Implementing the Ministry of Truth: the "fake news" scare

[SKL]

The current PEOTUS has talked about curtailing the press and I do think it is a concern.

 

Well good, now that the shoe is on the other foot there will be a fresh look at some of the issues.

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, lets start with Twitter..yeah, they banned a bunch of white supremacists who were harassing other people to the point of it becoming possibly a legal matter. Not "conservatives".

 

Second, just to take one of those, Project Veritas has been shown to be fake. Rather, maliciously edited video purposely manipulated to produce false narratives.So yeah, fake news.

This is true, white supremacists are NOT conservative. The alt-right (who are white supremacist) people are NOT conservative. Please do not mix white supremacists with Conservatives, that is not nice to Conservatives.

 

The people who were banned from Twitter were white supremacists, not Conservatives.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Charlie]

...and that is different from the function of the Ministry of Truth exactly how? O.K, it's (possibly, perhaps likely) not tied to the government. In many ways it could be significantly worse. At some point, they could control the direction of everything, making them the de facto government.

 

When Google has the authority to suppress speech or inflict punishment on those who speak, then you may have a point about their acting as a de facto government.

[ktgrok]

But the facts are quite clear: some are using the "fake news" meme to suppress opposing views.And none of that is possible once one side of an argument is suppressed. Once that happens, the only "Truth" that can get out is what is deemed to be so by those who control the media. That is why it is imperative that we put down this foolish effort to suppress the information. That is why news organizations have promised to provide the news in an unbiased fashion for so long. While that has never been fully realized in practice, it is clear things have gotten worse in recent times.

 

What? Or course media should attempt, and has always attempted,t o present the truth. That's their freaking job! 

 

You say in one sentence that they should present unbiased information...do you really mean that fact and fiction should both be presented equally???? Is it unbiased to present made up information as fact? Is that what you are trying to say????

 

Cause buddy, no, sorry. I'm not yearning for a day when stories that I make up about UFO's stealing my kidneys for experiments get treated the same in the media as documented science information. That's not unbiased, that's ridiculous. 

[Slartibartfast]

Well good, now that the shoe is on the other foot there will be a fresh look at some of the issues.

Er..what? The Executive branch does not control the press. There is no shoe moving around.

[Charlie]

Facts are stupid things ;)

 

Bill

 

Only if they don't support your argument. Then they aren't even facts, they become demoted to opinions. ;-)

Edited December 7, 2016 by Charlie

[ktgrok]

I'm finding it very bizarre as well.

 

Honestly, I'm finding it more depressing, and honestly, terrifying, than bizarre. 

[SKL]

Ok, lets start with Twitter..yeah, they banned a bunch of white supremacists who were harassing other people to the point of it becoming possibly a legal matter. Not "conservatives".

 

Second, just to take one of those, Project Veritas has been shown to be fake. Rather, maliciously edited video purposely manipulated to produce false narratives.So yeah, fake news. 

 

It's fake news unless it's the MSM doing it I guess.

 

I agree with them banning certain things such as what you said in your first paragraph.

 

Not commenting on Veritas since it's not a site I consume.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It's fake news unless it's the MSM doing it I guess.

 

I agree with them banning certain things such as what you said in your first paragraph.

 

Not commenting on Veritas since it's not a site I consume.

 

The difference between the MSM and fake news is that the MSM retracts or reports when they are wrong.

[SKL]

The difference between the MSM and fake news is that the MSM retracts or reports when they are wrong.

 

Not always.  Not nearly often enough.

 

[SKL]

Honestly, I'm finding it more depressing, and honestly, terrifying, than bizarre. 

 

Please explain what is terrifying about this discussion.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

wow - was the sarcasm really necessary?

 

It wasn't sarcasm.  I am completely serious.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Fairness doctrine, equal time rule ....

 

What?

[Vida Winter]

Ok, lets start with Twitter..yeah, they banned a bunch of white supremacists who were harassing other people to the point of it becoming possibly a legal matter. Not "conservatives".

 

Second, just to take one of those, Project Veritas has been shown to be fake. Rather, maliciously edited video purposely manipulated to produce false narratives.So yeah, fake news. 

 

Twitter likely shadowbanned cartoonist Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist). Others have been outright banned. The other day it was being floated that Trump would be banned from Twitter (bad business move if they do that).

