the supply of domestic oil was tripled, it wouldn't reduce the price at the pump? And if I don't share your view that makes me a troll, right? If I agree with your point of view then does that mean I'm no longer a troll?
 

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I didn't call you a liberal but it was my mistaken hunch that you were. Sorry.

Ah, you didn't call me a liberal--but how many conservatives do you know with "pro-liberal points of view"? :redface: Watch those rocks, my friend :wink:. I read very well between the margins and between the lines.

Apology accepted, and I thank you for it. It seems there isn't a terrible amount of civility here lately so it's refreshing. But it's all right because I get mistaken party-identity a lot from both sides of the aisle. There are conservative issues with which I agree and liberal issue with which I agree; what I personally do is 1) never take anything at face value and always research ad nauseum, 2) take each issue as a separate entity and not an indication of a sweeping pledge of allegiance. That normally keeps my head on pretty straight and prevents me from turning to one of those scary people on the news. Which I don't watch, by the way...lol.
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
Ah, you didn't call me a liberal--but how many conservatives do you know with "pro-liberal points of view"? :redface: Watch those rocks, my friend :wink:. I read very well between the margins and between the lines.

Apology accepted, and I thank you for it. It seems there isn't a terrible amount of civility here lately so it's refreshing. But it's all right because I get mistaken party-identity a lot from both sides of the aisle. There are conservative issues with which I agree and liberal issue with which I agree; what I personally do is 1) never take anything at face value and always research ad nauseum, 2) take each issue as a separate entity and not an indication of a sweeping pledge of allegiance. That normally keeps my head on pretty straight and prevents me from turning to one of those scary people on the news. Which I don't watch, by the way...lol.

Cool. Thank you too for your civility. I don't know this for a fact but I believe there are many conservatives that have no problem with gay people being married and adopting children. I know there are many that are opposed to those things too. But nobody is going to win or lose an election based on those two topics. Sorry, but there are more important issues to the majority in this country than gay rights. To me the biggest issue is how to have a productive and prosperous nation. While I'm not necessary in synch with Romney on some things, like gay rights, I do believe he will be a better president than Obama. Frankly, I don't really understand the infatuation my liberal friends have with giving our government more and more money for them to squander. I would like to have a government that is looking for ways to decrease spending as opposed to what they're doing now. For that view I'll be coined a "crazy, racist tea-bagger that hates poor people". Oh well, I've been called worse! :biggrin1:
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
Where was my "vehement" defense of Fox News?
Quickly defending Fox News by saying they have liberal employees as well, thus defending their validity as a news network. Your counterattacks on NBC, twisting my assertation that Fox News was actually improving into an accusation that other news outlets needed to improve because they lie. Your statements of ideas espoused by Fox News personalities (offshore drilling, views of liberals). You don't need to actively use the words "Fox News" to defend them and the stances they have. Emulating those stances is enough. Even your use of the word "liberal" as an insulting label is fairly telling. If you actually had a broader understanding of political ideologies, you'd probably understand that most people in the media don't use liberal as insult.

Then again, you'd probably also realize that "Left-wing" and "fascist" are polar opposites.
So you're of the belief that, if the supply of domestic oil was tripled, it wouldn't reduce the price at the pump? And if I don't share your view that makes me a troll, right? If I agree with your point of view then does that mean I'm no longer a troll?
No, disagreeing with me doesn't make you a troll. Intent is everything with trolling, and I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what you were doing when you created this thread... and six others. All with fairly unsubtle initial posts trying to trick unwary posters with leftist philosophies into a logical trap, or send them into blind rage. You're really not as clever as you think.

If the supply of domestic oil was tripled AND it all remained in the United States AND pricing wasn't subject to OPEC regulation AND the companies that drilled it up chose to take a MASSIVE hit to their profits for selling it at a fraction of what they could get for it elsewhere, then yes it could lower gas prices. What you don't seem to understand is that the companies that drill and supply oil are not strictly American companies. They're multinational conglomerates who can afford to take their product wherever it gets them the most money. They would never, ever, ever choose to sell their product for half (or less) of what they could get for it elsewhere. Why would they? Can you give me one reason why this elaborate web of conditions that would need to be met in order for our prices at the pump to be lessened would ever come to pass?

And for the record, drilling wouldn't triple our supply of oil. You can't give me any numbers which prove otherwise because they don't exist.

