I'm not sure what that even means. They are in direct competition with each other for mail and package delivery services.
Not Really.
They work in harmony together, each offering a service that the other cannot provide. For example, Fed Ex can't make a profit with rural delivery service, but the post office doesn't have to worry about that so that's how rural folk still get their mail. Fed Ex even uses the postal service for some deliveries.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
I'm not sure what that even means. They are in direct competition with each other for mail and package delivery services.
Not Really.
They work in harmony together, each offering a service that the other cannot provide. For example, Fed Ex can't make a profit with rural delivery service, but the post office doesn't have to worry about that so that's how rural folk still get their mail. Fed Ex even uses the postal service for some deliveries.
Of course they do. Nothing says they can't compete in some areas and cooperate in others. Toyota and GM are in competition with each other for selling cars, and yet, they can still cooperate with each other at times (for example the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe were the same car manufactured in the same plant).
I'm not sure what that even means. They are in direct competition with each other for mail and package delivery services.
Not Really.
They work in harmony together, each offering a service that the other cannot provide. For example, Fed Ex can't make a profit with rural delivery service, but the post office doesn't have to worry about that so that's how rural folk still get their mail. Fed Ex even uses the postal service for some deliveries.
Of course they do. Nothing says they can't compete in some areas and cooperate in others. Toyota and GM are in competition with each other for selling cars, and yet, they can still cooperate with each other at times (for example the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe were the same car manufactured in the same plant).
Luxury services don't compete with bargain services.
To use your car analogy buying a Toyota over a GM is a real choice a consumer will make. Buying a Ferrari over a Kia isn't. They're not competing for the same share of the market.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Luxury services don't compete with bargain services.
To use your car analogy buying a Toyota over a GM is a real choice a consumer will make. Buying a Ferrari over a Kia isn't. They're not competing for the same share of the market.
I'm not seeing the distinction. As a business or as a consumer I can choose to mail my packages using UPS/Fedex or USPS. They both also offer some form of service that will get it there in one day for a price. What in your estimation makes one a "luxury" service and the other a "bargain" service, to the extent that they are not actually competing with each other.
I don't see whats wrong with having both? They can keep each other in check from going off too much on a biased bull ride. Obviously there is no such mechanism keeping the current news stations honest. Having both could also end up making a combat of the state vs buisness or some such nonesense. Its something that more or less already happens.
Ban Advertising during the News and fund media watchdogs.
The Government taking over News seems potentially disastrous.
The worst, though, are video news releases, which is advertising disguised as news. And those kinds of puff pieces are, sadly, everywhere. I can consciously recognize a thirty-second spot as an ad, and change the channel when I see exercise equipment that fits in your closet/kitchen appliances for the 300 Americans who can't do it the old-fashioned way (and I know it's 300 because only 1 in 1000000 people have a single-digit IQ)/supplement to improve "brain power" evidenced by two brain scans that I immediately recognize as comparing brain death to a seizure/financial scam slightly more clever than sending $1 to six people.
With VNRs, I have no such luck. Because they basically look like news.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Where does my satire news fit into the state-owned-news paradigm?
I was never advocating any silencing of news. I would like for fake news like the onion to be explicitly labeled as opinion or satire. My problem with O'rielly or Sharpton, is that they present opinion like it is news. I still think that providing an extra voice that must report unbiased facts and must not rely on advertising dollars would give people a place to get news without a narrative or bias.
Where does my satire news fit into the state-owned-news paradigm?
I was never advocating any silencing of news. I would like for fake news like the onion to be explicitly labeled as opinion or satire. My problem with O'rielly or Sharpton, is that they present opinion like it is news. I still think that providing an extra voice that must report unbiased facts and must not rely on advertising dollars would give people a place to get news without a narrative or bias.
How do we determine biased and unbiased facts?
There's a good chunk of people who would say the moon landing isn't a fact.
If my news show wants to run with that as fact am I legally obligated to believe it? If I don't believe the news story I run what penalties would I face?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
First I would again like to try to re-center this conversation to the original intent of the OP.
Is for profit news hurting America? Should there be another option outside of for profit news?
This was my reason for making this thread. I actual do think that the for profit news stations are hurting America. From the Zimmerman trial to the Boston Bombing to the gun control debate to the war reporting to the NSA reporting, and so on. We are living in a very polarized news environment that cares more about being the first one to break a story or report what their viewers want than reporting just what is known.