 

Project Veritas is one of the only true investigative news sources that exists today. They have not been proven to be fake. Full length videos were always available for viewing if you cared to look. The edited versions were to cut down on needing to view very long segments.

[Ravin]

explain to me how this works with the designers currently going on about how they wont' dress melania trump.  they are choosing to whom they will sell dresses.  including tom ford - who was asked to make her a dress several years ago - and he refused.

 

Political association isn't a protected group under civil rights laws. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Twitter likely shadowbanned cartoonist Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist). Others have been outright banned. The other day it was being floated that Trump would be banned from Twitter (bad business move if they do that).

 

Project Veritas is one of the only true investigative news sources that exists today. They have not been proven to be fake. Full length videos were always available for viewing if you cared to look. The edited versions were to cut down on needing to view very long segments.

 

They have.  The editing included rearranging footage.  O'Keefe settled a lawsuit from an ACORN employee for $100K, and it should be noted that he was only paid $65K for the video, so it wasn't like that was a small sum.

[Slartibartfast]

Twitter likely shadowbanned cartoonist Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist). Others have been outright banned. The other day it was being floated that Trump would be banned from Twitter (bad business move if they do that).

 

Project Veritas is one of the only true investigative news sources that exists today. They have not been proven to be fake. Full length videos were always available for viewing if you cared to look. The edited versions were to cut down on needing to view very long segments.

The people who were banned are racist. For instance, Tila Tequila was putting Nazis propaganda on her twitter, photos of her photoshopped into Nazis outfits, and photos of her doing Nazis salutes. She is banned. I *know* she was posting Nazi stuff because I saw it with my own eyes. I do not care if people are banned for hate speech. Do Not Care.

 

He was, "likely" shadowbanned? Just because one doesn't always see every single one of someone's tweets that does not mean they were shadowbanned. Even if he was that is still not, "treason," like Scott Adams was stating. That is silly.

 

Project Veritas is fake, it is edited in order to manipulate the message. James O'Keefe is a lying liar who lies. He had to pay damages for his Acorn video because it was defamatory.

 

It was floated where that Trump would be banned from Twitter? Who said that?

Edited December 7, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Twitter likely shadowbanned cartoonist Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist). Others have been outright banned. The other day it was being floated that Trump would be banned from Twitter (bad business move if they do that).

 

1.) Twitter can ban anyone they choose.  The only people I know who have banned on Twitter were banned for violating the TOS. 

 

2.) Scott Adams claim that he was "shadowbanned" seems a bit speculative. I found his tweets easily.

 

3.) What do you mean it was "floated" that Trump should be banned by Twitter?  I have read op-ed pieces suggesting it for various reasons, but most think Trump himself should limit how he uses Twitter.  We do expect certain decorum from a sitting president.

Edited December 7, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Slartibartfast]

Shadowbanned means someone's tweets do not appear in newsfeeds.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Shadowbanned means someone's tweets do not appear in newsfeeds.

 

I am still not buying he was shadowbanned.  Scott Adams seems a bit in love with himself sometimes.

[Slartibartfast]

I am still not buying he was shadowbanned. Scott Adams seems a bit in love with himself sometimes.

Oh, I agree. He's off his rocker, he said twitter committed "treason." :lol:

[ktgrok]

It's fake news unless it's the MSM doing it I guess.

 

I agree with them banning certain things such as what you said in your first paragraph.

 

Not commenting on Veritas since it's not a site I consume.

 

 

Huh? Show me a reputable mainstream media site that has done what Veritas did (run by a criminal, by the way). 

[ktgrok]

Please explain what is terrifying about this discussion.

 

 

People citing Project Veritas as more legitimate sources of info than CNN terrifies me. 

 

But more than that, what really has me scared is the idea that limiting media to the truth is inherently biased. Which was stated by someone (not you) in this thread. 

 

Fake news and fiction does not deserve equal time from the media. 

[ktgrok]

Twitter likely shadowbanned cartoonist Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist). Others have been outright banned. The other day it was being floated that Trump would be banned from Twitter (bad business move if they do that).

 

Project Veritas is one of the only true investigative news sources that exists today. They have not been proven to be fake. Full length videos were always available for viewing if you cared to look. The edited versions were to cut down on needing to view very long segments.

 

wow. nevermind. 

 

I suppose the moon is made of green cheese and the earth is flat, as well. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh, I agree. He's off his rocker, he said twitter committed "treason." :lol:

I should tweet this to Adams.

