General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThey keep talking to "Former Qanon", " Trump voter", "Proud Boy"
How about the New York Times, CNN and the rest of the media spent the same amount of time talking to some of the 84 million Biden voters who want some form of Healthcare for all, higher taxes on the rich, environmental regulations and renewable energy, available abortions, gun laws and a host of liberal policies.
Maybe then they wouldn't obsess with what the minority of people want and we can get some momentum behind policies that will actually help people and solve problems.
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,064 posts)brush
(53,924 posts)PSPS
(13,621 posts)The next thing you know, trump will start having "press briefings" from maralargo and getting live coverage.
Yeah, why not talk to that group?
Orangepeel
(13,933 posts)and talking to a crazy person is a "man bites dog" story
reACTIONary
(5,789 posts)SunSeeker
(51,746 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 30, 2021, 07:03 PM - Edit history (1)
And the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine made it many times worse.
reACTIONary
(5,789 posts)... print journalism. Furthermore, it required the coverage of controversial issues, which would mean they would have to cover the crazies.
SunSeeker
(51,746 posts)It applied to broadcast licensees. TV now can put a microphone to a RWNJ and is not required to give the other side (i.e. truth) equal time.
The demise of the Fairness Doctrine played a huge role in fomenting the rise of right wing radio and right wing propaganda in general.
Conservatives never liked the rule. As explained by historian Nicole Hemmer, who is also a co-editor of The Washington Posts historical analysis section, Made by History, an entire generation of conservatives believed that objectivity privileged the liberal establishment because the default views of most broadcasters aligned with those of the Democratic Party. Some local radio hosts flouted the rule by taking aggressively conservative stances on air, only to find the courts forcing their stations to provide equal time to the other side of the debate. When one right-wing radio host in Pennsylvania tried to discredit journalist Fred Crook by describing him as a potential communist, among other things, Crook asked for equal airtime. The Red Lion Broadcast Co. denied the request, but Crook took his case all the way to the Supreme Court and prevailed.
...
In 1987, the FCC announced that it would no longer enforce the Fairness Doctrine. The commission deemed that the expansion of cable television technology made old arguments about the scarcity of airtime irrelevant and that the doctrine inhibited broadcasters from tackling controversial issues. Reagans FCC promptly killed it. The Democratic Congress tried to restore the doctrine, but Reagan vetoed the bill.
Almost overnight, the media landscape was transformed. The driving force was talk radio. In 1960, there were only two all-talk radio stations in America; by 1995, there were 1,130. While television news on the old networks and the cable upstart CNN still adhered to the standard of objectivity, radio emerged as a wide-open landscape.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/17/how-policy-decisions-spawned-todays-hyperpolarized-media/
reACTIONary
(5,789 posts).... using the law to force others to listen when they don't want to. With cable and the the internet, there is more than enough bandwidth for everyone.
And then, of course, there is the issue of who defines what "fairness" is. We know that twitler constantly complains about how unfair the media is to him. I'm very glad he did not have a "fairness" doctrine to exploit.
SunSeeker
(51,746 posts)When broadcasting on public airwaves, both sides should be presented. It keeps people from being radicalized, where they only hear one side. Our country really was harmed by the loss of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. It was palpable how my friends and family, and the country, changed after that. People who used to be normal became right wing nutjobs divorced from the truth, since they never heard it.
reACTIONary
(5,789 posts).... that both sides aren't being heard, to the extent that either side's partisans and those in the middle want to listen.
Fox news isn't broadcast, so it wouldn't even be covered. NPR is, and actually IS a true public network. They have a program called "All Things Considered" which, if true to it's name, is the very essence of fairness. Do your friends and family watch it or listen to it? They can.
And even so, NPR is pressured and attacked for being "unfair". So who would benefit from a fairness doctrine? The crazies who would want more "very fine people" on NPR.
SunSeeker
(51,746 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 31, 2021, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)
NPR already gives both sides, but they have a tiny audience compared to talk radio and local TV, which are no longer bound by it and are presenting right wing nutjobs without pushback or opposing views. Fox isn't just the cable channel. Fox and Sinclair are both owned by right wingers, and own huge swaths of local broadcast stations. This isn't a matter of opinion for you to "disagree" with. It's a fact, whether you disagree or not.
reACTIONary
(5,789 posts)... the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, on first amendment, civil libertarian grounds. That is certainly well within my discretion.
I also disagree, or rather am skeptical of, the notion that the the repeal of the fairness doctrine was the cause of the facts you cite, or that its reinstatement would change them. Once again, this is a matter of discretion.