How do we determine biased and unbiased facts?
There's a good chunk of people who would say the moon landing isn't a fact.
If my news show wants to run with that as fact am I legally obligated to believe it? If I don't believe the news story I run what penalties would I face?
As to your actual question facts are based of evidence especially a preponderance of evidence. If there is lack of evidence then this should be explicit in a news story. Too often we have news stories filled with speculation. What is the perfect number of sources before you can report a fact? That is a good question. I would like to see at least three different corroborating sources at a bare minimum, but I can understand if that number is naïve and I am wrong.
As for penalties they would only exist for the public news source. I am not advocating we change the current for profit news stations. I do not like them, but my way of try to fix the problem is not to regulate the for profit news sources. My way of fixing the problem is to make another public news option that is funded by taxes and is heavily regulated.
I understand people's fear of having a news source that is abused by the government. I could make the same argument about the military. Yet we have a government controlled military industrial complex. If we can have public funded nukes why can we not have public funded news?
This was my reason for making this thread. I actual do think that the for profit news stations are hurting America. From the Zimmerman trial to the Boston Bombing to the gun control debate to the war reporting to the NSA reporting, and so on. We are living in a very polarized news environment that cares more about being the first one to break a story or report what their viewers want than reporting just what is known.
Of course it hurts America.
But the question is whether any other option is feasible/probable, and whether it actually matches with what the U.S. stands for.
Where does my satire news fit into the state-owned-news paradigm?
I was never advocating any silencing of news. I would like for fake news like the onion to be explicitly labeled as opinion or satire. My problem with O'rielly or Sharpton, is that they present opinion like it is news. I still think that providing an extra voice that must report unbiased facts and must not rely on advertising dollars would give people a place to get news without a narrative or bias.
Have you watched O'reilly for more than 5 minutes? He's stated explicitly multiple times that the show is about his opinion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Have you watched O'reilly for more than 5 minutes? He's stated explicitly multiple times that the show is about his opinion.
Unfortunately, if some of my relatives are any indication, O'Reilly's regular viewship apparently plugs their ears and goes "LALALALA ITS GOSPEL TRUTH" at every point this fact is brought up on the show.
Have you watched O'reilly for more than 5 minutes? He's stated explicitly multiple times that the show is about his opinion.
Unfortunately, if some of my relatives are any indication, O'Reilly's regular viewship apparently plugs their ears and goes "LALALALA ITS GOSPEL TRUTH" at every point this fact is brought up on the show.
The show was on almost every night in my house in high school. The guy may be aggressive, but he's not claiming what he thinks is news. He's stated it multiple times.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
The show was on almost every night in my house in high school. The guy may be aggressive, but he's not claiming what he thinks is news. He's stated it multiple times.
Right, the formula is that O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. all do their opinion pieces, create a stir, and then the news casters report the stir itself as news, which involves airing those opinions in the context of news.
The show was on almost every night in my house in high school. The guy may be aggressive, but he's not claiming what he thinks is news. He's stated it multiple times.
Right, the formula is that O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. all do their opinion pieces, create a stir, and then the news casters report the stir itself as news, which involves airing those opinions in the context of news.
I wouldn't know; the household only watched the opinion shows.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Do you believe that the existence of nukes did not changed the public's opinion at all about how america should act internationally or goals for america to pursue?
which is the only thing that keeps a democratic governments from degenerating into dictatorships.
Are you saying that powerful weapons can not turn a democracy into a dictatorship?
It is not just weapons. Any argument of the form "It can/will be abused by the government" can be applied to every aspect of government. I trust the government to provide my with water. What could hurt me more the government giving me bad water or bad information?
Have you watched O'reilly for more than 5 minutes? He's stated explicitly multiple times that the show is about his opinion.
Unfortunately, if some of my relatives are any indication, O'Reilly's regular viewship apparently plugs their ears and goes "LALALALA ITS GOSPEL TRUTH" at every point this fact is brought up on the show.