 

 

 

 

[bibiche]

wow. nevermind.

 

I suppose the moon is made of green cheese and the earth is flat, as well.

 

And man coexisted with dinosaurs, can't omit that one! A site devoted to educating children, no less. We have entered serious WTF zone.

Edited December 7, 2016 by bibiche

[TravelingChris]

There are all kinds of people who believe 9/11 was a hoax, Sandy Hook was a hoax, different people were murdered, all sorts of nutty stuff (IMO),  The people who tend to believe the nutty stories come from all types of political persuasions.  People like Rosie O'Donnel, Charlie Sheen, and Willie Nelson aren't exactly conservatives who are 9/11 truthers.  I read an article that claimed that French actress  Marion Cotillard is not only a 9/11 truther but also thinks the moon landings were faked.  I don't know what the commonality of the people who believe fake stories is.  I suspect that those people are more paranoid that the average person but don't really know.  

 

As to the purveyors of fake news- Alex Jones has been out there for a really long time.  I seem to remember that he had a late night talk show (and maybe he still does) where he routinely engaged in speculation about all sorts of nutty stories including aliens landing and numerous conspiracies.  I didn't listen.  I don;t watch his youtube site.  I don't read things by him intentionally though I did read one pizzagate story and found it weird and not showing what it was purportedly showing- there was a photo of the main restaurant in question with a grainy picture that didn't show anything suspicious. 

 

FInally, I am glad that a women threatening a survivor of Sandy Hook has been arrested.  I would hope that Law Enforcement would also be arresting people who are threatening to kill electors.

[redsquirrel]

I don't know if the government currently has any statements or intentions about fake news, but I do know that in the not-so-distant past, the US government has attempted to impose controls on freedom of the press.  There was some concern that had powers not shifted, that would be an issue again.

 

So like I said before, I really don't care if an individual company decides to do xyz in furtherance of its own standards, but I'm hearing vibes of something more sweeping and less democratic.  I don't think it's crazy to be on the alert for possible government intrusion.

 

Please give some specific examples. I'd love to know to what you are referring.  Is it perchance the pentagon papers?

 

Fairness doctrine, equal time rule ....

 

Ah, I see it's not the Pentagon papers. You will have to be more specific.

 

The Fairness doctrine was revoked in 1987 specifically because it was seen as a threat to free speech and an attempt of the government to control the speech of broadcasters.  It was the revoking of the the fairness doctrine that directly led to the explosion of conservative radio shows on the airwaves. So one might assume you would be in highly in favour of it being overturned, no?

 

The 'equal time rule' is specifically about politicians running for office.  Once you are in office, there is no equal time rule.  That is more about stations not giving what is essentially free advertising to candidates. So, when a politician is interviewed on TV or radio, if they tell people to go to their reelection website and give the address, the broadcaster must also announce the website of the other candidate. That's all. 

 

What do either of these have to do with the government overturning the  first amendment? Again, please give specific examples

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Please give some specific examples. I'd love to know to what you are referring.  Is it perchance the pentagon papers?

 

 

Ah, I see it's not the Pentagon papers. You will have to be more specific.

 

The Fairness doctrine was revoked in 1987 specifically because it was seen as a threat to free speech and an attempt of the government to control the speech of broadcasters.  It was the revoking of the the fairness doctrine that directly led to the explosion of conservative radio shows on the airwaves. So one might assume you would be in highly in favour of it being overturned, no?

 

The 'equal time rule' is specifically about politicians running for office.  Once you are in office, there is no equal time rule.  That is more about stations not giving what is essentially free advertising to candidates. So, when a politician is interviewed on TV or radio, if they tell people to go to their reelection website and give the address, the broadcaster must also announce the website of the other candidate. That's all. 

 

What do either of these have to do with the government overturning the  first amendment? Again, please give specific examples

 

Short answer: Nothing.

 

Long answer: Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zippo.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There are all kinds of people who believe 9/11 was a hoax, Sandy Hook was a hoax, different people were murdered, all sorts of nutty stuff (IMO),  The people who tend to believe the nutty stories come from all types of political persuasions.  People like Rosie O'Donnel, Charlie Sheen, and Willie Nelson aren't exactly conservatives who are 9/11 truthers.  I read an article that claimed that French actress  Marion Cotillard is not only a 9/11 truther but also thinks the moon landings were faked.  I don't know what the commonality of the people who believe fake stories is.  I suspect that those people are more paranoid that the average person but don't really know.  

