Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
All of these scandals are out in the open, so just imagine what Sarah Palin is trying to hide.
If the candidates can't even effectively answer the questions to these issues, theres no way in hell that they can handle or even deserve to be in the White House.
2 Sept, 2008, 8:48pm, kdogg wrote: Reporters do tend to be liberals/Democrats, I'll concede. But media owners & editors tend to be conservatives/Republicans - will you concede this? And furthermore, can we concede that this constitutes a check/balance system much like the Founders intended for government?
Media mogul ownership does tend to be made up of a conservatives. Conservatives like Rupert Murdoch who hosts fund raisers for Hillary Clinton. This is related to the discussion but does not address the results of the actual journalistic content and how it effects public perception and information. It is clearly obvious that this is what I was addressing and that the ownership of media outlets is only a tangentially related matter. That makes this entire line of discussion nothing more than an attempt to form a contention based on something that is closely related but ultimately off topic. While the conservative ownership is interesting is has zero effect on the on the actual outcome.
By the way I have a degree in broadcast journalism and worked in the TV news media in NY (the #1 media market in the nation) for over three years.
It is not "tangentially related" with "zero effect on the actual outcome." Media owners solicit advertising to stay in business; these sponsors have their own interests at hand. If the sponsors don't like what's being put out they pull their support. A commercial media outlet has to take their considerations into account, to not bite the hand that feeds them. You agree that media owners tend conservative. Can you agree that businesspeople tend to be Republican as well? Yet you're trying to tell me there's no conservative influence on a "liberal" media? I don't buy that.
If you're a New Yorker, then surely you know Murdoch supported Hillary because she has influence in the state. It wasn't ideological; it was self-interest. Sponsors are different. Money doesn't come from a limited number of sources like political power. They can (and sometimes do) put their money where their mouth is on ideological grounds.
As far as checks and balances, to make reference to something that is put in place to control the workings of the federal government and use it to refer to the workings of the news media is so obtuse that it borders on absurd. For the record our founding fathers used public slander in published news media as political tool. There were no actual ramifications for liable and slander until the NY Times vs. Sullivan Supreme Court case in 1964. Our founding fathers had no intentions whatsoever of there being a system of checks and balances for the press. In fact their perception of it was quite the opposite. So no, I will not concede your point of checks and balances. It is unfounded and nonfactual.
What I'm trying to say is that the press has a role within normal democratic governance - as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Why do you think the first Constitutional amendment (ratified 1791, in the course of their lifetimes) secured freedom of the press? Because you have a job to do - the press is the Fourth Estate, after all. This independence is precisely so that the press can ask the tough questions without fear of recrimination; so they can make government more transparent, and thereby more accountable, to the public. So yeah, I do think the press is supposed to check/balance government. At least, that's their responsibility - and that's exactly why the First Amendment gives them the rights that it does.
You're a bit vague when you refer to "public slander in published news media as political tool." I'd like to add that slander is spoken and libel is printed (did they not teach that in any broadcast journalism lectures?)
My best guess is that you're talking about here is Revolution-era pamphlets like Thomas Paine's Common Sense. These weren't written under democratic rule. They operated outside the established law because they weren't given government-sanctioned liberties allowing them to do so - there's no checks/balances in a monarchy, save sheer force. Depending on your viewpoint, one could have called our Declaration of Independence as published slander (say it with me: "libel"). But there were no legitimate (as far as the Crown is concerned) means of disseminating that viewpoint available to the Founding Fathers.
By design, the Constitution permits the expression of multiple perspectives (though this is generally true, I'll concede that there are certain exceptions) to further/enhance/advance public discourse. That's the whole point of the marketplace of ideas - multiple views are expressed and (ideally) superior ideas become accepted through competition. If one actor in the press says one thing, others are there to verify or discredit this claim. The way I see it, that's multiple press venues checking/balancing one another.
So, I still disagree with you here. The press serves as a check/balance within democratic governance. There are checks & balances within the press.
If the sponsors don't like what's being put out they pull their support. A commercial media outlet has to take their considerations into account, to not bite the hand that feeds them.
I just wanted to add to this quote, not necessarily to the whole conversation, because I didn't know this until I started working at my company.