Finally I don't think it would be prudent to reinstate the fairness doctrine because I think it could be used as a tool against us. Once again, this is not a matter of fact, it is a hypothetical regarding future conditions and consequences.
So I have my opinions, skepticism, and concerns about potential consequences. You have yours. I don't think the facts definitively support one view or the other.
I think we are at the "agree to disagree" point.
OldBaldy1701E
(5,175 posts)but a for profit press would not be getting all the clicks on the crazy stories if our society was less... crazy?
wnylib
(21,664 posts)that helped put Trump in office in 2016. The media are aiding the terrorist elements in society by giving them a free public platform.
Time to e-mail or call the media who are doing this and point out what they are doing. Maybe contact their commercial sponsors with complaints. And then follow up with complaints about the media and their sponsors on social media.
Cozmo
(1,402 posts)SunSeeker
(51,746 posts)Oldem
(833 posts)and prescription drugs that makes your ears fall off and your teeth itch. Controversy draws viewers like dung draws beetles. They broadcast for advertisers, not for us. It got dump elected. He got thousands of hours of free publicity from the "news" networks. Faux isn't the only entertainment network posing as news. Everything is "Breaking" on CNN and MSNBC, even if it happened early that morning and it's now 11:00 PM. If we'd all back off and get out news from the late night comics , cable news would either straighten up or dry up and blow away.
hatrack
(59,594 posts).
dalton99a
(81,637 posts)Forgotten and IGNORED
ProfessorGAC
(65,248 posts)...was 78 million.
So, Biden won by 7 million, and all dems in the House by 6 million.
But, we keep hearing about "the plight" of the minority.
Initech
(100,108 posts)We must learn how things git as bad as they did. We cannot afford to have another Trump and we can't allow what happened on the 6th to happen again.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)not the majority wh voted for Biden.
Cozmo
(1,402 posts)When do we get a break? MSM is giving a platform to these poor deplorables. I thought FOX and OAN had the market on these freaks.
Ligyron
(7,639 posts)I borrowed that from earlier postings I remember from way back on DU but I find it so to be so true, especially since Chuck the Toddy is the host now.
Problem is, owners and the people in charge are by and large, Republicans.
Karadeniz
(22,587 posts)Ferrets are Cool
(21,110 posts)Never-Learners.
Karadeniz
(22,587 posts)Deplorables. Once evening comes, Cooper, Cuomo and Lemon have had it with Trumpers. I can't remember when exactly they rebelled against having surrogates, GOP strategists, etc., but one evening I noticed that both sides didn't exist anymore. MSNBC was never as "broad minded," so there wasn't as big a pivot. But now daytime CNN is exposing us to the deplorables again.
Perhaps if the nighttime commentators would start educating the viewers more about the definition of treason, the daytime people would become more emphatic about what they're really showing us instead of "rioters" or even "insurrectionists," which sounds serious, but probably doesn't mean anything to most people... when they came armed for violence against the govt, they crossed the line into T.
marble falls
(57,355 posts)... news.
plimsoll
(1,671 posts)Every time they get interviewed the media is saying you matter. Those other 83 million people, they're not special.
They just keep re-enforcing the white privilege.
Tell me why your opinion matters and those other peoples don't.
Tell me why not getting your way is clearly unconstitutional.
We wonder why they think they're special? The entire American media environment is organized around telling them they're special.
marble falls
(57,355 posts)Frerotte
(71 posts)Start to pour out our voices on their programming! Over and over.
I can't understand why they don't do this?
I don't want to hear so much about the "deploreables."
Of course a bit here and there but not the massive news drop that is currently the norm.
plimsoll
(1,671 posts)Dukkha
(7,341 posts)They made that monster and they'll continue to feed it.
42bambi
(1,753 posts)camera is on us, lose the crazy and speak loud and clear about our plans for the future.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,047 posts)UCmeNdc
(9,601 posts)Why is that?
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,446 posts)and similar observations have been made elsewhere, the media actually does have a lot of different biases and one of them is being biased against any policies that could be looked at as "anti-corporate", so they tend to ignore people pushing those kind of policies.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,446 posts)I don't get their weird fetish(?) for speaking with these looney tunes. Either they sympathize with these folks or they have some need of drama that they can only get from right wing loons. They just seem to prefer interviewing some much more entertaining people that should probably be mental institutions getting the proper mental health care and treatment because of their predilection to harm others instead of sifting through the sober policy details of, say, Medicare For All. Trump never won the popular vote and 2016 Hillary supporters were left out in the cold while outlets like NYT had a laser-like focus on the Trump voters and they're pretty much ignoring all of the millions of triumphant Biden voters and now focusing on the defeated Trump voters and Qanon freaks. I don't get it.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,572 posts)I may be wrong, of course, but I think that good governance is intrinsically uninteresting, except to wonks. There is a vast gulf between the wonks:100 here, as to the wonks:100 in the general population.