 

As to the purveyors of fake news- Alex Jones has been out there for a really long time.  I seem to remember that he had a late night talk show (and maybe he still does) where he routinely engaged in speculation about all sorts of nutty stories including aliens landing and numerous conspiracies.  I didn't listen.  I don;t watch his youtube site.  I don't read things by him intentionally though I did read one pizzagate story and found it weird and not showing what it was purportedly showing- there was a photo of the main restaurant in question with a grainy picture that didn't show anything suspicious. 

 

FInally, I am glad that a women threatening a survivor of Sandy Hook has been arrested.  I would hope that Law Enforcement would also be arresting people who are threatening to kill electors.

 

That also could have been Art Bell.  Stumbled on to him at 3am when he had someone going on about the intergalactic war we were currently fighting. 

[hornblower]

There are all kinds of people who believe 9/11 was a hoax, Sandy Hook was a hoax, different people were murdered, all sorts of nutty stuff (IMO), 

 

 

Let's not forget a very prominent person who doesn't believe Obama is American & does believe Obama founded ISIS. 

 

edited for clarity :) 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by hornblower

[Tanaqui]

You mean he DOES believe Obama founded ISIS?

[redsquirrel]

Here is another interesting story about fake news, which is different from sloppy reporting.  And I should add that sloppy reporting is different from people running with a story when a news source clearly says that they a situation is volatile and they don't yet have all the facts...such as a crisis situation.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/fake-news-partisan-republican-democrat.html?hpw&rref=us&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

 

What I found most interesting was this:

 

"

“There are an alarming number of people who tend to be credulous and form beliefs based on the latest thing they’ve read, but that’s not the wider problem,†said Michael Lynch, a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut. “The wider problem is fake news has the effect of getting people not to believe real things.â€

He described the thinking like this: “There’s no way for me to know what is objectively true, so we’ll stick to our guns and our own evidence. We’ll ignore the facts because nobody knows what’s really true anyway.â€

 

 

[hornblower]

 

He described the thinking like this: “There’s no way for me to know what is objectively true, so we’ll stick to our guns and our own evidence.

 

& usually it's not even evidence. It's just stuff we WANT to be true. We're just sticking with our own narrative, our own fairy tales cause that's what we want to be true. 

[Barb_]

Well good, now that the shoe is on the other foot there will be a fresh look at some of the issues.

I don't even know what you mean here. Proper nouns, guys! Please provide clear examples. Surely you don't mean President Obama has been controlling the press? Is that what you're insinuating?

[Barb_]

Twitter likely shadowbanned cartoonist Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist). Others have been outright banned. The other day it was being floated that Trump would be banned from Twitter (bad business move if they do that).

 

Project Veritas is one of the only true investigative news sources that exists today. They have not been proven to be fake. Full length videos were always available for viewing if you cared to look. The edited versions were to cut down on needing to view very long segments.

"Twitter likely shadowbanned..." isn't a fact. It's conjecture. It's rumor. You can't use a rumor to counteract facts. That is the exact problem some of us are trying to point out.

[Barb_]

Here is another interesting story about fake news, which is different from sloppy reporting. And I should add that sloppy reporting is different from people running with a story when a news source clearly says that they a situation is volatile and they don't yet have all the facts...such as a crisis situation.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/fake-news-partisan-republican-democrat.html?hpw&rref=us&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

 

What I found most interesting was this:

 

"

“There are an alarming number of people who tend to be credulous and form beliefs based on the latest thing they’ve read, but that’s not the wider problem,†said Michael Lynch, a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut. “The wider problem is fake news has the effect of getting people not to believe real things.â€

He described the thinking like this: “There’s no way for me to know what is objectively true, so we’ll stick to our guns and our own evidence. We’ll ignore the facts because nobody knows what’s really true anyway.â€

That's describes precisely what is happening in some corners of this thread.

[TravelingChris]

Yes, I remember Art Bell.  Either he or the guy who replaced him had Alex Jones as a guest sometimes, I believe.  As I said, I may have caught a bit of the show a few times, but I wasn't a listener.  Anyway, Alex Jones does have a regular show and he is into all kinds of strange conspiracies.  I don't listen nor do I read his work intentionally - that is I might have read some of his work if it wasn't identified as such but I don't look for his work.

