How do we fix the media?

[Cassiopeia]

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 02:06 AM - Edit history (1)

For Fucks Sake!

How do we fix our news media?

I just caught the tail end of the one on one CNN interview of Ted Cruz. At the end Cruz said Hillary wants to end 2A rights. Immediately after that statement, the correspondent thanked Cruz and invited him onto a show at a later date to discuss the issues further.

Yeah, HRC is out there wanting to take guns. I'm Bernie all the way, but this was bullshit, HRC is not talking about ANY serious gun regulations, let alone repeal of the second amendment.

This is it, this is the problem in a nutshell. Every issue we have today, go ahead name YOUR need or issue, it is ignored by the MSM. Whenever anyone, regardless of any measure of power or intelligence, spouts an outright lie it goes unchecked. Instead, they cut to commercial while thanking the guest.

There is no bullshit or outright lie that is too big, it will not be challenged. Every opinion is given equal strength and power, regardless of the insanity behind the idea.

I understand why people once thought the world was flat. The idea that people can still think the world is flat, after we have centuries of science proving otherwise, is just insane. That we would give flat earthers equal coverage boggles the mind.

So, I ask again.....

How the fuck do we fix the media?

That is the root of our evil at this point. Nothing will change until we call bullshit exactly what it is.

Bernie 2016!

Edit to add:

http://www.popmodal.com/video/23505/Jake-Tappers-post-debate-interview-with-Ted-Cruz-CNN-Las-Vegas-121515

Link to the interview discussed in the post. FFS, don't watch the thing. The last 20 seconds of it is specifically what I was referring to though. Unchecked outright lie.

[still_one]

1. Since there is no longer a fairness doctrine, and the media has been deregulated, it will be very

difficult.

[Cassiopeia]

4. Difficult is a very mild word.

The fairness doctrine would help, but we've redefined fair at this point.

Every random thought is given equal measure.

[still_one]

5. Actually a lot of the problebms can be laid at the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which

Bill Clinton signed

[Shandris]

2. You can't.

It must be rebuilt, in its entirety, from the ground up. It must employ reporters from both sides. It must strive for objective reality with NO political analysis at all. Anything else is doomed to compromise and co-option. And absolutely, positively NO EDITORIALIZING. Save that for blogs (as well as political analysis, since that makes far more sense than a 'national media' that translates politics. No seriously, think how silly that idea is. Now imagine if Bernie had Trump's amount of time on air. Why doesn't he? Right. Because he can't force his way on like Trump can. The media literally chooses who you are allowed to like. This is the outcome of allowing them to 'translate' politics for people.).

Unfortunately, that would literally destroy much of the existing narrative and you would be immediately shut down by those with money who can simply block your access to anything beyond local affairs. So, you really can't. The only answer is, ironically, the Republican one (on this singular topic): starve the beast. Starve it to death.

[Cassiopeia]

6. Sometimes there is only one side

That seems to be the core problem.

The earth is flat. Sorry, it is not. There is no argument that can be made, in any way, to make that statement true. The earth is round.

Today's media would give the flat earth argument equal treatment. Hell, because it's batshit insane, they would give it extra air time.

[Shandris]

10. Right, but I never said you needed both sides mentioned. I said you needed people from both sides.

It reads pretty close, but there's actually a huge difference between the two. The reason to employ people from both sides is to watch for ideological content from the other. Counterbalance. Yes, that means working with your enemies. If your true goal is truth in media, you'll deal with it. (The 'you' is not directed at Cassiopeia, but rather the generic 'you').

I'm talking about the END of 'Narrative'. Reality doesn't have a narrative, evil people create narratives to gain money, fame, and power. And without both sides, you won't...CAN'T...end the narrative. (BTW, if it were me I'd also increase the range from R/D to (A)uthoritarianR and LibertarianR and AuthoritarianD and LibertarianD because I strongly think that A/L is the new coming dichotomy and L/R will be less important).

[PSPS]

7. "reporters from both sides"

Thinking people stop reading when you write this. Truth doesn't have "two sides." Editorial/opinion can, but not reporting.

[Shandris]

11. No, thinking people don't 'stop reading'. That's what reactionaries do.

I covered this in a reply a moment ago, check up just a tad.

[valerief]

3. The 6 media conglomerates have 5 chairmen of the board.

Comcast - Brian Roberts
Disney - Bob Iger
News Corp - Rupert Murdoch
Time Warner - Jeff Bewkes
Viacom - Sumner Redstone
CBS Corp - Sumner Redstone

These five people have control over all our TV, radio, newspapers, and much internet content.

[underahedgerow]

8. Stop feeding it. Stop watching this crap, stop reading BS corporate websites. Do your own analysis,

develop your own base of knowledge and information. Keep a loose eye on events, and develop your knowledge from trusted sites.

These interview shows are nothing BUT entertainment, it's nothing more than reality shows for politics, like the kardashians or any other mindless reality crap.

A newsreader and an interviewer type bubble head is there to do ONE job; to boost ratings and viewership for commercial sponsors. They're not providing information, they're providing entertainment, that's it.

So stop watching it. Less viewership, less corporate sponsors cashing in.

[840high]

12. ...^ that

[Cassiopeia]

13. It's not me that I'm worried about.

I'm worried about my neighbors. They don't pay attention and even if they did, some of them wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the ass.

The informed may see these debates as entertainment, but many do not. Thousands of people will go to work tomorrow and tell people that HRC wants to repeal the second amendment.

It is not entertainment.

No more baby parts.

Words have meaning.

[underahedgerow]

15. Here's the thing, that guy is mentally ill to the extreme. Most people with disorders can manage

very well to live their entire lives never harming anyone and themselves. Most psychiatric disorders are treatable and managable. However a few are so extreme that it they are impossible to predict and control, and it doesn't matter what's on the television. They will see adverts for dish soap as speaking to them and telling them what to do. It can be a billboard or The White Rabbit. It can be a lightpost, it can be anything.... it's the illness, not the words being said.

Don't worry about them or anyone but yourself. You can't save them or save yourself from them other than just general awareness and self protection within reason.

Here's the reality. Trump appeals to the smallest segment of the population. We have to hope that he wins the primary. This will make an easy win for the Dem nominee by the largest margin because no one in their right mind will want him as a president.

Right now, Rove is doing his damnedest with the weakest candidate in the entire race, and you can bet that if Trump DOESN'T win the primary that bush 2.1 will steal the election again if an effing miracle happens and he somehow gets the nod.

Rubio is the candidate to fear. If bush 2.1 doesn't get the nom, and it's highly unlikely, rove may well throw his support behind Rubio, and then we're screwn again. Rubio is trailing just behind the pack, not far at all in the odds. Not polls. ODDS. The betmakers. These are the people that consistently call the elections, it's their business, all politics and subjectivity aside.

Don't worry about the message, worry about the outcome and watch carefully who is on the chessboard and who is moving the pieces around.

And no offense to the Sanders appreciaters out there. I know he is an excellent, outstanding candidate, but Mme Clinton is the only clear front runner. He could pull it out, but he's trailing too far behind, and that's a real shame. He's very cool.

[Sherman A1]

16. Precisely

just turn it off. It's the best first step you can make and frankly the media has in one way or another been an issue forever.

[951-Riverside]

9. It depends on what you mean by "fix" and "we" as for Ted Cruz, he was referring to this...

Of course she was talking about a national wide gun buyback program, not breaking into Toothless Joe's shack and confiscating his "gurns".

[Cassiopeia]

14. No, Cruz was giving a post debate interview.

'what did did Obama and Clinton say'

"Let's take away the right to keep and bare arms by law abiding citizens"

http://www.popmodal.com/video/23505/Jake-Tappers-post-debate-interview-with-Ted-Cruz-CNN-Las-Vegas-121515

Skip to the very end, 6:40 or so.

Cruz wasn't referring to anything. HRC wants to take your guns, thanks, please come back to our show, here's a message from our sponsors.

Thousands just walked away from the TV, but before they did, Ted Cruz just told them HRC wants to end the 2A. it went unchecked and the many will believe that shit.