How can we regulate the news media

The Fairness Doctrine was needed when the public was limited to a few outlets as a source for news. With cable, satellite, internet this is no longer the case. There is no longer a justification for this doctrine. Not the news stations so much as the news conglomerates like News Corp, Disney, Time Warner, etc. that possess large holdings in TV, print, radio and internet combined. News Corp is, of course, the poster child for slanted political influence on a world wide basis.We are not going to have objective news since a slant is always present in every news item. And that slant is mostly a reflection of the ownership. Having more owners of various outlets means more varying views. Now we run into a problem.In the Gun Control threads, have you noticed how zealous the 2nd Amendment advocates are?You ain't seen zealous till you try limiting political speech. Every news outlet of every political stripe will do a tap dance on your head. Besides the big news organizations taking you to court you will have every mom & pop radio station and internet site in the country filing suit for 1st Amendment infringement.Worse yet, given its history, the biggest gun to shoot down any hint of this kind of limit to political speech is SCOTUS itself.These last two will not happen.

Point received ... and rejected.Exercising political speech is not the same as killing someone.But, you knew that.

Talk about inflammatory propaganda. You sure are good at it.You seem to think that propaganda is all "the big lie," deliberate deceit and distortion. That was certainly the use of the NAZI's.If you ever listened to a Voice of America broadcast then you heard US government "propaganda." Not deliberate deceit or miss-direction, but "our side of the story."Nothing wrong with that.In this country do you really think the government watchers will not spot and loudly proclaim any evil falsehoods spread by this domestic information flow? We have you, dronester, and others to point out such attempts at deception. And, thank you, by the way.Despite your own use of propaganda I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the government until I see otherwise.

Exactly my point.I love it when someone makes my point so clearly for me while thinking they are doing the opposite. Did I say that? I think your Big Lie propaganda is showing.

And I fell into the thread creep. Thanks for bringing me out.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This was point 2 in your message. By breaking up these conglomerates we broaden the ownership thus taking in more views on the stories of the day.It keeps the Murdochs of the world from having an undue share of political influence.There are still very many more and varied outlets in today's society than in the 50's-70's. A Fairness Doctrine is not necessary. IMHO, limiting the corporate accumulation of outlets will do far more than the doctrine.

Do you have any examples?

I'm not sure we can blame the media for the lack of intellect, critical thinking skills and just plain common sense that some people exhibit. It certainly can exacerbate the delusions of an already sick mind but then so can a pretty girl to a stalker.The comparison of 1st Amendment political speech to 2nd Amendment killing is more than a stretch in this case.Kind of reminds me of the "Twinkie Defense."Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Then we blame the pretty girl for setting off the stalker?I recognize the power of the media. After all advertizing works. But the intent of advertizing is to increase sales not increase shoplifting. In this case the intent of the media was to convince a political opinion, not convince someone to go kill. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I did. It was me. Hyperbole, maybe, but it was all me. And it felt so good.

Quibble. The intention of the con man is to commit fraud which is to knowingly take value from his victim thus making him poorer. So, yes, the con man has a very personal interest in making his victim poorer.

Dr. A,As I said, quibble. We will disagree. So be it.

Bullshit.I was at Iowa protesting, overturning cars, burning flags just like thousands of others from sea to shining sea.It was not the media. It was the fucking war.Pull your head out of your ass.

I was one of the baby killers. I was the embodiment of evil walking through LAX in uniform. I saw the body parts, the blood, the drugs, the vacant stares, the walking dead. I went to too many funerals; carried too many coffins, all before I was 21.Then I heard the lies on body counts, the cove up of atrocities, the "We are winning" montra from Westmoreland. Then there was Tet ... then there was Cambodia. When Nixon expanded the war it was too much. He ripped the heart out of the nation. There was nothing left to do but take to the streets.This wasn't some media hyped charade of liberal politics. It was disgust. That my country, my government, my president could so deceive and bleed the people for so long.I still have my purple ribbon from Vietnam Vets Against the War.I earned the right to bitch.After all these decades it still hurts. I cry.