Those cretins, on the other hand, are like a sideshow for the population. "Soon the Gypsy Queen, in a glaze of Vaseline will perform on guillotine, what scene, what a scene."
They have never watched ridiculous-looking people like these get on TV and be their crazy selves, unabashed in front of millions. Maybe wanting to have their psychoses paraded in front of millions.
Honest to God, there are some that would watch a public execution. Now THERE are some family values.
But how many people have ever even seen, let alone met, a loon like QAnon Shaman? Or hear people - even people in GOVERNMENT, for the love of God - say that a former Presidential candidate, someone who has been in the public eye since the 80's, sacrifices children and drinks their blood?
A large swath of the population just can't look away. That kind of spectacle builds ratings. A bill working its way through Congress doesn't.
reACTIONary
(5,789 posts)pnwmom
(109,009 posts)the government and have retreated to regroup.
I don't think the best response is to ignore them.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)The last thing the media is doing is ignore them, they are obsessed with them.
Its the majority Biden voters being ignored.
malaise
(269,219 posts)Rec
Nitram
(22,913 posts)normal life. But I understand the impulse to try to understand what we are up against. There are millions of them, they vote, and if this country is going to survive as a democracy, we have to reclaim a significant number of them. We can't do that unless we know what makes them tick.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)why people voted for Biden and what they want.?
When was the last time you saw one of us interviewed?
Nitram
(22,913 posts)already know that. What we don't understand is how we're going to save America from these hordes of whackos. do you have any suggestions?
edhopper
(33,639 posts)to shape the narrative.
Nitram
(22,913 posts)the Post are you suddenly tempted to vote for Donald Trump, or adopt the latest QAnon swamp fever delirium? I agree, they should cut down on the repetitive nature of the coverage and concentrate on trends, cause and effect, and steps we can take to change the conditions under which this alternate theory of the universe developed. Maybe jobs and drug treatment in depressed rural areas for a start?
volstork
(5,403 posts)Time to shift the focus; unfortunately, the media thrives on drama...
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
..to pressure and petition them.
Evolve Dammit
(16,781 posts)copperearth
(117 posts)Of course the empty wagon makes the most noise so Main Stream Media wants to to make their gripes the news. I guess that makes us people the silent majority and it makes me mad. No wonder we can't get things done to help the most people..
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)PutGramaOnThePhone
(236 posts)Sorry, a bit off topic, but one of triggers - I think one of the reasons some people think they need to carry a gun, or stay away from the city, or not live in certain areas, or that their kids are going to be kidnapped, or, or, or...
FakeNoose
(32,823 posts)Democrats are in power now. What Democrats think and what they say - that's where the news is. What RWNJs and Chump Buttsniffers say - well, that's OLD news.
The news media and cable channels need to measure how many viewers they lose - people turning their channel OFF - every time they feature a GOP talking head instead of one of ours.
If they aren't Democrats - change the channel or turn it off.
Keep doing it until the news channels finally get it.
Tommymac
(7,263 posts)AllaN01Bear
(18,534 posts)more than the liberal and the conservative always screams " liberal media".
Blue Owl
(50,532 posts)love_katz
(2,584 posts)Vivienne235729
(3,390 posts)It lets others out there know they are not alone in thinking about leaving the cult. And thats important.
nam78_two
(14,529 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 31, 2021, 04:03 AM - Edit history (2)
The sad reality is that actually following environmental news, animal welfare or poverty is depressing when you are a nobody.
Whereas following lunatics-reformed or other is frightening but less depressing. I was reading a really good and substantive book called "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" but had to put it away 3/4th of the way because it was depressing me so much. And this in spite of how necessary it was for me re: real awareness. But if something makes you feel hopeless, it has to be put away at least temporarily.
I will pick it up again later. It was such a good book.
A few years ago I saw a Guardian poll of either labor voters or Corbyn supporters. And they were categorized as generally: 1) female, 2) either vegetarian or was it concerned about animal welfare? Something like that, 3)environmentalists concerned about climate change, 4) concerned about labor or other progressive causes and 5) depressed.
