How can we regulate the news media

No. 'Cos that's different. Well, the intention of the conman is to make himself rich, he has no particular interest in making his victim poor. It just works out that way.

Fox Highlights Poll On Belief In Obama Conspiracy Theories That Fox Helped Perpetuate | Media Matters for America

quote:

---

Fox News ignored its own role in perpetuating conspiracy theories about President Obama during a segment about Americans who think President Obama is hiding something -- even while engaging in the same behavior during the segment.

​

On the January 18 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly featured a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll finding that 63 percent of Americans believe in at least one political conspiracy theory, and 36 percent think that President Obama is hiding information about his background. Kelly pondered what such a result says "about our faith in government, not to mention the media."

​

But Fox has been a leading player in promoting baseless conspiracy theories about Obama ...

---

More on the link.This is typical of how Faux Noise operates -- have someone start something without factual support and then in their "news" claim that "sources say" to report it as news.Enjoy.

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.

Which is, of course, how banks operate ...Enjoy

No, his interest is in making himself richer. He wouldn't be deterred from his crime if, for example, the victim was insured and ended up no poorer. Just so long as he ends up with more money, he's happy.In the same way, I suppose that at least the more cynical sections of the right-wing media don't want to produce screaming twitching paranoid lunatics as such. It's just an inevitable consequence of their marketing strategy.

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

I agree, though I would have to go back a little further than Cronkite, I'd have to go to Chet Huntley/David Brinkley. I think it was around Cronkite's time (the Vietnam war) that the news media saw the possibilities for new ratings and revenues with sensationalism. Cronkite was known for being, shall we say, left of center. They weren’t told, they SAW the bias. They continue to see it, that's the reason Fox News ratings continue to stay near the top. There are too many clear examples, past and present, of liberal bias in mainstream news for there to be any doubt. A couple of examples for you;MSNBC's daily lineup includes, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell.
Except possibly for Scarborough, the rest are extreme liberals, and not unlike many other lineups on many other mainstream news channels. George Stephanopoulos, a biggie at ABC, is a former cabinet member of Bill Clinton.The mid-term elections of 1994 saw surprising (to liberals, and pollsters at the time) gains in house and senate seats by Republicans. The late Peter Jennings, ABC’s main news anchor at that time, responded like this in his commentary;

quote:

---

"Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It's clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It's the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old."

---

Best of Notable Quotables 1994 -- Media Research CenterWhen voters elected Republicans, according to a top news reporter, they had a "temper tantrum". Actually, we see who had the temper tantrum, it was Peter Jennings. Many people with nothing but liberal news shows to watch came to realize that angry two year olds shouldn't have jobs as new anchors, either. 1994 was right around the time Fox News was coming into being. No one needed to be told that Peter Jennings had liberal bias, they could see his liberal bias for themselves.Media Matters main reason for existence is to put down Fox News, to garner attention and revenue for itself by trying to make its gullible audience believe that it has the power to "stop" Fox News. Still doesn’t even come close to an attempt to rig a crash test with explosives, to sway a major court opinion against a major corporation. I wonder what the extent of the hysterical reaction would be if Fox news used explosives for anything at all?

Why sure, I have one, which is all I need to show how easily it can happen.

quote:

---

The Kent State shootings”also known as the May 4 massacre or the Kent State massacre[2][3][4]”occurred at Kent State University in the U.S. city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[5]

​

Some of the students who were shot had been protesting against the American invasion of Cambodia, which President Richard Nixon announced in a television address on April 30. Other students who were shot had been walking nearby or observing the protest from a distance.[6][7]

---

Kent State shootings - WikipediaThe 1970 news media hated Richard Nixon. If you want to believe that college students, in their vast stores of teenage knowledge and experience, thought they knew better than Nixon did about foreign policy all by themselves without being egged on by liberals in the news media, then go ahead. But the simple fact is that at least some of the frenzy on that college campus was inspired by news media sensationalism, and people WERE KILLED. (in this case, by government bullets)

Hmm, strange, I thought you were a teenager now."Knowing about" something in no way determines what the extent of its public exposure was.

I agree - they’re a comparatively small segment of the news media, not really capable of having serious look at what action can be taken to correct problems with sensationalism in news reporting. So my earlier point that that discussion isn't properly taking place still stands. The same way you do with Ventura. The same way most people do who put down Fox News without ever watching/listening to it. It always seems like I have to field accusations of "you don’t watch/listen to my source, so how do you know" all the while watching Fox News getting put down by those who never watch it. Not much more to be said about that. Apologies - my steam powered unit tends to do that to me. I’ll work on cleaning that up.

Not content, but an unpredictable, quick profit. That's a good point, would it be possible for the news media to be policed by government without the government mandating that some government activity be barred from exposure? I think it would be possible, but not easy. As many people feel that the rationale behind the second amendment is basic and well understood. It was that way for the first 3/4, maybe the first 4/5 of the nations history, then the "progressives" started claiming that times have changed, that people don’t need to hunt anymore, that civilian militias aren't an issue anymore, that we don’t live in the wild west anymore, and it's time for the second amendment to lose some of its basics and understanding.In news reporting, times have changed. It’s gone from the responsible journalism that went on during the times of Huntley/Brinkley, the assassination of President Kennedy, (there was practically no mention of gun control during coverage of the Kennedy killing) to today's combination of news reporting and entertainment. Is it really necessary to go into detail about how much communication and advertising have changed in the past 50 years?

I don’t completely agree with it, but other networks all do similar things to prominent Republicans, Quayle and Gingrich come to mind. Obama is the president, if there is a valid suspicion about Obama's background, and if other news sources ignore it, someone should cover it. The details of the Benghazi Attack were far more thoroughly covered by Fox News than by any other network, as only one example.

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.

Examples? But it's not valid.If Fox News have a duty to boost Birthers, then they would also have had a duty to boost 9/11 Truthers. They had their suspicions, and no-one else in the media was taking it seriously ... so why didn't Fox News step up?

AZPaul3 writes: Damn straight.If you are not old enough to remember, well, so it goes. The veterans of the Vietnam War are still TO THIS DAY being used. The ones who did not go are still being used. We, the 99%, are still all being used. Cue my buddy, the Dronester.