But it is very much true. A TV or radio station is under no obligation to run an advertisement. They are private enterprises. If they think your message is too controversial, too negative, just don't like it, etc, or they support the other candidate, they do not have to take your money.
Post by freedomofmusic on Sept 4, 2008 20:09:03 GMT -5
I just made another donation to Obama - in anticipation of another round of lies about him from McCain tonight. Hope it helps.
Troo -- How is the door-to-door being received there in M'boro? I was thinking about doing the same here in Brentwood, although I'm a wuss and fear rejection.
Laura Bush Oscar de la Renta suit: $2,500 Stuart Weitzman heels: $325 Pearl stud earrings: $600–$1,500 Total: Between $3,425 and $4,325
Cindy McCain Oscar de la Renta dress: $3,000 Chanel J12 White Ceramic Watch: $4,500 Three-carat diamond earrings: $280,000 Four-strand pearl necklace: $11,000–$25,000 Shoes, designer unknown: $600 Total: Between $299,100 and $313,100
(All prices except Laura’s shoes and Cindy’s watch are estimates, and the jewelry prices are based on the assumption that the pieces are real.)
(All prices except Laura’s shoes and Cindy’s watch are estimates, and the jewelry prices are based on the assumption that the pieces are real.)
Sorry, this reminds me of when Tucker Carlson was speculating about the cost of Nancy Pelosi's suit during the first State of the Union address after she became Speaker of the House.
I just made another donation to Obama - in anticipation of another round of lies about him from McCain tonight. Hope it helps.
Troo -- How is the door-to-door being received there in M'boro? I was thinking about doing the same here in Brentwood, although I'm a wuss and fear rejection.
This year we're being very partisan about registering people, wearing our Obama gear and saying we're registering people to vote for Obama. Mind you, we're not refusing to register McCain voters but his voter usually just say I'm not voting Obama and shut the door.
Our group is usually about 6 people and we go in pairs just to be safe (especially for the women). On average we register about 5-10 new people an hour.
Realize that many of these people won't bother to vote (or they would have bothered to register in the first place) but at least the have the opportunity now.
And I've found a few older people who I am going to give a ride to the polls so they can vote. They hadn't registered because they had no way to get there.
Every little bit helps.
In 2004 we went to EVERY house in the African American district and the voter turnout there went from the lowest in the county to one of the highest. Bush still carried this county by the largest margin of any Republican in history but...
(All prices except Laura’s shoes and Cindy’s watch are estimates, and the jewelry prices are based on the assumption that the pieces are real.)
Sorry, this reminds me of when Tucker Carlson was speculating about the cost of Nancy Pelosi's suit during the first State of the Union address after she became Speaker of the House.
I didn't even see that at first read, because I didn't want to keep reading after "Wow! No wonder McCain has so many houses: his wife has the price of a Scottsdale split-level hanging from her ears."
Post by bamadancer on Sept 4, 2008 23:24:02 GMT -5
I went and worked a voter registration drive today! I was so proud.
Also, I donated $5 to the Obama campaign last night...all I could give, but I gave something. I wanted to offset Palin's speech.
CBS's latest polls is reporting that Obama's bounce is gone, and that they are now tied again. I don't want to believe it, so I'm choosing to ignore it.
(All prices except Laura’s shoes and Cindy’s watch are estimates, and the jewelry prices are based on the assumption that the pieces are real.)
Sorry, this reminds me of when Tucker Carlson was speculating about the cost of Nancy Pelosi's suit during the first State of the Union address after she became Speaker of the House.
I didn't even see that at first read, because I didn't want to keep reading after "Wow! No wonder McCain has so many houses: his wife has the price of a Scottsdale split-level hanging from her ears."
They're multimillionaires, so it's not surprising to me that she's wearing 6 cts. of diamonds on her ears, nor are the prices of any of the things they're wearing. Being moneyed and well-dressed is hardly a character flaw.
That being said, no way in hell that ticket gets my vote this year...but it has nothing to do with financial status.
Did anyone see the 9/11 'tribute'. They are now directly saying Iran was responsible for 9/11. This is scary. McCain cant be president.
