Donald Trump has threatened to shut down NBC and other American networks, saying that they peddle fake news.
"With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!" Mr Trump wrote in a tweet.
Mr Trump's tweet came in response to a story written by NBC, which said that Mr Trump had sought to increase America's nuclear arsenal tenfold after taking a look at a briefing slide that showed stead reduction of the US nuclear arsenal since the 1960s. The story cited three officials who were reportedly in the room when Mr Trump made the comments.
Source: Donald Trump threatens to shut down NBC and other TV news networks that criticise him
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Donald Trump Threatens to Shut Down NBC and Other TV News Networks That Criticize Him
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 103 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
2
(1)
2
(Score: 4, Informative) by Translation Error on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:50PM (7 children)
(Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:52PM
It's so old that even FCC chairman Ajit Pai took time off from sucking Verizon dick to react to people blaming him for not addressing it.
(Score: 2, Troll) by frojack on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:00PM (5 children)
And it was wrong over a week agostill wrong today.
He made no such threat.
He suggested that people might want to contest the broadcast licenses at the required FCC public hearings when their license is up for renewal if they insist on using public airwaves to only air one side of the story.
It probably wouldn't work, because a great deal of their coverage is carried by private carriers these days. Still they have broadcast licenses in some markets, and satellite licenses as well that use scarce public resources. It makes more sense to talk to their advertisers.
In past years I've sent printed letters to my local TV stations complaining about their one-sided news coverage, and asking when their next FCC renewal comment period was scheduled. Got a nice call from two different station managers, both feigning understanding, (but nothing much has changed).
Broadcast Stations are obligated to announce their renewal dates and comment periods.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:27PM
"NBC and the Networks", the bogeyman Trump identified in his tweet [twitter.com], do not have broadcast licenses. The individual local stations do. By all means, try to challenge them. Is there a kind of complaint that would be successful in getting a license revoked other than the station interrupting children's programming to show hardcore pornography?
We're seeing a lot more 100% lies coming from Trump than 100% fake news coming from the lamestream media. The premise of his tweet was stupid and self-serving (to the extent that a non-starter idea can be self-serving).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:32PM
That's a good idea. I should call my local station and complain about the clearly one-sided news segments provided by Sinclair. If I wanted the plutocrat's version of conservative takes on current events, I'd turn to Fox News. When will the sheeple wake up and see the blatant right-wing bias in the lamestream media?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:50PM
How about you get your nose out of Trump's ass?
He did not say that "people" should contest the license. What he said about who should contest the licenses is at best ambiguous. It's right there in the summary.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:35PM
Do you also send letters to your local Fox stations for their biased coverage? Probably not...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 20 2017, @12:59AM
The Fairness Doctrine [wikipedia.org] (the rule that broadcast license holders had to provide some sort of balanced presentation of controversial issues) no longer applies. The rule was done away with in 1987 and finally completely erased [politico.com] in 2011.
(Score: 4, Informative) by BananaPhone on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:50PM (40 children)
If that does not give him the dictator label, nothing will.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:54PM (27 children)
That's not how any of this works.
Besides, what is democracy (representative or otherwise) other than one group dictating to another group?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:56PM (7 children)
It's a violently imposed monopoly of the majority.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by n1 on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:22PM (5 children)
*majority as defined by electoral college, gerrymandering or other non-representative systems where individual votes to not determine who wins the election or what counts as a 'majority'.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:42PM (4 children)
Don"t you DARE criticize the effects of our perfect sacred constitution or otherwise heretically question the infinite wisdom of the Framers!
For there is no system better than our system, and no country better than our country, as illustrated by the failure of all others to achieve what we achieve, or handle the test of time, greed and corruption!
You, for one, should expect the DC inquisition!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:23AM (3 children)
Settle down, pinhead! No one is saying that you can't criticise the Constitution or "the infinite wisdom of the Framers". You can put that straw man back in the closet.
If you have a better idea for how the government should be run then, by all means, put it out there before a candid world. My guess is that you won't. My next guess is that if you should choose to respond, you will only embarrass yourself further.
Ummm...yeah. You can put your persecution complex in the closet right next to your favourite straw man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:37AM
Fix gerrymandering, congressional term limits, no more electoral college.
Done. I'll leave you to your bed wetting.
(Score: 4, Touché) by edIII on Friday October 20 2017, @02:27AM (1 child)
He was being sarcastic. Sheesh.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:43PM
Poe's Law.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:23PM
A kabuki play meant to distract the rabble from the powers that really determine policy?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:07PM (16 children)
Besides, what is democracy (representative or otherwise) other than one group dictating to another group?