I couldn't help noticing the obvious - which was that if you were seriously concerned about points 1-4, you would probably be depressed. Not everyone is going to be able to turn that angst into a profession or take action in any effective way outside of small potatoes activism. So it seems likely that people like these would get depressed and hopeless.
But narcotising oneself with immersion in a lunatic and only occasionally deeply scary world is dissociating (all the real problems remain). No exit really.
I think wonky solutions aside, we do need a cultural shift where we eschew the optimism of robber barrons. Real change is hard and grueling. It takes years to see when something was worthwhile and while people should eschew the religious notion of difficulty (which involves maniacally stupid trials and tribulations), the kind of optimism that leads to "get rich quick" schemes that a pirate might relish, is another black hole of suckiness.
There are controversies and controversies. There are these moronic nontroversies like qanon and there is stuff that should be completely non-controversial in a sane society. But because we are a species that likes all the "goodies" of science but eschew the responsibility that should come with the power to wield advanced tech, what would be pragmatism for an evolved species (that would at least not parasitize its host planet and self destruct), is seen as radical.
I see this over and over. Educated people - trained in science, engineering or medicine with some skills. But dig a little a deeper and their true inner core is based on religion and their decision making reflects a combination of that and corporate pr "optimism". If you want to have nutball views in private, it is one thing. But it is unsurprising to me that people like these build a world that is decoupled from many realities. We are a bit like a cancer on the planet-quite far from homeostasis and I cannot see that analogy as extreme or qanon like, though a more conservative person might.
Education should be focused on teaching children that with great power (the use of science and tech) comes great responsibility. The pragmatism of a large number of basically deeply religious people might not necessarily be true pragmatism.
It is too late with older people tied to tradition and religion. But younger people who will deal with the fallout of deregulated capitalism, corruption and the thoughtless plundering of all planetary resources, should at least occasionally be exposed to truly pragmatic ideas, over the shallow swill that is the norm.
I am not sure if that breaks community rules as it is critical of religion. I hope it isn't quite that, so I am leaving it. I think religious beliefs should be attacked some by the non-religious. They are the source of many of our problems-especially when coupled with deregulated capitalism. Magical thinking....
Anyway the next election is 2 years away. I am not sure if there is anything to the Overton Window, but this seems like the time to put this out there. Our problems as a species will multiply with the moronic trajectory we are usually on. I see it as a good sign though that they are teaching stuff like "planetary health" these days.
I wish we could set individual superstitious views aside and reach a consensus on stuff based not in religion but reality.
Along those lines, I think all these conservative nutbags are throwing a red herring out there (as is typical) by painting all calls for regulated capitalism as socialism or communism. There was a post about these definitions last week. Shoshana Zuboff distinguishes between parasitic surveillance capitalism (where the person whose data is extracted) is a mere object and normal capitalism which at its best is a real transaction that benefits both parties. Normal capitalism has its issues with self-regulation but at least, at its best, it offers real goods and services-as long as you have a sane society that implements labor laws, enacts environmental protections, safe-guards human/animal rights and works within a frame-work guided by rational ethics. Surveillance capitalism is pure parasitism, unless there are nutballs who would actually work with it. The problem is the assumption that significant chunk of society (not paranoid luddites but people used to democracy) would not recoil from it in disgust and horror. All the fixes with surveillance capitalism seem aimed solely at protecting the rights of the workers in that industry-not the dehumanized objects with no rights. We are now slowly extending the ethical lapses and blindness that went into our treatment of other life-forms and the environment to a largely unaware global population. I always knew that people who care little about the rights of the most voiceless are not gonna give a shit about human rights.
One reason I post here is that if I am going to have behavioral data surplus extracted anyway, I would prefer to use an outlet that is not Facebook, Google or any other large or any unknown small company. I think permissions still matter.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)There is a Religion Forum here where you can say whatever you want about religion.
nam78_two
(14,529 posts)My posts can get overly long when I get impassioned, but sometimes I find it hard to prune them. I remember getting an essay in English class returned with "verbose" scrawled in red over it .
But I myself like reading some of the longer posts, especially when people reminisce about politics from their youth. Gives one some perspective.
llashram
(6,265 posts)THRIVES on DRAMA which means PROFIT. We are not really that important to them anymore. They know they have a captive audience, 74millions at least. Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow relics of the past never duplicated in the fox news led frenzy called journalism which in reality is infotainment for small minds
RainCaster
(10,929 posts)It's far more interesting to hear about baby eating reptilian cabals of satanic pedophile democrats spewing Jewish Lightning than it is to try and understand the sane majority.