Yes. That video was utterly reprehensible. It was supposed to be a "tribute" to those that died on 9-11, but there was no tribute whatsoever. Showing bodies being dragged out of burning buildings (not the WTC but still), and showing the posters of the missing, with close ups on the faces? Really? A tribute? It was the standard fear mongering. Thank God for Keith Olberman, cause after they cut away from the "tribute" he went behind all the other talking head's backs and apologized to the audience for having to watch that. I think the level to which these folks are willing to go to spread fear is unbelievable and shouldn't surprise anyone anymore.
I also can't believe that today the unemployment rate jumped to an 5 year high after a convention where there was absolutely no substance about the economy spoken from any of the speakers. The Dems have a REAL good opportunity here to make their case that the Republicans are truly out of touch.
If the sponsors don't like what's being put out they pull their support. A commercial media outlet has to take their considerations into account, to not bite the hand that feeds them.
I just wanted to add to this quote, not necessarily to the whole conversation, because I didn't know this until I started working at my company.
But it is very much true. A TV or radio station is under no obligation to run an advertisement. They are private enterprises. If they think your message is too controversial, too negative, just don't like it, etc, or they support the other candidate, they do not have to take your money.
False. I don't know where you work but equal time is part of federal law.
^^ Wrong. Equal time rule was abolished under the Reagan Administration. That is why and when conservatives bought and took control of talk radio.
The media was established primarily to promote the public welfare but Republican deregulation has all but abolished the clause requiring the public airwaves be used , at least in part, for public benefit.
Edit- My mistake. The fairness doctrine which required fair reporting on the issues was abolished under Reagan. The equal time rule requires more or less equal time for the candidates on major networks.
Last Edit: Sept 5, 2008 11:02:48 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
I just made another donation to Obama - in anticipation of another round of lies about him from McCain tonight. Hope it helps.
Troo -- How is the door-to-door being received there in M'boro? I was thinking about doing the same here in Brentwood, although I'm a wuss and fear rejection.
This year we're being very partisan about registering people, wearing our Obama gear and saying we're registering people to vote for Obama. Mind you, we're not refusing to register McCain voters but his voter usually just say I'm not voting Obama and shut the door.
Our group is usually about 6 people and we go in pairs just to be safe (especially for the women). On average we register about 5-10 new people an hour.
Realize that many of these people won't bother to vote (or they would have bothered to register in the first place) but at least the have the opportunity now.
And I've found a few older people who I am going to give a ride to the polls so they can vote. They hadn't registered because they had no way to get there.
Every little bit helps.
In 2004 we went to EVERY house in the African American district and the voter turnout there went from the lowest in the county to one of the highest. Bush still carried this county by the largest margin of any Republican in history but...
Post by soundtribe_junkie on Sept 5, 2008 11:41:43 GMT -5
The video was deplorable and sick...and the costs of their c rappy dresses, idiotic
Why dont they donate their equal cost of their CLOTHING to something/one in NEED. How about a small business? That convention and McInsane was truly scary. He looked like Billy Dee Williams in Waterboy with the wooden hands. How can he talk about change when Bush and supporters (him) have been in power/elected so long? It seems like somebody in the media would bring this up-but havent seen it mentioned. Maybe I have a false perception of this idea. Am I wrong here?
And if I am..there are plenty of other reasons..just ask Yoda down there
^^^They don't donate to the poor, or the middle class for that matter.
Regarding stories about Palin, what do you guys think of this: Her husband was part of the Alaskan Secessionist Party for close to 10 years. I'm SURE she was totally opposed to his politics.
^^ Wrong. Equal time rule was abolished under the Reagan Administration. That is why and when conservatives bought and took control of talk radio.
The media was established primarily to promote the public welfare but Republican deregulation has all but abolished the clause requiring the public airwaves be used , at least in part, for public benefit.
Edit- My mistake. The fairness doctrine which required fair reporting on the issues was abolished under Reagan. The equal time rule requires more or less equal time for the candidates on major networks.
You got documentation of that? It was never mentioned in any of the classes that discussd equal time when I was getting my degree in broadcast Journalism - including Communication Law. (I graduated in 1999. You'd think they might have mentioned it.) Nor is it mentioned in the entry on the history of the equal time rule from the Museum of Broadcast communications to which I posted a link.
I do however remember the FCC abolishing the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. That is a completely different mandate. Reagan did veto the attempt to reinstate it.