In general, it's a matter of the permeability of your bubble. Wikipedia disclaims that it isn't to be used as an academic citation; Conservapedia insists that it is to be used as an academic citation whenever possible, and to teach your children about the Truth™. That's where bubble thinking gets you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I think a state-run media outlet could work if they were mandated by the constitution as a separate branch of government with limited time to cover various topics (IE: no more than 2 hours of politics programming). obviously it would require a lot of work but at least it would convince them to be honest in regards about the other branches of government.
which is the only thing that keeps a democratic governments from degenerating into dictatorships.
Are you saying that powerful weapons can not turn a democracy into a dictatorship?
Nope. The government, for as much power as it gets, it's supported by the civil society, people and the economic system. A government need to be accepted by a sufficient amount of people and it needs to leech resources from producers in order to survive.
A government that points a nuke to it's own population will get it's ass kicked in no time. The very people that works on the government who will obviously not agree with the menace will undermine it.
Dictatorships never persist by force alone, that's political science 101. They do by manipulating information and getting support by the population (violence is only used in a very narrow cases, to shut down small dissidence before they grow). A dictator need a complete arsenal of weapons to survive in these days but anyone who knows a bit about the subject will agree the number one dictator weapon is propaganda.
Public opinion is everything to every single institution - be the government, a multinational company or a church.
It is not just weapons. Any argument of the form "It can/will be abused by the government" can be applied to every aspect of government. I trust the government to provide my with water. What could hurt me more the government giving me bad water or bad information?
There's nothing a government can use in mass scale against it's population except for propaganda and information.
If the government send people bad water people will just vote for other candidates that didn't screw up. If they can't, they will resort to other tools. At worst case, people do massive protests and trample down ministries and government buildings until this water thing is resolved. Any dissatisfaction the populace have with it's government can be solved by protest and in worst case violence.
The only thing that keeps the populace unable to put it's government on the line it's perception of it. With propaganda, the populace can be screwed over to no end and never raise a finger against their aggressors. That's why it' so important for governments to be powerless in terms of changing public opinions.
Actually this is workings of any non-democratic regime. It's The Prince all over the place. Ex: Monarchies used the churches to keep public opinion on check for example. Only when church discourses started to get really distant from the state of the art (for classic liberals in bourgeois case, for socialist in laborers case) is that public opinion started to shift against monarchies in mass scale.
Karl Marx believed this occurred in capitalist societies, but he was obviously wrong (in this case). Ironically, his followers used those cheap tricks he contributed to expose.
Seriously, I live on a country that see a dictatorship every 50 years. You can't trust the government with this stuff, you just can't. The government it's not natural manifestation of civil societies desires and it never will. Society really need all tools possible to keep their government in check.
It is a good thing no one advocated this. Now do you approve of the current media landscape? Do you have any ideas to improve the system?
When i solve a problem I look for the source of the problem. Here there seems to be two sources economic forces and people that value simplistic and sensational news. We can avoid both of these problems with a highly regulated media that comes with government support.
So the answer is you ARE supporting government control of the media, and the answer is no, that's a stupid idea.
Our role as citizens is to examine, criticize, and question what the government does. Government-run news removes our ability to do that. Why? Because the government is running the news. For goodness sakes, why on earth do I even have to explain this?
To sum the story up, the largest shareholders in media are also the largest shareholders in the "private" prison system (fact). In order to promote a higher influx of inmates to attain for government contracted funds, private prison shareholders have both the motive and the opportunity to manipulatee media to glorify a criminal lifestyle since more criminals = more money. I still admit that whether or not they have been acting on their motive/opportunity is not a fact, but still remains plausible
If the theory is true , then it would contribute more implications. At first, it seems to be in support of the argument of socialized media, but these major corporations owning the prison system/media outlets are major lobbyists
I'm personally against corporate lobbyism in general since it does aim to back agendas through means of government laws/force, after all the private prisons are being backed by government funding.
I'm still in favor of having privatized news outlets in an ideal free market society, but the line between government and corporation doesn't even exist anymore. I'm also saying that what you believe to be a corporate-owned media outlet is also a government owned media outlet in disguise.
This is also why I understand the allure of socialism, it's because of previous experiences with crony-capitalism rather than free-market capitalism.
A lot of news stories are skewed for some type of agenda, it's up to you and its target audience to see through the bad product and stop buying it. Regardless of whether or not the news is skewed, it's still morally wrong to coerce the news outlets to be truthful, people just have to be more critical for their own best interest, this would result any corrupted news outlet to go under. Corruption only flourishes because the american public supports it
Not Really.
