U.S. Politics

[Johnny English]

You mean the paragraph that was talking about a network that is neither Fox nor Newsmax?

The paragraph that was talking about why they want carriers such as DirecTV to question whether it's right for them to be providing a platform for networks who peddle clear untruths as news. Or are you saying that Newsmax and Fox don't commit that particular sin?

[dcm1602]

The paragraph that was talking about why they want carriers such as DirecTV to question whether it's right for them to be providing a platform for networks who peddle clear untruths as news. Or are you saying that Newsmax and Fox don't commit that particular sin?

I'm suggesting that I don't think politicians should be lobbying for TV providers to get rid of networks that don't align with their particular views.

You 100% could argue that those networks peddled falsehoods, but you could dissect literally every single network for telling lies just as big and bad.

I didn't support Trump with his vendetta for CNN either, but then again the whole world is well aware of his mental instability

[mj2sexay]

The paragraph that was talking about why they want carriers such as DirecTV to question whether it's right for them to be providing a platform for networks who peddle clear untruths as news. Or are you saying that Newsmax and Fox don't commit that particular sin?

No. Only they do.

The fact that politicians are weighing in on this in such a blindly partisan manner (i.e. not additionally calling out MSNBC or CNN for the obvious hoaxes they perpetrate, covington and the russian collusion narrative being the first two I can think of off the top of my head) tells me all I need to know about what an absolute attempt at a power grab this is.

[Johnny English]

No. Only they do.

The fact that politicians are weighing in on this in such a blindly partisan manner (i.e. not additionally calling out MSNBC or CNN for the obvious hoaxes they perpetrate, covington and the russian collusion narrative being the first two I can think of off the top of my head) tells me all I need to know about what an absolute attempt at a power grab this is.

In what way is it a "power grab"?

[mj2sexay]

In what way is it a "power grab"?

Sitting politicians literally using their position to attempt to get channels which are ideologically opposed to them removed from the air under the guise of “misinformation” while of course conveniently ignoring networks which actively spew easily verifiable falsehoods but tow the DNC company lines.

What could possibly be the problem with this I wonder.

[Johnny English]

Sitting politicians literally using their position to attempt to get channels which are ideologically opposed to them removed from the air under the guise of “misinformation” while of course conveniently ignoring networks which actively spew easily verifiable falsehoods but tow the DNC company lines.

What could possibly be the problem with this I wonder.

I think that politicians calling out abuse of broadcasting networks for creating and perpetuating falsehoods is an appropriate thing for them to do. I'm trying to recall you being upset about Trump going after networks he felt were doing that.

I don't think I'd characterise it as a power grab.

[mj2sexay]

I think that politicians calling out abuse of broadcasting networks for creating and perpetuating falsehoods is an appropriate thing for them to do. I'm trying to recall you being upset about Trump going after networks he felt were doing that.

I don't think I'd characterise it as a power grab.

I don’t recall Trump actively using his position to try and have carriers remove said networks off the air.

[Johnny English]

I don’t recall Trump actively using his position to try and have carriers remove said networks off the air.

OK, so then you agree that it's OK for politicians to call out what they perceive to be unfair or unreasonable broadcasting, and we're just debating what actions are appropriate.

Removal of access to White House press conferences for national news organisations - fine
Calling for broadcasters to consider whether they should be carrying networks who spread falsehoods - not fine

Let's be honest with ourselves here - DirecTV didn't drop OAN out of a sense of loyalty and morality, they dropped them because they don't generate enough revenue to compensate for the headache. They're obviously not dropping Fox no matter how many politicians whine or how loudly they do it, so this isn't really a political decision as much as it is a commercial one. So Maybe Biden should simply pull Fox's press credentials instead? After all, we've established that that's an acceptable thing to do when news networks say things you don't like.

[mj2sexay]

So Maybe Biden should simply pull Fox's press credentials instead? After all, we've established that that's an acceptable thing to do when news networks say things you don't like.