Post by chicojuarz on Sept 5, 2008 13:48:46 GMT -5
^^^yeah, I'm certain about that. One of the radio stations here had an ad bought during the last local elections by a white power group. They had to play it and the host of the show it was aired during discussed the fact that its the law and they cant turn down anything directly from the candidate during an election.
Media mogul ownership does tend to be made up of a conservatives. Conservatives like Rupert Murdoch who hosts fund raisers for Hillary Clinton. This is related to the discussion but does not address the results of the actual journalistic content and how it effects public perception and information. It is clearly obvious that this is what I was addressing and that the ownership of media outlets is only a tangentially related matter. That makes this entire line of discussion nothing more than an attempt to form a contention based on something that is closely related but ultimately off topic. While the conservative ownership is interesting is has zero effect on the on the actual outcome.
By the way I have a degree in broadcast journalism and worked in the TV news media in NY (the #1 media market in the nation) for over three years.
It is not "tangentially related" with "zero effect on the actual outcome." Media owners solicit advertising to stay in business; these sponsors have their own interests at hand. If the sponsors don't like what's being put out they pull their support. A commercial media outlet has to take their considerations into account, to not bite the hand that feeds them. You agree that media owners tend conservative. Can you agree that businesspeople tend to be Republican as well? Yet you're trying to tell me there's no conservative influence on a "liberal" media? I don't buy that.
If you're a New Yorker, then surely you know Murdoch supported Hillary because she has influence in the state. It wasn't ideological; it was self-interest. Sponsors are different. Money doesn't come from a limited number of sources like political power. They can (and sometimes do) put their money where their mouth is on ideological grounds.
As far as checks and balances, to make reference to something that is put in place to control the workings of the federal government and use it to refer to the workings of the news media is so obtuse that it borders on absurd. For the record our founding fathers used public slander in published news media as political tool. There were no actual ramifications for liable and slander until the NY Times vs. Sullivan Supreme Court case in 1964. Our founding fathers had no intentions whatsoever of there being a system of checks and balances for the press. In fact their perception of it was quite the opposite. So no, I will not concede your point of checks and balances. It is unfounded and nonfactual.
What I'm trying to say is that the press has a role within normal democratic governance - as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Why do you think the first Constitutional amendment (ratified 1791, in the course of their lifetimes) secured freedom of the press? Because you have a job to do - the press is the Fourth Estate, after all. This independence is precisely so that the press can ask the tough questions without fear of recrimination; so they can make government more transparent, and thereby more accountable, to the public. So yeah, I do think the press is supposed to check/balance government. At least, that's their responsibility - and that's exactly why the First Amendment gives them the rights that it does.
You're a bit vague when you refer to "public slander in published news media as political tool." I'd like to add that slander is spoken and libel is printed (did they not teach that in any broadcast journalism lectures?)
My best guess is that you're talking about here is Revolution-era pamphlets like Thomas Paine's Common Sense. These weren't written under democratic rule. They operated outside the established law because they weren't given government-sanctioned liberties allowing them to do so - there's no checks/balances in a monarchy, save sheer force. Depending on your viewpoint, one could have called our Declaration of Independence as published slander (say it with me: "libel"). But there were no legitimate (as far as the Crown is concerned) means of disseminating that viewpoint available to the Founding Fathers.
By design, the Constitution permits the expression of multiple perspectives (though this is generally true, I'll concede that there are certain exceptions) to further/enhance/advance public discourse. That's the whole point of the marketplace of ideas - multiple views are expressed and (ideally) superior ideas become accepted through competition. If one actor in the press says one thing, others are there to verify or discredit this claim. The way I see it, that's multiple press venues checking/balancing one another.
So, I still disagree with you here. The press serves as a check/balance within democratic governance. There are checks & balances within the press.
Yes, libel is the word used to refer to printed word in legal terms. I used the term slander in terms of conversational English.
1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander. 2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name. 3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc. –verb (used with object) 4. to utter slander against; defame. –verb (used without object) 5. to utter or circulate slander.
Grammatically speaking it was not in error, but you are correct about the specifics of terminology. Semantics is a fun game, but it gets us nowhere. Perhaps I should have used the word defame or some other synonym. I even considered editing it, but had work to do. It is unfortunate that have chosen such a condescending and rude course action to refer to something of which I was obviously aware.
