Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

The detriment to society caused by the internet wiping out traditional print media cannot be overstated. Experienced reporters who worked daily beats from City Hall and the local police all the way to DC have been replaced with fresh grads who don't have the same connections, get paid shit money, and often have the number of comments their article gets online factor into their compensation. Many good newspapers have been turned into little more than third-rate infotainment websites. The void left behind has been filled with twitter and Facebook nonsence. Now people can"t read anything over 140 characters at a time. Broadcast news is even worse. 90% of the content is purely editorial talking- head nonsense. It's like listening to the Mark Mays and Drew Sharps of political analysis for 22 hours a day. Everyone gets to choose the reality that best suits their pre-existing views.

[hack]

I was surprised to learn that apparently there are just as many accredited journalists in DC as there once was. They're just not working for newspapers, covering local issues from the DC side. They are working for the trade publications, doing inside-baseball specialist stuff for consumption by commerce.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novemberdecember_2015/features/confessions_of_a_paywall_journ058444.php?page=all

[Ghengis Jon]

The detriment to society caused by the internet wiping out traditional print media cannot be overstated...Everyone gets to choose the reality that best suits their pre-existing views.

And therein lies the problem. Gone are the days where news stated was unbiased facts as known (think of Edward R Murrow). Now news accuracy and event analysis is judged not by content, but by 'clicks and eyeballs' with the goal of generating ad revenue.

This is simply another symptom of the corrupting influence of money on free speech - he who spends the most money has the loudest voice and synchophants lap it up and spread 'the gospel'. The Supreme Court Citizens United decision is the Dredd Scott of the 21st century.

[entropy]

Our culture doesn't promote discussion. It promotes a society of low self esteem. What I mean by that is different opinions are scary. Our fragile egos don't allow it. We then resort to hiding around those with similar opinions and demonize those that disagree. This is further reinforced by tweets and quick takes where punchlines or memes are shared as conclusions to end discussion rather than a starting place of discourse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[entropy]

Hoss.. You know my feelings on democracy... It doesn't work. It is a system that will eventually gravitate to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather see term limits but longer terms so our politicians are not living in a state of reelection but instead can focus on our country and making a difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ghengis Jon]

I like term limits - exactly two. One in office and one in prison.

[entropy]

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

Jon... You might enjoy this article..

http://j.school/post/133565978470/information-traders-unfit-to-rule-journalism

It summarizes what we see... Bloggers and tweeters are now the news and it's a focus on hits. It also suggest the more controversial the better...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeff Buchanan]

I think the facts of a story are still out there and that's assuming the important stories make the news cycle. Frequently they don't.

Re getting the facts behind a story, you just have to dig for them using multiple sources...... and it's here one has to credit the easy access to information the Internet provides.

It's certainly true though, that reporting the facts of a story is not being done anymore as it was done by the legendary Murrow and Cronkite.

[Da Geezer]

Jon:

I usually agree with what you say, but I'd recommend your reading the actual decision. The FEC had just held that Fahrenheit 9/11 was perfectly legal to show within 30 days of an election, but the similar propaganda movie,Hillary, was not.

CU wanted to show Hillary, and that was the dispute that caused the court case. What the decision became was a fight between the two parties, the Democrats had their non-profits all in place with unions, particularly public sector unions. The Republicans, seeing that Corporations could now donate (the case was extended to for-profit entities later), started forming PACs and the money started flowing. Never forget that 92% of the population in DC say that Obama is doing a good job, and the FEC sits in DC.

The law in question was McCain-Feingold. It placed regulations on campaign contributions. In Wisconsin, the John Doe prosecution brought by a state's attorney, was based on the claim that Scott Walker had "coordinated" with a PAC.

So the question Citizens United dealt with was whether it is worse for the country for there to be massive spending by non-profit (eventually extended to for-profit) organizations on political speech or is it better for an administrative agency to be able ban some political speech.

So, I go back to your overall view of man. Do you believe that administrative agencies are "public servants" impartially, looking out for all US citizens, and "getting money out of politics". Or do you view man as not good. If not good, then you can expect two things to happen with any regulation of money as speech: 1. Money, legal or illegal, will find it's way to political candidates, particularly incumbents. and 2. Administrative agencies will eventually be controlled by one political party or another, and the executive branch will be used to the benefit of one party. Like allowing Fahrenheit 9/11 and not Hillary.

