Who said it was easy?
I have about zero idea of how to stop people from being weak willed individuals, maybe promote a different mindset early on in school age children.
But one thing we can certainly do is go back to putting personal responsibility on the people making the choices they make and stop excusing poor choice.
Right. You have zero idea to back up what you say off the top of your head. And you can't give a forthright reply to my questions. If you can't debate forthrightly, see you on another thread.
The bolded answered all of your questions since all your questions were about personal choice. So yes, I answered, forthrightly.Who said it was easy?
I have about zero idea of how to stop people from being weak willed individuals, maybe promote a different mindset early on in school age children.
But one thing we can certainly do is go back to putting personal responsibility on the people making the choices they make and stop excusing poor choice.
The bolded answered all of your questions since all your questions were about personal choice. So yes, I answered, forthrightly.
Ultimately what I think is that the US has gotten weak. Weak minded individuals that are willing to let someone else tell them how to think and what to feel.
We should hold our media and the reporting that comes out from them accountable, using the dollars and sense that we purport to have.
This issue is much akin to our political sphere today.
Maybe we need to remove funding from the media or disallow editorial comments from "news" sources?
So while both sides get some share of the blame, the blame ultimately lies with the people since the people allow it to continue.
Agreed as demonstrated most recently by the suppression and gaslighting surrounding the Hunter's laptop story.Most media bias is accomplished by simple omission (they decide what should not be “news”), which is clearly impossible to stop or regulate. The NYT says it best with their slogan: All the news that’s fit to print. The obvious implication is that they (carefully?) select which “news” items are worthy of their presentation.
Wouldn't this be a direct 1st A violation?It would be unconstitutional to disallow (outlaw?) editorial comments.
For a good while now, I have thought that one of the main problems we have today is the way reporting is allowed to continue down a path of misinformation driven by a narrative that they want to promote. OR, people have changed to want to kneejerk react and rush to judge something without any facts to actually judge.
We used to be a wait and get the facts type of country, now it seems as if everything is a rush to judgement based upon incomplete, or misleading reporting.
Whose fault do you lay blame with? The media or the people who do so?
How do we stop it?
It would be unconstitutional to disallow (outlaw?) editorial comments.
No.Wouldn't this be a direct 1st A violation?
Kinda like the government outlawing editorial comments? As was posted below?No.
The 1st amendment prevents the government from interfering with free speech, not privately owned companies.
Most media bias is accomplished by simple omission (they decide what should not be “news”), which is clearly impossible to stop or regulate. The NYT says it best with their slogan: All the news that’s fit to print. The obvious implication is that they (carefully?) select which “news” items are worthy of their presentation.
It would be unconstitutional to disallow (outlaw?) editorial comments.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Where is the government mentioned in @ttwtt78640’s posts?Kinda like the government outlawing editorial comments? As was posted below?
Most media bias is accomplished by simple omission (they decide what should not be “news”), which is clearly impossible to stop or regulate. The NYT says it best with their slogan: All the news that’s fit to print. The obvious implication is that they (carefully?) select which “news” items are worthy of their presentation.
It would be unconstitutional to disallow (outlaw?) editorial comments.
No.
The 1st amendment prevents the government from interfering with free speech, not privately owned companies.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Where is the government mentioned in @ttwtt78640’s posts?
Maybe we need to remove funding from the media or disallow editorial comments from "news" sources?
You directly addressed the possibility that disallowing editorial comments would be unconstitutional.How, exactly, could a privately owned company “outlaw” anything?
It wouldn’t be.It would be unconstitutional to disallow (outlaw?) editorial comments.
You directly addressed the possibility that disallowing editorial comments would be unconstitutional.
It wouldn’t be.
Who outlaws things? Isn't that the government?Where is the government mentioned in @ttwtt78640’s posts?
I don't think it has anything to do with weak. I think it is a combination of the media chasing profits over accuracy with a decent admit of bias through in and we the people who are more interested in confirmation bias and gossip then what is actually going on in the world.Ultimately what I think is that the US has gotten weak. Weak minded individuals that are willing to let someone else tell them how to think and what to feel.
We should hold our media and the reporting that comes out from them accountable, using the dollars and sense that we purport to have.
This issue is much akin to our political sphere today.
Maybe we need to remove funding from the media or disallow editorial comments from "news" sources?
So while both sides get some share of the blame, the blame ultimately lies with the people since the people allow it to continue.
“We” aren’t the government.I was replying to the content of post #17:
That was clearly calling for outside (presumably governmental) action. To try to assert that “we should disallow” meant the news media should voluntarily take some (internal?) action is ridiculous.
“We” aren’t the government.
I was replying to the content of post #17:
Also, what 'funding from the media' are we talking about here? In general use, this would mean some sort of funding of media by the government, which I would be very strongly against, i.e. state controlled media issues, there.. . .
Maybe we need to remove funding from the media or disallow editorial comments from "news" sources?
. . .
Agreed.That was clearly calling for outside (presumably governmental) action. To try to assert that “we should disallow” meant the news media should voluntarily take some (internal?) action is ridiculous.
“We” news consumers are the ones that fund newspapers, etc. with our dollars, not the government.“We” aren’t a media corporation.
“We” news consumers are the ones that fund newspapers, etc. with our dollars, not the government.
Delivering newspapers was my first job. I remember saving up to buy the cool new Atari Pong game.Not really, it’s mostly funded by advertising revenue. Back in the days when I delivered newspapers, not one dime of my customer’s subscription revenue went to those producing the newspapers - it all went to covering distribution costs.
Delivering newspapers was my first job. I remember saving up to buy the cool new Atari Pong game.
I also remember selling ad space to local Albertsons and Winn-Dixie grocery stores, and understand the basics of how newspapers made their money.
There’s no way that you, as a kid, would know where the money you collected from customers and handed over to your agent, went.
The agent/distributor works for the newspaper, and hires/manages the deliveries. At least, that’s how it worked where I lived as a kid.I was told by my distributor that it went into his pocket. Rest assured that the distributors (agents) do not buy the papers (which they deliver to the local paper boys/girls) at anywhere near the actual cost of production.
Not entirely.News REPORTING, in an ideal world, is REPORTING.
Unfortunately, News REPORTING ha been replaced by propaganda.
There's your first mistake, right there. Why would anyone count on cable news as their primary sources? For one thing, it's never in depth. It's loaded with slanted 'analysts' who try to persuade us how to view the news.During the 2016 election, I did a lot of driving between accounts and had the opportunity to listen to the "reporting" from FOX and CNN with Satellite Radio.
Nothing wrong with reading BBC and AlJazeera, etc.In order to get anything even near the truth about US national news, I need to seek it from sources outside our borders.
I think we've always had to do that. At least it's how I was taught.We have been forced to triangulate what is accurate based on after the fact review of what actually happened. We are forced to always ask this one question:
"If this is true, what else must be true?"
You cannot disallow editorials. What you can do is not fund them.Most media bias is accomplished by simple omission (they decide what should not be “news”), which is clearly impossible to stop or regulate. The NYT says it best with their slogan: All the news that’s fit to print. The obvious implication is that they (carefully?) select which “news” items are worthy of their presentation.
It would be unconstitutional to disallow (outlaw?) editorial comments.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?