Cool. Thank you too for your civility. I don't know this for a fact but I believe there are many conservatives that have no problem with gay people being married and adopting children. I know there are many that are opposed to those things too. But nobody is going to win or lose an election based on those two topics. Sorry, but there are more important issues to the majority in this country than gay rights. To me the biggest issue is how to have a productive and prosperous nation. While I'm not necessary in synch with Romney on some things, like gay rights, I do believe he will be a better president than Obama. Frankly, I don't really understand the infatuation my liberal friends have with giving our government more and more money for them to squander. I would like to have a government that is looking for ways to decrease spending as opposed to what they're doing now. For that view I'll be coined a "crazy, racist tea-bagger that hates poor people". Oh well, I've been called worse! :biggrin1:
I would prefer that we decrease government spending, make what we do spend more efficient, and spend it on more worthwhile endeavors. That said, I espouse many liberal views, and don't think we should "give government more and more money to squander". I'd like to see the government make better use of what it has, but I also don't have a problem with something like a tax raise if it helps the country as a whole. And when said tax comes down, I'll pay it rather than whining like a bitch about it. Fair is fair. I just want it to go where it would actually help.

By the way, I don't think I've ever heard a single person give a wholehearted endorsement of Romney. Not even of Fox News, and that's saying something. I have no idea how he'll even keep this election close, much less win it.
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
Like I said, we can agree to disagree.

Anyway, since we're already way off topic anyway, what do you believe could be done to reduce the cost of gasoline?
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
Like I said, we can agree to disagree.

Anyway, since we're already way off topic anyway, what do you believe could be done to reduce the cost of gasoline?
Since we're past the point where we dominate usage of it in the market, not much. The world population has recently passed the point where we are using fossil fuels faster than the planet can replenish them, so relying on them is officially no longer sustainable practice for the long term. We can still use them, but we'd have to be more efficient about it, using more public transportation and having more energy efficient vehicles, etc.

Alternative fuel sources could work, but ethanol's not worth it. Time will tell if we can find another source that is.

In the long term, since so much of the usage is now outside the US, we might actually be at the point where there's nothing we can do about it. It's almost an American symbol for everyone to own and operate a vehicle, but we might be heading toward a time when that is no longer the case. I think public transportation use and development will increase tremendously in the next couple of decades as the price for operating a car continues to rise.

I think that looking at the gas prices might honestly be missing the point. If the world's oil usage is not sustainable, the lifestyle is unsustainable, and prices will continue to rise until people can't afford it. We'll need to either fundamentally change how we approach the issue or radically change the world environment we're in, and I'm not for bombing the shit out of China. We've still got plenty of time to decide what to do, but our country's not exactly known for its decisive action at the moment.
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
You know, I would love to not have to have a car. Aside from the initial and significant acquisition cost, the cost of gas and maintenance is also expensive, or at least I think it is. But, I live in a suburb. I actually think it would be cool to live in a city and NOT own a car.

Do you think Obama will win the election if gas goes to $5 per gallon nationwide? I don't think it's Obama's fault but I think a lot of independents will vote against him if gas prices and unemployment remains high.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,851
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Do you think Obama will win the election if gas goes to $5 per gallon nationwide? I don't think it's Obama's fault but I think a lot of independents will vote against him if gas prices and unemployment remains high.

Contradiction?

The war on women by Obama has been especially effective by jacking up the costs of gas and groceries.


Just an hour earlier you posted this in the War on Women thread. So what do you truly believe? Is this proof that you are merely trying to stir things up?
 
1

185248

Guest
What say you?
I believe if a 'source' cannot back up it's claims or story. Most certainly. Some things resonate honesty, and some do not. Journalism and Novelism are to close together these days.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

D_Sal_Manilla

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Posts
1,022
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
73
Sexuality
No Response
No because it becomes a Domino effect. First they start with the liars, then the continue with those who don't approve of their ideas, and they finally stop by controlling media altogether.
 

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
193
Gender
Male
I do think that changes and better definitions in both news reporting and political campaigns are needed. At the same time we are supposed to have a "free press" and this is where the problem lies.

One of the biggest problems we have with news these days is the fight among outlets be they print or transmission based is ratings. Ratings and drawing an audience now are more important than ever with the vast availability of free news from the internet.

Much like political campaigns sometimes in their zealous effort to compete for ratings and sponsorship which pays their salaries and provides the money these entities end up manufacturing or using questionable methods to obtain the news they print or broadcast.

Though there are different opinions to this day, many years ago there was a pre-school in Los Angeles run by a family named McMartin. This preschool was accused by numerous media outlets of being an absolutely unheard of hotbed of child molestation based on the testimony of a single child who it was proven later had been coached. The trial for the McMartin case went on endlessly and an entire family was destroyed by accusation and innuendo. In the end the whole thing turned out to be a scam where children had been encouraged and coached in lies by parents and by others looking for financial gain. People went to jail only to be exonerated in the end and this went on for years. This was a case where implication and fact became muddied together in a quagmire of unbelievable proportions. There have been many others and on occasion these have gone both ways. Where a media circus completely destroyed a family and relatives innocent and proven so with regards to the McMartin family, the exact opposite took place when we came to the original trial of Orenthal J. Simpson. A different kind of media driven circus resulted in a fellow most likely guilty of a murder winning his freedom.

The media in the case of "O.J." took jurists of all descriptions and turned them into "media stars" with the short term fame actually having a major effect on the outcome of a trial.

By the time that this whole thing took place, Simpson was a total "washed up has-been" and his life was not great. "The Dream Team" of lawyers knew that if they managed to get Simpson off the hook that wealth would be theirs by getting tons of high dollar high profile cases. We had a Judge in Lance Ito who was concerned about his "make-up" and he for a time became a media celebrity. We had an unstable and mentally overworked member of the Coroner's Office who had to go and prove his instability and we had a Los Angeles Police Officer of Questionable ethics and opinions who had his career destroyed based on his less than brilliant testimony.

This trial was totally media driven.

I am hopeful that we do not see this kind of circus in Florida with the Trial of Zimmerman and the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Right now the "personalities" seeking recognition and wanting some high end cases to help their bank accounts are starting to give their "opinions" and we have a situation where there is questionable conduct on the part of the perpetrator. Anyone who is a first year law student knows well that a school suspension for Trayvon Martin is totally irrelevant to his killing by an untrained self-appointed "neighborhood watch" individual. In the teachings of Neighborhood Watch people are taught that your job is being a pair of eyes for legitimate trained law enforcement. Zimmerman made a conscious choice to first carry a loaded weapon and secondly to use that weapon. The riots that started in the Watts Section of Los Angeles in 1965 and the repeat which was the result of a media driven frenzy over multiple errors in the beating of Rodney King the trial problems and then the riots that followed proved again that there were layered problems creating a set of conditions which destroyed the lives and property of many. In the end however the media did do good in that it was uncovered that in the guise of "contempt of cop" a number of trained law enforcement individuals mercilessly beat a man, presented false evidence, and this in the end did clean up some rather bad parts of several law enforcement agencies that based on the happenings needed cleaning. While it seemed media driven, the digging and reporting of the media while confusing did not specifically cause the problems.

The Original Question: "Should the Government shut down media" now re-emerges.
In the case of the 1965 Watts riots the media did not cause or in fact do anything other than report the facts as they happened. When it came to the Rodney King Situation the media and their reporting in fact uncovered in the end the problems layered together that caused the entire disaster. In those two cases the media distinguished themselves by simply presenting what had happened as it happened and reporting accordingly. In neither case did the media in fact cause the riots that took place.

In the case of Simpson the media actually managed to set legal precedent in that trial proceedings were impacted by the presence and the coverage. While the end results were not wonderful, we learned from Simpson. The media in the Simpson case should have had incredible restrictions placed and the circus aspects should have been removed. The moment Lance Ito as a Judge sensed the problem he should have cleaned it out and he did have the power to do this. The ultimate failure to me in this was Judge Lance Ito.

That was a learning experience for the legal system too.

Where the real case of the media on trial will come is from our old friend Rupert Murdoch and NewsCorp.

Individuals who may or may not have been working for NewsCorp in order to get stories resorted to the hacking of private cellular telephone transmissions, the hacking and theft of personal e-mails between family members discussing sensitive issues between family members and a generally legally unprecedented invasion of privacy which is far different.

Agencies in the U.K. are investigating NewsCorp and I would like to think that the same is true of agencies in other locations where the influences of NewsCorp and Rupert Murdoch are a reality.

If it had not been for hacked and tapped cellular telephone calls of members of the Royal Family in the U.K., none of this might have come to light.

In a Court of Law illegally obtained evidence is not admissible. The implications of what were done in the U.K., by NewsCorp go far beyond the illicit or tantalizing, they become matters of National Security and personal privacy for even your innermost thoughts.

My personal belief is that NewsCorp should be very heavily investigated and the policies of this major news conglomerate should be checked and news gathering or "acquisition" methods should be investigated world wide.

If NewsCorp were found to be guilty of using illegal methods to gather information then in fact the Government absolutely positively should shut down all outlets for the convicted corporation. You cannot in a case like this "slap the wrist" and expect any form of meaningful change. Action must be extremely severe and uncompromising in every respect or we are all in incredible danger.

If illegal acquisition methods are found other than what has already taken place, then I do believe that NewsCorp should come to an end. I may not like their U.S. television outlets in the form of Fox, but, free speech is constitutionally protected. Illegal wiretaps and hacking of information are not rights and are not protected. That should end NewsCorp and all outlets instantly.