No, that's what government is, by definition. If no one ever gets dictated to and has no limits at all on their actions, then you have anarchy. The whole point of having a legal code and a judicial system (integral parts of a government) is to limit peoples' actions, which amounts to one group dictating to another group.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:27PM (15 children)
You're right: An organization is a "government" when its fundamental principle is coercion; that's why a warlord, Kim Jong Un, a monarchy, and Uncle Sam, etc., are all governments. A street gang is a kind of government, too, within its little "jurisdiction".
Yet, there's no fundamental need for an organization that is based on coercion.
It is enough to have a self-supporting (read: iterative) system of law by contractual obligation: Individuals agree in advance to certain terms of interaction, the enforcement of which is itself specified by the contract(s); enforcement is just another service in the market, open to competition by various suppliers, and in this way, the whole system benefits from the free market's power of evolution by variation (supplier competition) and selection (consumer choice), known as the "invisible hand".
There's no need for your "government" idea. It's an ancient relic of "do-as-I-say" authoritarianism; it's time to embrace "do-as-we-agreed" libertarianism.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:03PM (11 children)
Sweet jesus how many times do we need to point out that you're simply re-inventing the government? Do people get to decide in advance whether they are OK with murder being illegal? How do you punish someone who says they never agreed to that? At what age will people be held accountable? What about tourists? You are basically describing a weird fusion of city states and corporations with no answer as to how it would actually work other than the "invisible hand".
The whole point of Democracy is that it is SUPPOSED to be "do as we agreed" but corrupt fuckheads gerrymander their way into power and we're too divided to vote out the corporate tit suckers.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:35PM (1 child)
I like an analogy to games. Games have rules and often judges. The stakes are carefully kept relatively low. For instance, almost always the losers are not executed or sacrificed to the gods. Even animal males fighting each other for mates doesn't usually end in death. It's too destructive, and could easily result in no winners because every player ended up hurt too badly.
All this talk of extreme competition under total anarchy, no rules or enforcement at all, simply isn't realistic. Life doesn't always work that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:43PM
You've constructed an extreme straw man.
Indeed, your desire to avoid "extreme competition" is undoubtedly shared by very many people, and thus would results in a law-by-contracts that is similarly risk-averse—perhaps even more so than the law that is crafted today by whimsical, vote-grabbing politicians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:39PM (8 children)
People drive on one particular side of the road, not because it's the government's law, but because that's what you do when in Rome, especially when you don't want to die!
To interact with others outside of a well defined contract (including cultural norms) is to put your life into peril. That's the whole point of negotiating a contract in the first place: To get people on the same page.
Why has democracy failed to produce a society based on "do as we agreed"? Well, simple: Democracy is fundamentally based on "do as I say" coercion. What else did you expect?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:56PM (7 children)
It is appalling that you see democracy as coercion and think "voluntary contracts" will not follow a similar route. You have yet to address the VERY SIMPLE "murder is illegal" conundrum. How do you punish those who don't think it should be illegal? They never agreed to it.
I feel like you're just a blind zealot, or an intentional plant to sow division and undermine the very concept of democracy. At this point, with so many times we've engaged your stupid rant, FUCK OFF!
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:00PM (3 children)
Easy, don't allow them to enter the areas where people have agreed that they shall not murder. Anarchy doesn't mean everyone is free to do what they want, it means that there is no government. Quit regurgitating archist propaganda.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday October 20 2017, @01:07AM (2 children)
Yes, we'll just need some organization to decide who gets in based on agreement to the terms of entry. And some sort of governing body to make sure the decisions are being made fairly.
Then, we'll need a group to decide if the rules have been violated by someone who agreed to be ruled. To jeep it impartial they can hold secret ballots. Place a peanut in the hat if the rules were violated, otherwise a mint. We can call it the goobermint.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Friday October 20 2017, @02:37AM (1 child)
None of that is required, just the normal social practices that already exist. If you're known as a child molester, do you have an easy time living anywhere? I bet not. You'll get threatened, attacked, and driven out. This is the way society works, it needs no government, no laws, none of the formalities that ostensibly make justice "just", just people looking out for their own best interests.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday October 20 2017, @08:58AM
You need to read something about organizations. Here: The Tyranny of Stuctureless [jofreeman.com].
When the "society" decides who is a child molester and who needs to be ostracised, there always forms a cabal dedicated to declaring its enemies as child molesters and manipulating others into agreeing with themselves. The purpose of government is to make sure this cabal can be recognized. This holds true even for primitive systems with a local leader and its henchmen to kings and kingdoms to democracy. Instead of dedicating all mental energy into doing politics, society decides proactively gives the power to the cabal so rest of the people can mind their own business. I mean literally - it is related to economics.
In a poor society fighting off natural calamities and lack of rain, people didn't have time to worry about the neighbour and his/her infatuation with children. All the talk about lack of governance relies on a utopian economical system where people actually have time to coordinate and strive to make fair judgements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:08PM (2 children)
You've already been answered: If you haven't agreed to an particular contract, then you are operating outside of the well defined bounds of a contract; the consequences for your actions are therefore also ill-defined—murder someone, and see what happens to you...
Of course, a sophisticated framework of contracts will naturally spell out the consequences for such behavior in most cases, so you'll be able to guess what people will do. For instance, vigilante justice may not be allowed within a certain community, so you can expect the response to be fairly official.
The shape of society will be found through the process of evolution by variation and selection.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:40AM (1 child)
So history up to now was what then? NOT an evolving society? mmhmmm
You do realize you are describing laws right? "Oh you entered our local domain and a certain group of contract agreements are inherently agreed to upon your entering." Yeah, sounds like a completely new process to me!
Sorry but yer a total jackass. Oh wait, I'm not sorry. I mean "you're welcome".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @05:05AM
Your "law" is a dictate, not a contract or collection of contracts.
They are superficially similar, but are actually quite different.
You're correct about one thing though: Society is already not far from what has been described; you already exist under a different "law" than I do, because you have contractual obligations in your life that are different from mine.
Keep thinking. You'll get it, eventually.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday October 20 2017, @01:06AM (2 children)
Unless, of course, an organization already exists to steal, extort, etc by coercion, such as a gang. We already have examples in Eastern Europe of what happens when official governments crumble and citizens of the country refuse to pick up the slack. You are running afoul of human nature.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @06:45AM (1 child)
What could your point possibly be?
None of this stops people from realizing the continuing trauma (coercion), and then deciding something different (libertarianism).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 20 2017, @01:29PM
In the real world, a lot of people will decide against libertarianism. Safety over freedom.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:34PM (1 child)
This makes me weep. Please, go back to school. Grade school.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:47PM
It's obvious that you yourself are a product of a government-run school.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:41PM (3 children)
Trump says a lot of mean and silly things on Twitter. Does that make him a dictator?
He keeps trying to do things by fiat, but nearly all of them have failed because Congress and the courts have blocked him. Doesn't that mean by definition that he is not a dictator?
He can't even get his own nominal party to back his policies.
If he's a dictator, then he's the weakest and most benighted one in history, because he can't seem to manage to do much at all by diktat.
You can call Trump a lot of things, but you can't call him a dictator because he can't dictate anything.
Now, if the FBI consents to roll out and arrest the heads of the DNC and RNC and he declares martial law and suspends elections, then he will fit the label of dictator.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:01PM (1 child)
He's a dictator. He just sucks at it.
Being shitty sportsball player doesn't make you NOT a sportsball player...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 20 2017, @04:23AM
Only in the special olympics, my friend. Everywhere else you get cut from the team.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @12:33AM
If the FBI arrests the heads of the DNC and RNC, then he will fit the label of courageous.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:00PM (4 children)
Can you even imagine the epic shitstorm that would have ensued if Obama said something like that?
(Score: 1, Informative) by khallow on Friday October 20 2017, @01:17AM (3 children)
We don't have to wonder. Obama did similar things several times, such as spying on news agencies, or punishing information leaks in illegal ways. Not much was made of the issue other than to occasionally note [washingtonpost.com] that it's happening.
Now, Trump has that power. And so will future presidents (many whom will be similarly iffy presidents) unless it is somehow revoked. But where was the epic shitstorm?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:53AM
When things are hidden it is hard to develop an epic shitstorm. I didn't like Obama pretty early into his terms, but I only knew about some of the most minor infractions apparently. Even now people are pissed, but there is no process for citizens to get redress. Contacting congressman is a joke, protesting seems to do nothing, occupy was subverted and the media did a great job of marginalizing them. False flag shit by the 3 letters, abuses of power for anyone who becomes too much of a problem.
Gee, I wonder why nothing happens!? Oh yeah, the standing rock bit, that was some clear examples of media and law enforcement marginalizing people. It was almost amusing to see how hard they had to try to find flaws to make the protesters look bad.
Did you post stories about Obama's negative shit? Did a bunch of liberal types defend his bad actions? Is there some reason Obama's shitty terms are relevant to Trump's ridiculously worse kickoff? No, you just want to equivocate so your team doesn't seem so bad. Sorry, but it is that bad, and no amount of bullshit from a Democrat will change that.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday October 20 2017, @02:47AM (1 child)
It's nice to see someone bring that up. Too many people forget that Obama ushered in a dark era when it came citizen's privacy, and indeed, civil rights. While people were loving a hip black President, they didn't notice he never followed through on those promises. Or that we never left war. Or that the NSA/AT&T people were never touched. Or the Patriot Act didn't get touched, but extended. Or that Constitutional Free Zones existed, what they were, how many people were under them, and that many of your rights were abrogated in them.
Yeah, going after the whistle blowers instead of thanking them for their courage solidly put him in the authoritarian category.
It will awhile before people can have an honest discussion about that President. His hipness and faked progressive agenda, while admittedly being a President for LGBTQ, makes him largely unassailable. Apparently it's a really good idea to be a good looking populist charmer when you're going to con your fellow citizens.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 20 2017, @04:34AM
Not me. I feel unabashed about calling him out for the useless POS he was. He had a chance to redeem his piss poor record by pardoning snowden because a presidential pardon is absolute and does not have to win approval in a legislative branch controlled by the opposition. But he fucked that up, the simpering coward and/or master-of-the-universe wannabe. He could have gone after bush & cheney for their war crimes, but he didnt. He could have cleansed the CIA with fire over their torture program and extraordinary rendition and black sites, but he didnt. He could have turned the NSA inside out for their crimes, but he didnt. On and on. He didnt even take on wall street, when the vast majority of the country would have voted him best president ever if he had, because those fuckers desperately need to get got. But he didnt. The only positive thing i can say about barack obama was that he didnt mangle the english language like an inbred redneck retard on meth like his immediate predecessor. That's really it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:39PM (2 children)
So someone in a position of authority says that they would like to legally challenge some entity that may not be operating within their regulated space (i.e. License) makes them a dictator?
Shrewd logic..
In this case, he didn't even say he'd do it, just asking when would it be appropriate - almost rethorical. That quoted statement in TFS clearly doesn't even reconcile with the News headline in TFS.
As others pointed out he's wrong in that those entities he referenced aren't actually regulated (with a License), but that just makes him ignorant. Far stretch from a dictator.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @02:19PM
Yes, actually. For someone of the highest authority to even suggest that others he doesn't like should be stripped of their authority, the label "dictator" is appropriate. It doesn't matter if it is Trump about the press, or Maduro about government prosecutors, or Erdogan about Gulen, or Hitler about the jews. It should all be viewed through the same lens, and should not be weaseled away just because you like one of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @03:57PM
Come on now... at least be intellectually honest. Sure, he 'asked' the question but he didn't just ask it. He 'asked' it because he wants to get people to pressure whoever need to be pressured and to make it clear to members of his administration that this would 'please the emperor'...
Just see whether when you 'ask' the a question framed in the exact same fashion regarding termination-of-life of the head of the governmental executive. See how long it would take for you 'just asking a question, almost rhetorically' to land in front of a couple of SS agents being grilled for multiple hours.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:02PM (36 children)
After almost thirty years of watching pretty much every Democrat at one time or another call for using the exact same weapon against the "hate" on talk radio (i.e. shut Limbaugh up!) I'm totally not understanding why I should care. Besides, Trump happens to be correct; broadcasters are licensed to operate in the public interest, blatant lying, inciting to riot and sedition really don't count do they? There is no 1st Amendment right to possess a broadcast license. Unlike printing presses, the Internet or even cable TV, there is a very limited spectrum allocated to TV broadcasting and everyone can't have a license.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:13PM (8 children)
Trump happens to be crazy.
You are correct. Blatant lying and inciting to riot and sedition do not count. So why does FoxNews still have a license.
Maybe there is nothing wrong with having a vewpoint, even if other people don't happen to like it.
Can it be in the public interest to promote orderly non violent protests? Isn't that one way in which people are supposed to express their grievances? (No matter what party is protesting which other party.) When any party tries to suppress peaceful protest, that should send a strong message about the party suppressing peaceful protest.
If there were one perfect political party, everyone would vote for it, and nobody would protest. So maybe protesters on all sides have some legitimate grievance?
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:33PM (2 children)
We already have laws that cover spreading falsehoods that have served the republic well for a long while now. They're called libel and slander. In other words, fake news can be prosecuted under those.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:01PM
I've done some research at lunch hour for fun and to summarize public figures practically cannot be defamed in a purely legal sense. Also damages are hard to specify leading to certain failure. Ironically being biased propaganda infotainment from the D party protects the news media, if they claimed to be honest and not entertainment satire opinions they'd have much more legal trouble. You'd have to reverse a lot of the legal system to use it against fake news.
A lot of internet web 2.0 legal fun seems oriented around redefining who is a journalist and who is a public figure. Possibly in the future world there will be no more fake news or perhaps there will be no more libel and slander laws, or more likely we'll muddle thru.
An example of the excessive freedom provided to the press would be the incredible expense and time of destroying Gawker. Its hard to imagine a company faker and more in need of destruction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @03:59PM
What is this 'republic' you speak of? You actually and honestly think that the USA is a republic? How old are you, 18?
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:56PM
You have some great networks. I must tell you, Fox has treated me fairly. Fox treated me fairly. They've treated me fairly. Hey, I'll let you know. You know what? Someday they might not treat me fairly, and I'll tell you about it, OK? But they've treated me fairly, and I don't mean all good. I get plenty of bad on Fox, too. But at least it's within reason. And Hannity. How good is Hannity, right? How good is Hannity? And he's a great guy, and he's an honest guy. And "Fox and Friends in the Morning" is the best show, and it's the absolute, most honest show, and it's the show I watch. They're very nervous to have me on live television, because I'm a person that wants to tell the truth. I'm an honest person, and what I'm saying, you know is EXACTLY right. Exactly, exactly! Not only does the media give a platform to hate groups, but the media turns a blind eye to the gang violence on our streets, the failures of our public schools, the destruction of our wealth at the hands of the terrible, terrible trade deals made by politicians that should've never been allowed to be politicians.
And the unaccountable hostility against our incredible police, who work so hard at such a dangerous job. My administration is committed to the idea that all Americans have the right to live in safety, security and peace. We believe in the rule of law, because we know that freedom cannot exist if our people are not safe. And how safe are you at a Trump rally? It's a safe space. The most sacred duty of government is to protect the lives of its citizens, and that includes securing our borders, and enforcing our immigration laws. Creating a safe space for law-abiding Americans. #MAGA 🇺🇸
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:26PM (3 children)
Citation needed. Because there isn't one and we both know it. False Equivalence Fallacy -will- be called out.
Because they don't need one, idiot. Try to keep up with the discussion. Fox News Channel is a cable channel, not a broadcaster. With a couple of rare exceptions where FNC provides material to broadcast on the FOX network such as Fox News Sunday and coverage of the political debates.
BLM and Antifa are violent, it is the basic nature of them. Their events don't accidentally become violent, they are planned as violent riots. Pretending they are something they aren't doesn't change reality.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:46PM
The KKK just has "many sides" but BLM and Antifa are literally hitler. Yer dumb, but hey nothing new there!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday October 20 2017, @03:28PM (1 child)
You probably missed elsewhere here where I had pointed out that NBC doesn't have a license.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Friday October 20 2017, @05:14PM
Yes but you are an idiot so I ignored that. The networks do own affiliates, ever noticed KNBC and WNBC? They aren't the only directly owned NBC stations, there used to be regulatory limits on how many stations a single entity could own which mandated the affiliate model but as the limits have been relaxed over the decades they have expanded direct ownership.
But I mostly ignored you because that is a distraction anyway; the idea has always been to force affiliates into long protracted station licensing battles they wouldn't have the legal resources for so they would simply do what the NGOs and their hordes of activists and lawyers wanted. All they needed was to get the FCC regs reset to make it easier to wage that lawfare than it was to defend against it. Talk radio stations are almost all tiny low power affairs operating on the dregs of the ad market already because of the constant organized boycotts.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:22PM (15 children)
I don't doubt many have called for such censorship, but they were rightly never able to act on it. There is a huge difference between political grandstanding and the president acting like a dictator. But hey, keep sucking each other off with your "antifa are terrorists and Trump is just a silly guy you know?", and work up the courage to admit that Trump is bad and the GOP is the devil. If it really makes you feel better you can lump the DNC in there too, but at the very least stop lying to yourself and equivocating away the worst political decision we've ever made as a country.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:55PM (14 children)
Random Douches on the Internet != The Actual President of the US
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:18PM (11 children)
Pardon, but I'm old enough to remember when Hillary's lying, cheating, philandering husband was actually POTUS. Does HIM calling to get rid of the talk radio problem count? Does every single current member of the Democratic Leadership count? Not some random Internet shitpoaster.
And to grandparent, do we have to enumerate yet again the dozens of times NBC News has been caught outright lying? Not spinning, not shading the truth, outright lying. Going back way before Trump pushed them into outright insanity; From sticking dynamite on a truck to get it to explode in a crash, editing Zimmerman's 911 call to make him say almost exactly the opposite of what he actually said, and so on. Ask Google for the rest of their greatest hits, I'm tired of doing it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:20PM (8 children)
Pardon, but I'm old enough to remember when Hillary's lying, cheating, philandering husband was actually POTUS. Does HIM calling to get rid of the talk radio problem count?
[CITATION NEEDED]
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:41PM (7 children)
President Bill Clinton [history.com]
Yes kids, Hillary's husband was really POTUS for eight long years.
p.s. Do yer own danged googling. Start with the OKC Bombing and Clinton's speech on the subject, then his attempt to reimpose the "Fairness Doctrine" (what an example of Orwellian language) with the express intent to silence talk radio.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:54PM
Welp, I wasted time on that video.
First 3+ minutes (of 3.5 total) were simple political feel good garbage "america yay, we're great, we can conquer our problems, blah blah, work until work is done, scripture lel blah dee blah". I dislike his "god wills it" bullshit, but aside from that there is NOTHING in there about putting back the Fairness Doctrine. "reimpose, Orwellian, intent to silence"
You're full of it as usual, stinky stupid shit.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:28PM (4 children)
p.s. Do yer own danged googling. Start with the OKC Bombing and Clinton's speech on the subject...
Ok, I will. Here's the transcript. [americanrhetoric.com]
You are lying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:02PM
so uh hey i waited a bit but where is jmorris's reply?
is there another link?
at first I thought he was just trying to prove the bill clinton WAS president, but it seems like that wasn't contested. that's all that there was in the link that matched what he wrote, so i was hoping maybe he picked the wrong president? was there another one that he had in mind--one that actually tried to do as he claimed?
i mean besides the current one. i think we're not arguing that right
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @10:06AM
Clinton's proposal to ban AM talk radio is in the footnotes: "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers." (my emphasis)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @11:00AM (1 child)
( http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/bill-clinton-talks-re-imposing-fairness-doctrine-or-least-more-balance-media/55678 [broadcastingcable.com] )
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday October 20 2017, @05:18PM
Thank you. I knew he had said it because I am old enough to remember him saying it, but Google has increasing difficulty finding things, especially that predate the widespread dump of all news onto the Net.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:09PM
If there is no greater proof that Jmorris is a shill just keep an eye on the sheer amount of lies he spews. That or he's just following the alt-right / GOP playbook of trying to lie his way to success. Jmorris care to explain all your lies? Or will silence be the only thing we ever get when you're called out on your bullshit?
Please tell us about the real you, or will you get fired? Do you consider yourself a US citizen?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:51PM
> I'm old enough to remember when Hillary's lying, cheating, philandering husband was actually POTUS
Me too.
I really long for the days when our biggest problem was whether he left sperm on not-his-wife's dress, while we all had jobs, the stock tickers showed us getting richer by the minute, and the US debt was shrinking. We also kicked some dictator's ass with some cool weapons and went home on schedule.
The Good Ole Days before W trashed the place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @04:05PM
You are aware that Google is an echo-chamber, aren't you? Not everyone gets the same results for a given query but everyone does just get "more of the same" of what they already know... confirming their world view and showing that 'the other guy must be nuts because look what truths I found through google'
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:20PM (1 child)
I fail to see how that is a relevant comment.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:24PM
The head of the FCC threatening to revoke FCC licenses carries a bit more weight that random internet posters.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:30PM (4 children)
In other words, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, but not to possess printing presses? It guarantees freedom of speech, but not to be heard? It guarantees the right to peaceably assemble, but not to a permit to do so?
Is that the crux of your argument?
I think if you stop and consider that a little further, such restrictions eviscerate the 1st Amendment and render it null and void.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:10PM (3 children)
Reading skills have deteriorated badly I see. Anyone can own a printing press, my owning one doesn't diminish the supply and restrict your also owning one. If nobody will sell you one a simple one can be built by anyone handy with power tools. This is entirely legal and owning, manufacturing or using a printing press is not regulated in any way by the State, although there are a few postal regs to consider. My owning a cable news channel doesn't really impact the ability of you to launch a competing one because the limit on most cable systems is how many channels they can bundle before subscribers revolt, not hitting the physical limit of their spectrum so we are free to compete for carriage. And as long as I can find a DNS registrar who won't cancel the domain I can of course do pretty much whatever I want on the Internet and not impact you in the slightest. I can't buy or wrangle a TV license in most of the country for any amount of money because the available slots are full and as a cis white guy I'm out of consideration anyway. There is a very limited supply of available broadcast slots; This is why they are licensed by the government and grant of a license is subject to restrictions, you do not have an absolute 1st Amendment Right to use a broadcast facility for any purpose you desire. Please consult the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, if you do not believe me. The text is available online.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:11PM (2 children)
as a cis white guy I'm out of consideration anyway
I wonder what the portion of people who have broadcasting licenses (or spectrum usage licenses I guess) are "cis white guys"
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:18PM (1 child)
I'm thinking 0.1, or maybe as high as 0.25%. Totally underrepresented.
Also Trump and the Republicans are in power and we know that affirmative action is their favorite policy.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday October 20 2017, @05:54AM
I lived with it for a long time. And I've had great relationships with lots of people. I have great African-American friendships. I have just amazing relationships. And so many positive things have happened. So I'm fine with it. I don’t like what the late Justice Scalia said, no, I don’t like what he said. I heard him, I was like, "Let me read it again," because I actually read it in print, and I’m going, I read a lot of stuff, and I’m going, "Woah!" What he said was very tough to the African-American community.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:31PM (4 children)
A Real Man puts his principles over his team.
Do you support free speech or not?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:39PM (3 children)
As you can see in a post further down on the thread I am against it regardless of who is pushing it. The problem I think a lot of Republicans have is that when the Dems do the same thing nobody cares (Rs same way) so you have an endless cycle of refusing to help the other side when they are only interested if it hurts you.
I would be fine with taking action against politicans stepping on free speech, that is if it doesnt mean it gets repealed as soon as the other side gets one of their guys in power.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:49PM (2 children)
Most of the time the Republicans complain about 'censorship' they're talking about private entities choosing what to publish on their own platforms. That's not prohibited by the constitution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:28PM (1 child)
After being threatened with the loss of lucrative government contracts if they refuse...
All of these corporates that are happy for censorship are in bed with the CIA and Pentagon, and they started their censorship campaign after they got in bed with the CIA and Pentagon. Amazon ran in the red for a decade and a half until they got a lucrative data hosting contract with the CIA and now they love censoring Republicans. Google similarly started fucking with people after they got federal contracts. Twitter, same story except they got in bed with the Saudis and Qataris. Wikipedia, Reddit, Metafilter, Cracked.com, have friends in the CIA and State Department and Booz and they all have the same friends. The corporates that don't follow along get hacked by 0-days, hit by the largest DDOSes ever seen, have all of the sexual misbehavior of their officers exposed by the media, have rent-a-mobs threaten to riot and burn down their facilities over imagined grievances, and all of their investors cut them loose and refuse to explain why.
These are not private entities operating on their own.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:53PM
Lucrative government contracts? That's something media shouldn't have to begin with. You cannot lose what you do not have.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:48PM
As far as I know, nether NBC News, Fox News, CNN nor any other New channel actually has a "broadcast license" for Over the Air transmission.
Media companies who own the stations that do the broadcasting hold the licenses...they then choose to broadcast content from various sources which may include an affiliate network such as the aforementioned NBC News, etc.
Sorry Mr. Trump, you can't yank NBC New's license any more than you can yank Rush Limbaugh's license because they don't have licenses!
Also, I would challenge your contention that "pretty much Every Democrat at one time or another". There are probably a few, but "Every" is an exaggeration at best and a lie at worst....But then again, that is what Trump does best.
Finally, Mr. Trump must have been top of his class in the course despot 101....first shutdown the media you don't like.
I am waiting for him to suspend the constitution because congress won't pass the things he wants. Finally, start a really good war to divert attention from the other crap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:08PM
Oh wait, there isn't any. This is a limited public resource that they shouldn't have gotten in the first place, and they pay us back with fake news that distorts our political process.
We need an excuse to shut them down in favor of wireless networking and cellular data. This is as good as any.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:17PM (1 child)
Isn't it NBC's affiliate stations which have individual licenses to broadcast? Each station on a locally assigned part of the limited RF spectrum. NBC itself is just a television network providing content to licensed stations that find it in their financial interest to affiliate themselves with NBC?
Isn't it in the public interest that NBC produces news? Why is NBC's news "so unfair" but FoxNews is okay? Just because of the POV? Just because the orange jackass in chief has the thinnest skin on the planet? And the fattest ... oh, nevermind.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:43PM
That is a good point. Some further data:
Everyone is carefully not commenting on this:
Well, anytime I guess, from my point of view. The FCC does invite public comment on channel licensing.
Another point worth considering is past events like the saggy old boob on the sportsball superbowl half time show some years back which cost some affiliate broadcasters some money at different stations.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:22PM (7 children)
The first amendment means that even The Donald can flap his yap about damn near anything he wants.
This will only begin to think of being a story when there's an outside possibility that this might be done - and not blocked by the courts. Why? Because it's a content-based restriction on speech that is the most protected class of speech that we have - i.e. political speech ostensibly in the public interest.
When will people wise up to the fact that Trump tweets this sort of crap whenever he's trying to distract attention from what he's actually achieving behind the scenes, or trying to? If every outrage that actually came across along the lines of TRUMP BIRTHS FASCISM were actually true, we'd all be in a very different world. But they're not. They're distractions.
And you people are falling for it. Bigly.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:31PM (6 children)
Ok oh wise one, enlighten us about what is really happening then. Lots of bad stuff I'm sure, but if you're so high-and-mighty you can tell us poor rubes.
(Score: 1) by applesmasher on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:51PM (1 child)
Donald Trump is a lizard person in league with the Raelians to deliver our precious fluid resources to their Arcturan masterbrain!
Wake up, sheeple!
Ever seen an apple hit by a
(Score: 3, Funny) by maxwell demon on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:56PM
Don't wake up the sheeple! [xkcd.com]
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:13PM (1 child)
The same thing that's always been happening, under Obama and under Bush: Financial enslavement via central banks and endless wars courtesy of the military industrial complex.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:13PM
Yes OK, but without specifics there is nothing we can even really do. Write your congressman? "Umm sir, I feel Trump's bullshit is just distracting from the real issues. I would like you to oppose the financial enslavement of US citizens please."
You know that's how you get a higher slot on "the list" right? Gotta at least have specifics, wild rants and you are upgraded to "loony bin" instead of "cynical citizen".
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:20PM (1 child)
AC is wrong in some areas, OK in others. It is, as AC pointed out, all about attention.
Part of curing fake news is pointing out CNN is merely a left wing propaganda outlet. Trump has 100% control of the media he is very good at manipulating them into repeating anything he wants them to repeat. He's using the white house to shine a spotlight that makes the cockroaches scatter, or at least complain about how bright the light is. No its not really a FCC license or supreme ct issue, its a "hey would you do me a favor and inform the general public for me, yet again, the meme that CNN equals propaganda? K thx bye" and they do it every time.
Then there's the choir aspect, either making fun of it or shitposting to the choir or whatever. His spotlight kicks sand in the eyes of the eternal blue pills, maybe red pills some folks (probably not many), and gives the red pilled something to laugh about. He's being an entertainer. Politicians have been doing this for ... centuries maybe? Tell em what they want to hear not what you can actually do...
The fact of the matter is leftism is ugly, so pointing it out is inherently helpful to the right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:59AM
Did you have a stroke recently?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:31PM
Kiss the head of Michael David Crawford for luck.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Sulla on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:36PM (3 children)
It is a pretty big deal when the government moves forward with repressing free speech and the rights of the press. While the Donald has not yet gone so far as to take action, and I doubt he will because he is a proprietor of the "all press is good press", it has been done before.
The "Fainess Doctrine" is a huge pile of shit, especially in the modern era. Democrats would love to put it in place today to remove republican broadcasters from the radio, and I am sure the Republicans would love it to remove Democratic broadcasts on TV.
If we are going to bash Trump for this I am okay with it, but we need to bash others as well
Louise Slaughter - Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act
Maurice Hinchey - Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005
Richard Durbin and John Kerry pushed it in 2008
Jeff Bingaman said in 2008 that he "would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view"
Anna Eschoo was at least honest in saying it should apply to everybody
Tom Harkin complained its not fair to shut down leftist radio (maybe they should work harder for listeners then)
Bill Clinton said it was not fair about the stimulus
Trump - TFA
It would be nice if we could return to the reporting of old, but my concern (other than obvious free speech issues) is whom would be determining what is and is not fair? Right now stations live or die based on what people want to listen to, if leftists want democratic radio then find a station and listen to it so it grows and others want in on the money.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:54PM
The Fairness Doctrine is in no way about removing anyway from broadcasting.
(wikipedia)
So the worst that would happen is some show would need to give airtime to the opposing point of view. This would quickly do away with the massive amounts of fake news / bullshit being spewed by every outlet now, and it would not be some bipartisan method to shut down outlets.
There is no real concern about what is or isn't fair, outlets must provide a balanced viewpoint. As long as they give air time to their critics (cuts both ways) any show can spew whatever garbage opinions they want. You're arguing against fairness as if some dictator will step in and shut down their political adversaries outlets, that is just so wrong and the alternative is to let the corporate overlords dictate acceptable news stories. LONG LIVE THE DYSTOPIAN FUTURE!
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:01PM (1 child)
The problem is that "balanced" reporting very often gives airspace to extreme points of view and to nutcases, who are the only people on the other side of some debate. By giving them airspace, it legitimises their point of view.
Imagine a program on the Holocaust. Should equal airtime and credence be given to Holocaust deniers?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:25PM
The holocaust is no longer controversial or of public importance, so they can say whatever they want. Current news is what they are talking about, and it isn't equal airtime.
So kinda like the Supreme Court. The commission would do their best, and there would be a large public outcry for any abuses. I would much prefer that system to the clusterfuck of info bubbles we have now.