Trump 2024 — The second term

[Mgderf]

I feel dirty now.

I feel more like I do now than I did before...

 

[Magyars]

 

[Ingomike]

Fixy. He doesn't propose telling them what to say, it seems like he wishes them hauled before committee to justify the behavior they have already exhibited

Funny, being an observer, just how quiet it became when the actual facts were presented…

 

[jamil]

Did you mean to say "grabs them by the unviable clump of cells?"

No. Why would i mean to say that.

 

[Mikey1911]

Did you mean to say "grabs them by the unviable clump of cells?"

That would be equivalent to:

"Grabs them by the Joe Biden."

 

[jamil]

You might want to reconsider that.
Do you remember how it was under the FD?
3 days after a scathing and biased news report, they'd have some Fudd on at five til midnight stumbling through a rebuttal that inevitably spanned 60 years of history.

Ditching the Fairness Doctrine is what made Rush Limbaugh, and conservative talk radio, possible.

Wasn’t a Limbaugh fan. But anyway, I suppose you say this because we wouldn’t want Limbaugh to present controversial topics with fairness in mind, now would we?

 

[2tonic]

No. Why would i mean to say that.

Because Democraps have a penchant for calling living human tissue "unviable clumps of cells".

 

[2tonic]

Wasn’t a Limbaugh fan. But anyway, I suppose you say this because we wouldn’t want Limbaugh to present controversial topics with fairness in mind, now would we?

So sorry. Your loss.
Limbaugh was the fairness....the other side of the argument....from all the one sided crap you got from mainstream mass media.
They inundated you with their bias on TV and in print 24/7, you couldn't escape it.
Then they put on Joe Fudd for 5 minutes near midnight, to counter a week's worth (if not a months worth) of tripe.
The FD had nothing to do with "fairness", it was about (unequal) equal time.

 

[jamil]

Because Democraps have a penchant for calling living human tissue "unviable clumps of cells".

I’ve heard them say that about unborn children. But not *****. ***** is *****.

 

[jamil]

So sorry. Your loss.
Limbaugh was the fairness....the other side of the argument....from all the one sided crap you got from mainstream mass media.
They inundated you with their bias on TV and in print 24/7, you couldn't escape it.
Then they put on Joe Fudd for 5 minutes near midnight, to counter a week's worth (if not a months worth) of tripe.
The FD had nothing to do with "fairness", it was about (unequal) equal time.

I don’t think I lost anything. Rush wasn’t always right even though he was right wing 99.8% of the time.

 

[jamil]

Anyway, about the fairness doctrine, Trump would have no cause to rebid broadcast licenses. He can't just waive his royal scepter and make it so. Without the fairness doctrine for broadcasters, they're free to broadcast complete fake news. There's nothing to stop them. It's their free speech.

Before the FCC ****-canned the fairness doctrine, Rush could be on the air. He had a nationally syndicated talk show. It was the actual over-the-air licensed broadcasters who were subject to the rule. The abolition of the fairness doctrine helped him out because stations were no longer required to broadcast progressive drivel for 3 hours a day on AM radio, which no one wanted to listen to. If you're tuning into AM, you're probably a conservative.

Cable news isn't subject to FCC broadcast licensing. So they lie and shill for Democrats all they want to. And same with social media influences.

What I would like to see is a rule like the fairness doctrine that applies to any broadcaster (not just over-the-air, but any entity claiming to broadcast bona fide news. I know we're fond of GWP here, so this would apply to them. Also would apply to NPR. MSNBC. Would not apply to "infotainment". So if CNN had a disclaimer that they're not serious news, but are strictly infotaiment, they could say what the **** they want. But, then it would be CIN (Cable Infotainement Network)

And, if they want to be classified as serious news, they'd have to give fair time to opponents of the mRna shots, for example. They could not establish an official narrative. Or, after MSNBC (unless they rename to MSIBC) blathers on about how women who who happen to have dicks should, be allowed to compete against women in sports, they have to let Riley Gaines rebut that nonsense.

But it goes both ways. So maybe to keep your bias, you need to let them keep theirs, and we just keep it status quo. Because we're afraid of allowing opposing views presented on "our" news.

 

[BugI02]

But it goes both ways. So maybe to keep your bias, you need to let them keep theirs, and we just keep it status quo. Because we're afraid of allowing opposing views presented on "our" news.

This is essentially the 'The Truth/My Truth' dichotomy. If news organizations had solely presented 'The Truth' and let the chips fall, there would have been no need for 'our' news

Once they found, decades ago, that they could be in the bag for democrats and lose nothing they never looked back. When it became so pervasive it could not be avoided (or believably denied) and there was no urge to moderation, it spawned right wing news. Like Trump, rightwing news was a response to an existing situation, it could not have been profitable without a thirst for it among a significant portion of the population as well as a smattering of true believers (I think Ailes was one, someone who amplified conservative views while simultaneously showing his paymasters that you could make money at it)

Which came first, the conservative chicken or the progressive propaganda egg?