Part of why FOX and for that matter in a broader sense conservatives in general are suckers is because when Trump's administration did this to lying sack of excrement propagandist Jim Acosta (and to be sure, it should've been done to Yamiche Alcindor as well), FOX and other conservative media fell over themselves to decry the move and defend Acosta.

Does anyone actually believe with a straight face that if Peter Doocy had his credentials pulled tomorrow, CNN, NYT, etc etc etc would respond in kind? Of course they wouldn't.

Biden called him a son of a bitch and I must have missed the avalanche of articles and commentary discussing how inappropriate it is that the sitting President would be so antagonistic towards a member of the free press.

[Johnny English]

Part of why FOX and for that matter in a broader sense conservatives in general are suckers is because when Trump's administration did this to lying sack of excrement propagandist Jim Acosta (and to be sure, it should've been done to Yamiche Alcindor as well), FOX and other conservative media fell over themselves to decry the move and defend Acosta.

Does anyone actually believe with a straight face that if Peter Doocy had his credentials pulled tomorrow, CNN, NYT, etc etc etc would respond in kind? Of course they wouldn't.

Biden called him a son of a bitch and I must have missed the avalanche of articles and commentary discussing how inappropriate it is that the sitting President would be so antagonistic towards a member of the free press.

That's a pretty slanted recollection of events, I think. And before Acosta it was Kaitlin Collins, I don't recall a huge outcry demanding that she be reinstated (presumably because she's viewed as a turncoat by both sides).

I don't think you can complain about the current President's behaviour towards "members of the free press" when your guy set the precedent. The Doocy incident was a hot mic, not just an overinflated ego throwing a tantrum - and unlike Trump, Biden has also apologised to Doocy (and Collins). I'm not defending Biden per se, but I don't think you really have any scope for holding his feet to the fire given how much, and how much worse, you allowed for with Trump. One is not an iconoclastic firebrand bringing a breath of fresh air to politics and the other a disrespectful POS for doing similar things.

[mj2sexay]

That's a pretty slanted recollection of events, I think. 

With few exceptions (I don't know this to be sure but I'd be surprised if Breitbarts reaction wasn't LOLFUCKACOSTA), Fox, Dailywire, Nat Review, they all condemned Acosta getting his press pass revoked.

I don't think you can complain about the current President's behaviour towards "members of the free press" when your guy set the precedent. The Doocy incident was a hot mic, not just an overinflated ego throwing a tantrum - and unlike Trump, Biden has also apologised to Doocy (and Collins). I'm not defending Biden per se, but I don't think you really have any scope for holding his feet to the fire given how much, and how much worse, you allowed for with Trump. One is not an iconoclastic firebrand bringing a breath of fresh air to politics and the other a disrespectful POS for doing similar things.

This isn't even a defense of Trump as much as its just laying out the basics.  One has the mainstream media running cover for him like they're his personal praetorian guard, the other was maligned as the next Hitler.

The way both have been covered and the treatment they've received is not the same.

FWIW, I have no problem with the demented old bat currently occupying the white house saying whatever he wants to the press, they can all eat excrement as far as I'm concerned, it's just interesting the difference in presentation.

[CatoTheElder]

https://twitter.com/MikeDrucker/status/1514618504237920260?t=pekNO4dg0sTcbsnnHwkrCQ&s=19

[delavan]

That's a pretty slanted recollection of events, I think.

And before Acosta it was Kaitlin Collins, I don't recall a huge outcry demanding that she be reinstated (presumably because she's viewed as a turncoat by both sides).

Jay Wallace, president of Fox News, issued a statement in support of Collins, saying that his organization "stood in strong solidarity with CNN for the right to full access for our journalists as part of a free and unfettered press."   

[dcm1602]

https://twitter.com/MikeDrucker/status/1514618504237920260?t=pekNO4dg0sTcbsnnHwkrCQ&s=19

It was long before 2016 that everyone the left disagreed with was being called a Nazi

[delavan]

It was long before 2016 that everyone the left disagreed with was being called a Nazi

The media maxim now sweeping the nation 

is  "when in doubt: 'russian disinformation'."