They work in harmony together, each offering a service that the other cannot provide. For example, Fed Ex can't make a profit with rural delivery service, but the post office doesn't have to worry about that so that's how rural folk still get their mail. Fed Ex even uses the postal service for some deliveries.
Of course they do. Nothing says they can't compete in some areas and cooperate in others. Toyota and GM are in competition with each other for selling cars, and yet, they can still cooperate with each other at times (for example the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe were the same car manufactured in the same plant).
Luxury services don't compete with bargain services.
To use your car analogy buying a Toyota over a GM is a real choice a consumer will make. Buying a Ferrari over a Kia isn't. They're not competing for the same share of the market.
I'm not seeing the distinction. As a business or as a consumer I can choose to mail my packages using UPS/Fedex or USPS. They both also offer some form of service that will get it there in one day for a price. What in your estimation makes one a "luxury" service and the other a "bargain" service, to the extent that they are not actually competing with each other.
The Government taking over News seems potentially disastrous.
The worst, though, are video news releases, which is advertising disguised as news. And those kinds of puff pieces are, sadly, everywhere. I can consciously recognize a thirty-second spot as an ad, and change the channel when I see exercise equipment that fits in your closet/kitchen appliances for the 300 Americans who can't do it the old-fashioned way (and I know it's 300 because only 1 in 1000000 people have a single-digit IQ)/supplement to improve "brain power" evidenced by two brain scans that I immediately recognize as comparing brain death to a seizure/financial scam slightly more clever than sending $1 to six people.
With VNRs, I have no such luck. Because they basically look like news.
On phasing:
I was never advocating any silencing of news. I would like for fake news like the onion to be explicitly labeled as opinion or satire. My problem with O'rielly or Sharpton, is that they present opinion like it is news. I still think that providing an extra voice that must report unbiased facts and must not rely on advertising dollars would give people a place to get news without a narrative or bias.
How do we determine biased and unbiased facts?
There's a good chunk of people who would say the moon landing isn't a fact.
If my news show wants to run with that as fact am I legally obligated to believe it? If I don't believe the news story I run what penalties would I face?
Is for profit news hurting America? Should there be another option outside of for profit news?
This was my reason for making this thread. I actual do think that the for profit news stations are hurting America. From the Zimmerman trial to the Boston Bombing to the gun control debate to the war reporting to the NSA reporting, and so on. We are living in a very polarized news environment that cares more about being the first one to break a story or report what their viewers want than reporting just what is known.
As to your actual question facts are based of evidence especially a preponderance of evidence. If there is lack of evidence then this should be explicit in a news story. Too often we have news stories filled with speculation. What is the perfect number of sources before you can report a fact? That is a good question. I would like to see at least three different corroborating sources at a bare minimum, but I can understand if that number is naïve and I am wrong.
As for penalties they would only exist for the public news source. I am not advocating we change the current for profit news stations. I do not like them, but my way of try to fix the problem is not to regulate the for profit news sources. My way of fixing the problem is to make another public news option that is funded by taxes and is heavily regulated.
I understand people's fear of having a news source that is abused by the government. I could make the same argument about the military. Yet we have a government controlled military industrial complex. If we can have public funded nukes why can we not have public funded news?
Of course it hurts America.
But the question is whether any other option is feasible/probable, and whether it actually matches with what the U.S. stands for.
It'd be a violation of ethics to both make the news and then report on it.
Have you watched O'reilly for more than 5 minutes? He's stated explicitly multiple times that the show is about his opinion.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Unfortunately, if some of my relatives are any indication, O'Reilly's regular viewship apparently plugs their ears and goes "LALALALA ITS GOSPEL TRUTH" at every point this fact is brought up on the show.
The show was on almost every night in my house in high school. The guy may be aggressive, but he's not claiming what he thinks is news. He's stated it multiple times.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Because nukes doesn't change the public opinion, which is the only thing that keeps a democratic governments from degenerating into dictatorships.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Right, the formula is that O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. all do their opinion pieces, create a stir, and then the news casters report the stir itself as news, which involves airing those opinions in the context of news.
I wouldn't know; the household only watched the opinion shows.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Do you believe that the existence of nukes did not changed the public's opinion at all about how america should act internationally or goals for america to pursue?
Are you saying that powerful weapons can not turn a democracy into a dictatorship?