[Vida Winter]

"Twitter likely shadowbanned..." isn't a fact. It's conjecture. It's rumor. You can't use a rumor to counteract facts. That is the exact problem some of us are trying to point out.

 

Article by Scott Adams on shadowbanning. 

[bibiche]

Article by Scott Adams on shadowbanning. 

 

So you are supporting conjecture with... more conjecture?

[Slartibartfast]

Article by Scott Adams on shadowbanning.

That isn't an article, that is him coming unhinged on his own blog.

 

I won’t jump the gun and assume something nefarious is happening. But I will say that IF it is happening, I would regard it as treason. If one political party can use the machinery of social networks to reduce free speech, that is an attack on American values at the deepest level. As a patriot, I would feel obligated to help kill Twitter. (And you wouldn’t want to bet against me.)

That isn't remotely rational.

 

 

EDITED: That quote is from the blog link and not someone here.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Tanaqui]

So we're using Scott Adams as a source to confirm that Scott Adams was shadowbanned?

[SKL]

Please give some specific examples. I'd love to know to what you are referring.  Is it perchance the pentagon papers?

 

 

Ah, I see it's not the Pentagon papers. You will have to be more specific.

 

The Fairness doctrine was revoked in 1987 specifically because it was seen as a threat to free speech and an attempt of the government to control the speech of broadcasters.  It was the revoking of the the fairness doctrine that directly led to the explosion of conservative radio shows on the airwaves. So one might assume you would be in highly in favour of it being overturned, no?

 

The 'equal time rule' is specifically about politicians running for office.  Once you are in office, there is no equal time rule.  That is more about stations not giving what is essentially free advertising to candidates. So, when a politician is interviewed on TV or radio, if they tell people to go to their reelection website and give the address, the broadcaster must also announce the website of the other candidate. That's all. 

 

What do either of these have to do with the government overturning the  first amendment? Again, please give specific examples

 

Right, the fairness doctrine was revoked, as it should have been.  But there has been talk of bringing it (or something like it) back.  Also, the fact is that it was law before it was revoked.

 

It's not a lunatic fantasy that government control could happen, when it has in fact happened.  What's stopping it from happening again is the insistence of people who believe in a truly free press.

 

I didn't use the words "overturning the first amendment."  I would say government control is an infringement on the first amendment, sure.  The first amendment is pretty clear with respect to freedom of the press.

[Slartibartfast]

Right, the fairness doctrine was revoked, as it should have been.  But there has been talk of bringing it (or something like it) back.  Also, the fact is that it was law before it was revoked.

 

It's not a lunatic fantasy that government control could happen, when it has in fact happened.  What's stopping it from happening again is the insistence of people who believe in a truly free press.

 

I didn't use the words "overturning the first amendment."  I would say government control is an infringement on the first amendment, sure.  The first amendment is pretty clear with respect to freedom of the press.

 

 

There was talk of Trump bringing it back.

 

Obama has not said that.

[Vida Winter]

So we're using Scott Adams as a source to confirm that Scott Adams was shadowbanned?

 

The media is powerful and they have abused that power. The vast majority pushed agendas during the election when they should have simply been reporting. There is no more trust. Now we each need to decide who to believe or not to believe.

[swimmermom3]

Mainstream media, as well as Google and Twitter are able to manipulate the public by the subject and manner in which they report news and search results. Twitter and Youtube have banned a number of conservatives (and in Twitter's case, shadowbanning, in which followers simply "disappear" without an outright ban, as in the case of cartoonist Scott Adams).

 

After the election, the "fake news" meme really took off, targeting many sites which happened to lean conservative. News sites such as Zero Hedge, Breitbart, and Project Veritas were targeted as well as many other smaller blogs. Lists were published widely, beginning with a list authored by professor Melissa Zimdars. Some were indeed clickbait sites but many were legitimate. The Zimdars list has been taken offline.

 

Opinions vary as to why the fake news meme has flourished. Was it an attempt to explain away a Trump win? Or an ongoing attempt to silence political opponents? An attempt to deflect attention from Wikileaks?

 

At any rate, who is Melissa Zimdars to be telling us who we should be reading, and why are so many mainstream news sources jumping on the bandwagon?

 

Could I respectfully suggest something?  For those on the left, instead of just pronouncing that a news source is fake or Russian controlled, could we examine some individually with references to good sources.  The tone of condescension and impatience isn't helpful for any of us.  I'd like to see a break down on Zero Hedge and Project Veritas if possible as I am not familiar with them.  On the flip side, Vida Winter, what is it about these sites that make you trust them. Does it go beyond them saying only what you want to hear. I am assuming it does.