(say it with me: "libel").
Really, there is no reason for such petty obnoxiousness. Nor was their really any reason to make mention of it a second time.
At the risk of getting off topic (which is what's happening here) check the advertisers on Fox news vs. more typically left leaning 24 hour news outlet. I'm sure you will find the advertisers to be mostly the same. Do the same with the NY Times vs. the Wall Street Journal. Sponsors do not dictate news content.
The freedom of the press is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's mentioned in the Bill of Rights. I'm sure you know this. I'm just trying to make a demonstrative parallel to your libel commentary. And don't bother pointing out that the Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. We both know that we both know this.
While a good and well educated guess that I might be referring to Thomas Paine, I am not. I was actually referring to the common practice of libel among politicians of the time. In particular the use of libel by Thomas Jefferson against John Adams during the election of 1800 was what came to mind. Again this was fairly common practice at the time.
Your use of the term "checks and balances" is obviously analogous. Therefore I will not make further (counterproductive) commentary on it other than to say that this interpretation of how the media operates is merely your opinion to which you are entitled. I disagree based on my experience as a member of the media and based on what I see now as a member of the public. Beyond that all we can do is agree to disagree. We are not going to change each others' minds.
The freedom of the press is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's mentioned in the Bill of Rights. I'm sure you know this. I'm just trying to make a demonstrative parallel to your libel commentary. And don't bother pointing out that the Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. We both know that we both know this.
No, we don't. Article 5, U.S. Constitution The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. (emphasis mine)
The Constitution itself says that Amendments are part of the Constitution.
^^ Wrong. Equal time rule was abolished under the Reagan Administration. That is why and when conservatives bought and took control of talk radio.
The media was established primarily to promote the public welfare but Republican deregulation has all but abolished the clause requiring the public airwaves be used , at least in part, for public benefit.
Edit- My mistake. The fairness doctrine which required fair reporting on the issues was abolished under Reagan. The equal time rule requires more or less equal time for the candidates on major networks.
You got documentation of that? It was never mentioned in any of the classes that discussd equal time when I was getting my degree in broadcast Journalism - including Communication Law. (I graduated in 1999. You'd think they might have mentioned it.) Nor is it mentioned in the entry on the history of the equal time rule from the Museum of Broadcast communications to which I posted a link.
I do however remember the FCC abolishing the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. That is a completely different mandate. Reagan did veto the attempt to reinstate it.
Yes, a station CAN refuse to air a negative ad, even if your facts are 100%. Or if they feel that it's too controversial. We often have to send our scripts or mpegs of the spots to stations to have them approve them first. And have had them rejected.
We have also had stations require the full paid-for lines at the end of a spot even if we are outside the 120 day requirement or if the spot isn't actually a political spot.
You got documentation of that? It was never mentioned in any of the classes that discussd equal time when I was getting my degree in broadcast Journalism - including Communication Law. (I graduated in 1999. You'd think they might have mentioned it.) Nor is it mentioned in the entry on the history of the equal time rule from the Museum of Broadcast communications to which I posted a link.
I do however remember the FCC abolishing the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. That is a completely different mandate. Reagan did veto the attempt to reinstate it.
The Equal Time Rule, as far as I can tell, still stands as law.
Read closely and you'll see we agree. Pay close attention to the "my mistake" part.
In summation, Fairness doctrine gone, equal time in effect.
I guess I could have just deleted the entire post but I'm usually inclined to admit my mistakes (unlike Bush and most Republicans)
Sorry about that. Your edit is not in my quote of your post. I think you posted the edit while was typing or at least while had the window open and was doing something else.
Nonetheless I hadn't seen the edit when I posted so I apologize.
***EDIT*** I have to add this.
BTW democrats don't admit their mistakes too often either. I'm non-partisan. I notice these things.
***EDIT #2*** Apparently my head's in space and I missed the edit you made twice. Sorry for my lack of observation.
Slightly getting off subject, but I have a friend who is volunteering for the Obama campaign in NJ and has created some stickers to get the word out. All the proceeds go toward the campaign. Here is a pic of what the sticker looks like below.