It is not just weapons. Any argument of the form "It can/will be abused by the government" can be applied to every aspect of government. I trust the government to provide my with water. What could hurt me more the government giving me bad water or bad information?
In general, it's a matter of the permeability of your bubble. Wikipedia disclaims that it isn't to be used as an academic citation; Conservapedia insists that it is to be used as an academic citation whenever possible, and to teach your children about the Truth™. That's where bubble thinking gets you.
On phasing:
Nope. The government, for as much power as it gets, it's supported by the civil society, people and the economic system. A government need to be accepted by a sufficient amount of people and it needs to leech resources from producers in order to survive.
A government that points a nuke to it's own population will get it's ass kicked in no time. The very people that works on the government who will obviously not agree with the menace will undermine it.
Dictatorships never persist by force alone, that's political science 101. They do by manipulating information and getting support by the population (violence is only used in a very narrow cases, to shut down small dissidence before they grow). A dictator need a complete arsenal of weapons to survive in these days but anyone who knows a bit about the subject will agree the number one dictator weapon is propaganda.
Public opinion is everything to every single institution - be the government, a multinational company or a church.
There's nothing a government can use in mass scale against it's population except for propaganda and information.
If the government send people bad water people will just vote for other candidates that didn't screw up. If they can't, they will resort to other tools. At worst case, people do massive protests and trample down ministries and government buildings until this water thing is resolved. Any dissatisfaction the populace have with it's government can be solved by protest and in worst case violence.
The only thing that keeps the populace unable to put it's government on the line it's perception of it. With propaganda, the populace can be screwed over to no end and never raise a finger against their aggressors. That's why it' so important for governments to be powerless in terms of changing public opinions.
Actually this is workings of any non-democratic regime. It's The Prince all over the place. Ex: Monarchies used the churches to keep public opinion on check for example. Only when church discourses started to get really distant from the state of the art (for classic liberals in bourgeois case, for socialist in laborers case) is that public opinion started to shift against monarchies in mass scale.
Karl Marx believed this occurred in capitalist societies, but he was obviously wrong (in this case). Ironically, his followers used those cheap tricks he contributed to expose.
Seriously, I live on a country that see a dictatorship every 50 years. You can't trust the government with this stuff, you just can't. The government it's not natural manifestation of civil societies desires and it never will. Society really need all tools possible to keep their government in check.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
So the answer is you ARE supporting government control of the media, and the answer is no, that's a stupid idea.
Our role as citizens is to examine, criticize, and question what the government does. Government-run news removes our ability to do that. Why? Because the government is running the news. For goodness sakes, why on earth do I even have to explain this?
http://hiphopandpolitics.com/2013/04/24/jailhouse-roc-the-facts-about-hip-hop-and-prison-for-profit/ : Surprisingly objective, cites sources proving who owns what and also cites a whistle-blower story, which can be found here
http://www.waxpoetics.com/blog/news/music-industry-confession : I'm not saying that his story in particular is true, it's highly refutable
To sum the story up, the largest shareholders in media are also the largest shareholders in the "private" prison system (fact). In order to promote a higher influx of inmates to attain for government contracted funds, private prison shareholders have both the motive and the opportunity to manipulatee media to glorify a criminal lifestyle since more criminals = more money. I still admit that whether or not they have been acting on their motive/opportunity is not a fact, but still remains plausible
If the theory is true , then it would contribute more implications. At first, it seems to be in support of the argument of socialized media, but these major corporations owning the prison system/media outlets are major lobbyists
I'm personally against corporate lobbyism in general since it does aim to back agendas through means of government laws/force, after all the private prisons are being backed by government funding.
I'm still in favor of having privatized news outlets in an ideal free market society, but the line between government and corporation doesn't even exist anymore. I'm also saying that what you believe to be a corporate-owned media outlet is also a government owned media outlet in disguise.
This is also why I understand the allure of socialism, it's because of previous experiences with crony-capitalism rather than free-market capitalism.
A lot of news stories are skewed for some type of agenda, it's up to you and its target audience to see through the bad product and stop buying it. Regardless of whether or not the news is skewed, it's still morally wrong to coerce the news outlets to be truthful, people just have to be more critical for their own best interest, this would result any corrupted news outlet to go under. Corruption only flourishes because the american public supports it