How can we regulate the news media

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.

I find your reasoning convoluted and silly. It's not because there is not a point to make about the NDAA. It is your attempt to squeeze it into being the topic here that I find forced.

I guess it helps when your point is contradictory.One:
America's corporate media was nearly all supporting the WMD lies in Iraq. There were very few media protesters ("government watchers") like the Dixie Chicks and Phil Donahue. And if you recall, they were hammered hard. The criminal invasion of Iraq was committed.Now, the government can indoctrinate the masses even more successfully through the The National Defense Authorization Act. Goebbels would be proud.Are you not in agreement?Two:
It would seem you believe "Despite your own use of propaganda I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the government until I see otherwise" is completely OPPOSITE to "I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that."Edited by dronester, : wrongly attributed quote

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

Ok, good. Ok, but I wish you would have stated this more clearly in your first post.

Please be a little more careful with your reporting. I did not say this. At some point, you are actually going to want to accuse someone of fascism. I wonder what terms will be left to use.

On the other hand, when it comes to the NEWS companies that own the major sources of news, we used to have over 50.. we are now down to 6. So many of the sources are owned by the same people.

You are correct, I attributed it to the wrong person. My humble apologies. I'll fix/edit the above post. Fascism, or sometimes referred to as corporatism, is the conspired actions of government and corporations serving their needs over the best interests of the people. E.g., When the government oks the very profitable act of coporation's fracking over the health welfare of the people, I would call that ONE example of corporatism. Another would be back-door deals with health-insurance companies over the public's welfare.. . . I think I am also being sucked into topic-creep.

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.

Such as Democracy Now! | Democracy Now! , which covered the third party candidates in the last presidential election.You can also find international news on the web that seems to be filtered out of US "news" productions. Even BBC on public radio.The problem is getting people off the Faux Noise medication ...Enjoy

You guys want the BBC?

If it were on radio, I would listen more.I can get it on TV, though perhaps I have to pay a higher cable fee to get it.I can get it on short wave, but reception varies depending on the time of day.Actually, if there were a CBC radio station within range, I would listen to that.For me, it is mostly NPR. But BBC and CBC would be good alternatives if they were more easily available.

I get a stupid number of radio stations (including the BBC ones) on my Sonos system - I think (don't quote me on this) that it's streamed through Spotify ?You can also stream quite a few BBC radio programmes through the BBC website.(If you fancy a good laugh, listen to the streams of I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue on Radio 4 - Listen Live - BBC Sounds )I'm hugely off-topic here, so will stop there

Probably safer to say that it would affect all of the big news organizations equally. Of course, I have a personal opinion like you - I think it would put PMSNBC out of business. I’m reminded of the time it’s parent, NBC made news of its own 20 years ago - remember it?In an extraordinary public apology, NBC said Tuesday night that it erred in staging a fiery test crash of a General Motors pickup truck for its "Dateline NBC" news program and agreed to settle a defamation suit filed by the auto maker. Lawsuits were being brought against General Motors for a suspected design flaw that made their 80’s pickup trucks susceptible to fuel tank explosions in some side impact crashes. NBC’s dateline program performed their own crash tests on the pickups, [sarcasm]undoubtedly for the sole purpose of keeping their viewers fully informed. [/sarcasm] They secretly rigged the trucks with explosives, to make sure the explosions were very sensational. Unfortunately, they were a little too careless, and a careful examination of the videos showed the explosion happening a split second before impact, and GM busted them on it. Until now, I never suspected it as anything more than an attempt at sensationalism, as serious as that type of fraud is. The above linked LA Times article has one sentence in it that arouses suspicion of something else however;

quote:

---

The nation's top auto maker alleged that the test crash was part of an "orchestrated campaign" by plaintiffs' lawyers and others to unfairly sway public opinion concerning the safety of GM's pickups.

---

So I may have been mistaken in thinking that the lie of NBC’s test was only to make pretty pictures for its viewers, NBC could also have been on the take from “plaintiff’s lawyers and others” who stood to make big money with lawsuits against GM. A NEWS ORGANIZATION TAKING BRIBES TO MISREPRESENT THE NEWS AND ATTEMPT TO DISHONESTLY BRING A CORPORATION DOWN.If you think Fox News ever, past, present, or future, engaged, is engaging, or will engage in any type of fraud even remotely approaching NBC’s crime, start a thread with some specific details on it and we’ll compare the two.I was quite interested in that NBC fiasco 20 years ago, and can confidently state that bicyclist Lance Armstrong’s lie is getting far more press attention today than NBC’s lie did then. It’s appalling.

Most of the talk shows, Limbaugh for sure, and probably Beck and Olberman and all the others, don’t call themselves news programs, and are seldom affiliated with any news organization.