 

Maybe we should all be talking about what a good news source looks like.  I've done this with my kids for years and what I taught them was based on what I learned as a journalism undergraduate and then on staff at an alternative newsweekly.  We are shredding the mainstream media and lambasting individual journalists, but I still respect those who are competent at their jobs. What I remember from J school and the paper are people who were passionate about the truth. You can roll your eyes all you want, but at that point in time, it wasn't easy to make a living let alone make it big by being a journalist. People did so because of strongly held sense of justice and a belief in the public's right to know what was happening in their communities.

 

 

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

There is nothing wrong with AP.

 

AP and Reuters are for newspapers that do not have the budget to employ correspondents in foreign countries or other states. They will run a story and other papers will pick it up.

 

EVERYONE uses AP and Reuters at one point or another because they sometimes have a reporter where no one else does.

 

There are similar things for broadcast journalism such as http://newsource.cnn.com/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f

 

There was recently something on Conan O'Brian about local anchors all saying the same thing, that is because they all were using the same service.

 

Who checks up on AP?  I didn't say there was anything wrong, but if people say they are cross checking articles by comparing articles to various sources they probably aren't cross checking anything because they are all likely from the same source.

 

And this is not to say I think there is some sort of crazy conspiracy of false news reporting.  I just think it's difficult to verify stuff. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by SparklyUnicorn

[redsquirrel]

Article by Scott Adams on shadowbanning. 

 

 

1: this is not a factual support of 'shadowbanning'.  He himself is careful to say that he doesn't know if it is true.

 

2: Apparently neither the Dilbert guy nor you realize that you have no freedom of speech on twitter or facebook or on this forum. They are owned by an entity and you agree to certain limitations on your speech when you ask for the privilege of using them.  His free speech on twitter isn't being impinged because he has no right to free speech on twitter at all. Neither do I. Neither does anyone else.  Read your user agreement on facebook or twitter or here or anywhere else.

 

 

Right, the fairness doctrine was revoked, as it should have been.  But there has been talk of bringing it (or something like it) back.  Also, the fact is that it was law before it was revoked.

 

It's not a lunatic fantasy that government control could happen, when it has in fact happened.  What's stopping it from happening again is the insistence of people who believe in a truly free press.

 

I didn't use the words "overturning the first amendment."  I would say government control is an infringement on the first amendment, sure.  The first amendment is pretty clear with respect to freedom of the press.

 

 

It wasn't a law. It was an FCC regulation. That is a big difference.  And who specifically is talking about 'bringing it back"? 

[bibiche]

The media is powerful and they have abused that power. The vast majority pushed agendas during the election when they should have simply been reporting. There is no more trust. Now we each need to decide who to believe or not to believe.

 

No, what you advocate is just willful ignorance.  There is absolutely trustworthy media. If you are so paranoid that you don't believe that anything reported is true, you can give up and believe random conspiracy theorists and like sources. Or you can woman up and get your news from a variety of sources.  If you don't have faith in US sources, look to sources abroad as well. I get my news from a variety of sources in a variety of countries in a variety of languages.  I also believe very strongly that we do have trustworthy, reliable news sources in the US.

 

[Vida Winter]

Could I respectfully suggest something?  For those on the left, instead of just pronouncing that a news source is fake or Russian controlled, could we examine some individually with references to good sources.  The tone of condescension and impatience isn't helpful for any of us.  I'd like to see a break down on Zero Hedge and Project Veritas if possible as I am not familiar with them.  On the flip side, Vida Winter, what is it about these sites that make you trust them. Does it go beyond them saying only what you want to hear. I am assuming it does.

 

Maybe we should all be talking about what a good news source looks like.  I've done this with my kids for years and what I taught them was based on what I learned as a journalism undergraduate and then on staff at an alternative newsweekly.  We are shredding the mainstream media and lambasting individual journalists, but I still respect those who are competent at their jobs. What I remember from J school and the paper are people who were passionate about the truth. You can roll your eyes all you want, but at that point in time, it wasn't easy to make a living let alone make it big by being a journalist. People did so because of strongly held sense of justice and a belief in the public's right to know what was happening in their communities.

 

Excellent idea, swimmermom3. I need to go teach several classes right now.