If you actually believe that elected officials should spend their second term in prison (and I agree) then you hate more money being available to primarily incumbents. But that same money helps defeat them. The bigger danger, in my opinion, is that administrative agencies are captured by one party, and that they use their power to ban speech by the other party on a partisan basis. I personally know, partly because I was audited, that the IRS was used to intimidate libertarians and republicans. the Election Commission, the Trade Commission, the EPA, and many others are, I believe, so corrupt that it is best if the country just starts over.

By the way, I proudly say, I've never donated to any state or federal politician. I don't want to encourage the bastards.

[hack]

Different opinions are scary. Our fragile egos don't allow it. We then resort to hiding around those with similar opinions and demonize those that disagree. This is further reinforced by tweets and quick takes where punchlines or memes are shared as conclusions to end discussion rather than a starting place of discourse.

Yikes -- nailed it.

[hack]

Re getting the facts behind a story, you just have to dig for them using multiple sources...... and it's here one has to credit the easy access to information the Internet provides.

It's certainly true though, that reporting the facts of a story is not being done anymore as it was done by the legendary Murrow and Cronkite.

Bloomberg News has a slavish approach to fact-checking. Short on context, but very little is incorrect. You get facts.

Let's recall, though, that around the same time as the Internet started killing off newspapers came a new approach to classification of documents by the USG that abandoned judicious use of that power in exchange for overuse. The more journalists can rely on documents the stronger their coverage is.

[Ghengis Jon]

So the question Citizens United dealt with was whether it is worse for the country for there to be massive spending by non-profit (eventually extended to for-profit) organizations on political speech or is it better for an administrative agency to be able ban some political speech.

The problem is that the SC did not narrowly apply the decision. They should have ruled, imo, that the said agency isn't banning political speech but limiting the amount that could be donated. This doesn't limit or abridge speech, it keeps the playing field somewhat level - a poor man's voice equals a rich man's. Contribution limits kept the nonsense we see today at bay. Its one thing to express an opinion and have rational discorse, its quite another to use massive resources available to only a minute portion of the top 1% to drown out all other PsOV.

Personally, I think that only individuals (no businesses, charities, or collective groups) should fund campaigns. Look at all the money that was wasted on the last presidential cycle. A chunk of national debt could have been retired or social programs funded with that cash. Its collective financial irresponsibility on a staggering scale, for what, installing incompetent boobs and mindless partisan zealots to run this nation?

[Da Geezer]

Jon: The Supreme Court has to hear cases that are about an actual harm or a constitutional interpretation to have standing. This case was about banning Hillary from being seen within the context of allowing Fahrenheit 9/11

I think your view is the majority opinion of the public. I happen to believe that the money, legal or illegal, would find its way to the politicians anyway. And that is the problem.

So you get propaganda against Republicans allowed, and propaganda against Democrats banned. The agency that does this is fully bought and paid for by the "collective groups" you speak about. And if the R's ever win the presidency again, they will try to flip the field.

The reason the rich buy politicians is because much, maybe most, of the 1% do business with and get favors from the government. I believe that if you cut off the ability of politicians to "deliver" favors, you can limit the amount of money flowing to politicians. Favors done by the tax code (IRS) can be eliminated by doing away with all deductions, better yet, the IRS. Favors to the educational establishment cut by doing away with the Dept of Ed. and so forth. In the last 25 years we have come so far in accepting these administrative agencies, that what I propose seems radical. But it is within that same timeframe that most Americans have come to trust neither party (54% in a poll today). That is because the rich in both parties have the same interest in taxing the ordinary citizen and taking the money (called "rent seeking" in economics for about 250 years).

[Da Geezer]

Personally, I think that only individuals (no businesses, charities, or collective groups) should fund campaigns

I'd like that too, along with publishing the names of each donor of any amount. If a rich man donates $ 1,000,000 then publish his name, and let the chips fall where they may. You would find a great many who give lots of money to both parties, because their motivation is basically rent seeking.

[entropy]

How about adopting more of a British model for campaigns???


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk