Freedom of press.

[Griever]

(02-26-2017, 09:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Let's not forget that Obama forbade press that didn't show him in a positive light..

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6156794&page=1

[BmorePat87]

W went on Today and spoke about the importance of a free press, criticizing Trump (but not by name) in the process.

http://www.today.com/news/george-w-bush-opens-trump-s-war-media-russia-travel-t108627

Quote:Early on in the exclusive sit-down, the former president expressed a clear-eyed support for the news media, saying a free press was "indispensable to democracy."

"We need an independent media to hold people like me to account," Bush told TODAY'S Matt Lauer.

"Power can be very addictive and it can be corrosive, and it’s important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power."

Bush was asked about the media's role in light of President Donald Trump's recent characterization of the media as "enemies of America." He noted he spent a lot of time during his two terms trying to convince Russian President Vladimir Putin to embrace an independent press.

"It’s kind of hard to tell others to have an independent free press when we’re not willing to have one ourselves," he said.

[Dill]

(02-21-2017, 12:07 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think the left has become more like the right over the last years in that they pay less attention to what opposition pundits   like    Hannity or Limbaugh say.  You don't see the uproar you used to.  Media Matters may still be obsessed with them, but it seems the interest by the left in general has waned.  That's just from my own observation.

This makes me wonder whom you are calling "the Left."

Rush, Hannity, Levin, Savage--all those guys have long been and continue to be a concern for everyone battling disinformation and incivility in public discourse. 

They are collectively more responsible for Hillary's loss than the Russians or Comey. Think of all the people you know who think Benghazi was a massive cover up but the MSM is lying about Trump's Russian connections.  A foreign power could hardly do more damage to the US's ability to govern itself.

Hannity is monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center, right along with other hate groups. That is about all we can do under the 1st Amendment, until Hannity's hateful rhetoric is more directly linked to violence.

[Dill]

(02-21-2017, 01:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: Do they though...? I seldomly see those terms thrown around in the news segment of CNN. But sure, my insights are quite slim and there's many outlets I don't know.
When mere commentators do it in an opinion segment, I "counter" with.... Hannity. That's some serious stuff too.

Funny, I don't see the terms "neo-nazi" or "fascist" or "anti-semite" either--unless the press is reporting on actual events like the destruction of Jewish cemeteries and bomb threats to synagogues, which have spiked recently, or the white nationalist celebrations which followed Trump's election.

Sometimes the terms appear in press reports of what prominent people say about leaders; but the MSM mostly filters that out unless deemed relevant. E.g. When actress Stacy Dash calls Obama an "Islamic Fascist" and doesn't seem to know what she is talking about, only Fox covers it. There one frequently hears the term "Islamofascist." Right wingers see this filtering of nonsense as bias. Liberal bias for the most part is their term for upholding standards.

So the terms appear but they are not "thrown around" in MSM outlets.  There really isn't anything comparable to Rush and Hannity in MSM news commentary.

[Dill]

(02-21-2017, 01:50 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: If the majority of the media is biased against a certain political party and willfully withholds information to sway public opinion against that party, that makes the media the enemy of the American people in my opinion.

The media in Nazi Germany was the enemy of the people.

We are hearing an uproar now because the majority of the American media is Liberal but where was the uproar when Reed said that Romney hadn't paid taxes in ten years and the media didn't correct that statement until after the election for example?

As for Hannity, the guy is a shill. He has a show because he has an audience.

The American people have got to get away from the Prime Time Opinion shows and only watch their local news broadcasts. The opinion shows out there are full of bias to the extreme and are destroying this country. People will gravitate towards their own ideology and these media outlets know it. They are in business to make money, not inform the people. Newspapers are the same way.

It will never change, the genie is out of the bottle, Pandora is running rampant. The genie and Pandora had a baby and his name is misinformation.

I agree that the media in Nazi Germany was the enemy of the people--when it came under Hitler's control. Before that, it was not. Before he got the power to control the media, Hitler called it the lying press and did all he could to undermine it, to encourage people not to trust it. The free press was another liberal institution that had to go.

Where was "liberal" media when Reid lied about Romney's taxes? They were busy fact-checking and awarding pinocchios. It was hardly on his side then or since.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/four-pinocchios-for-harry-reids-claim-about-mitt-romneys-taxes/2012/08/06/c31a1402-e007-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.dde371fbdaef
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/06/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-anonymous-source-told-him-mitt-rom/

What sets the "liberal" media at odds with right wing politics is that they take journalistic standards much more seriously. At Fox you get fired for criticizing Trump. At the NYT or Washington Post you get fired for mis-reporting.
Claims of "bias" are mostly rightwingers working the ref--often successfully.


I also agree with what you appear to imply in your last statement--media based upon capitalism is a problem. Fox is profitable.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2017, 11:44 PM)Dill Wrote: This makes me wonder whom you are calling "the Left."

Rush, Hannity, Levin, Savage--all those guys have long been and continue to be  a concern for everyone battling disinformation and incivility in public discourse. 

They are collectively more responsible for Hillary's loss than the Russians or Comey. Think of all the people you know who think Benghazi was a massive cover up but the MSM is lying about Trump's Russian connections.  A foreign power could hardly do more damage to the US's ability to govern itself.

Hannity is monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center, right along with other hate groups. That is about all we can do under the 1st Amendment, until Hannity's hateful rhetoric is more directly linked to violence.

Oh.  I was trying to say it seems you guys have become less batshit crazy, but I can admit when I'm wrong.  The bolded part is especially funny.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-28-2017, 11:15 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh.  I was trying to say it seems you guys have become less batshit crazy, but I can admit when I'm wrong.  The bolded part is especially funny.

The SPLC started out with good intentions and actually fulfilled its mission statement.  Sadly, it seems to have become heavily politicized now.  I've used them as a source in the past, I don't think I'd be comfortable doing so now.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-28-2017, 12:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The SPLC started out with good intentions and actually fulfilled its mission statement.  Sadly, it seems to have become heavily politicized now.  I've used them as a source in the past, I don't think I'd be comfortable doing so now.

I find Hannity boring and repetitive, but he's had a national radio show and television show for 15 years.  That's 4 hours a day for 15 years, and they are waiting for him to incite violence?  

[GMDino]

(02-28-2017, 12:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I find Hannity boring and repetitive, but he's had a national radio show and television show for 15 years.  That's 4 hours a day for 15 years, and they are waiting for him to incite violence?  

From what I can see they "cover" Hannity the same way they cover anyone who makes a hate filled statement.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-28-2017, 12:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: From what I can see they "cover" Hannity the same way they cover anyone who makes a hate filled statement.

I'm curious what a hate filled statement is to them. I saw their map. Not a lot if any lefties on there. No hate from the left?

[GMDino]

(02-28-2017, 01:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm curious what a hate filled statement is to them.  I saw their map.  Not a lot if any lefties on there.  No hate from the left?

Broad statements against a race or religion from the few Hannity links I saw.

I don't frequent their site, I went there because we were talking about it.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-28-2017, 01:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Broad statements against a race or religion from the few Hannity links I saw.

I don't frequent their site, I went there because we were talking about it.

If i found everything they had, then I'm just going to have to laugh.  

[BmorePat87]

(02-28-2017, 12:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The SPLC started out with good intentions and actually fulfilled its mission statement.  Sadly, it seems to have become heavily politicized now.  I've used them as a source in the past, I don't think I'd be comfortable doing so now.

They're part of the reason why Pepe is considered "racist" now. 

[Dill]

(02-28-2017, 01:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm curious what a hate filled statement is to them.   I saw their map.  Not a lot if any lefties on there.  No hate from the left?

No "lefties" burning crosses, vandalizing cemeteries, killing immigrants, planning to bomb Muslims?

Shows the SPLC bias right there.  

Help them out, Mike. Provide some lefty examples.

A "hate filled statement" to SPLC would be a t-shirt that says "f**k Islam worn by someone actively spreading hate of Islam, or the attempt to sponsor an event hoping to provoke violent incidents by disparaging Islam.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/geller-ritzheimer-lead-provocative-islam-bashing-events

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2017, 09:28 PM)Dill Wrote: No "lefties" burning crosses, vandalizing cemeteries, killing immigrants, planning to bomb Muslims?

Shows the SPLC bias right there.  

Help them out, Mike. Provide some lefty examples.

A "hate filled statement" to SPLC would be a t-shirt that says "f**k Islam worn by someone actively spreading hate of Islam, or the attempt to sponsor an event hoping to provoke violent incidents by disparaging Islam.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/geller-ritzheimer-lead-provocative-islam-bashing-events

Your very assertion is inane when the last eight or so months is replete with left wing violence.  Don't take my word for it, take the word of the leaders of the very movements engaged in it.  BAMN or Antifa would be a good place to start.  You're part of the problem and, sadly, appear to not realize it.

[Dill]

(03-01-2017, 10:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your very assertion is inane when the last eight or so months is replete with left wing violence.  Don't take my word for it, take the word of the leaders of the very movements engaged in it.  BAMN or Antifa would be a good place to start.  You're part of the problem and, sadly, appear to not realize it.

Sounds like some people out there have decided to fight racism and fascism.

And I may be part of the problem, or some problem, which apparently is not racism, fascism and violence against Muslims, immigrants, and LGBT.

Truly sad.

But my post was an answer to a question about hate speech. Here is an example of BAMN hate speech I found, after your prompting.

BAMN is committed to making real America’s founding declaration that “all men are created equal.” Real equality of rights and opportunities for women and for disadvantaged black, Latina/o, Native American, Asian Pacific American, Arab American, and other minorities requires active, positive measures, a national policy of affirmative action. American society can overcome its fundamental inequalities only if positive measures are taken to transform it into what it should be.

I assume the leaders of BAMN are saying this. I couldn't find any quote from a BAMN or ANTFA leader confirming that the last 8months have been replete with left wing violence.

Would a t-shirt saying "f**K Fascism" be hate speech or hate hate speech?

Why isn't the Southern Poverty Law Center monitoring groups that fight for civil rights as well as those who fight against them?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2017, 11:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like some people out there have decided to fight racism and fascism.

And I may be part of the problem, or some problem, which apparently is not racism, fascism and violence against Muslims, immigrants, and LGBT.

Truly sad.

When you decide to fight words with violence, yes, you are part of the problem.  If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have yourself to blame.

Quote:But my post was an answer to a question about hate speech. Here is an example of BAMN hate speech I found, after your prompting.

BAMN is committed to making real America’s founding declaration that “all men are created equal.” Real equality of rights and opportunities for women and for disadvantaged black, Latina/o, Native American, Asian Pacific American, Arab American, and other minorities requires active, positive measures, a national policy of affirmative action. American society can overcome its fundamental inequalities only if positive measures are taken to transform it into what it should be.

I assume the leaders of BAMN are saying this. I couldn't find any quote from a BAMN or ANTFA leader confirming that the last 8months have been replete with left wing violence.

That's a great statement.  Too bad they followed it up with vandalism and violence and then claimed that both were justified.  I suppose the name of the group, "By any means necessary" shouldn't cause any concern hmm?  I suppose, though, by your question you're more concerned with words than actions?

Quote:Would a t-shirt saying "f**K Fascism" be hate speech or hate hate speech?

I think that would be entirely dependent on the words and deeds of the wearer.  Sadly the word fascism is grossly misused by a bunch of simpletons who conflate it with political views they don't share.

Quote:Why isn't the Southern Poverty Law Center monitoring groups that fight for civil rights as well as those who fight against them?

You mean why aren't they monitoring groups engaged in organized violence?  I don't know, maybe direct your question towards them?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-01-2017, 09:28 PM)Dill Wrote: No "lefties" burning crosses, vandalizing cemeteries, killing immigrants, planning to bomb Muslims?

Shows the SPLC bias right there.  

Help them out, Mike. Provide some lefty examples.

A "hate filled statement" to SPLC would be a t-shirt that says "f**k Islam worn by someone actively spreading hate of Islam, or the attempt to sponsor an event hoping to provoke violent incidents by disparaging Islam.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/geller-ritzheimer-lead-provocative-islam-bashing-events

They are monitoring Sean Hannity, but people carrying signs encouraging others to kill cops doesn't hit their radar?  I put Hannity in the search at their site, and what came up is laughable.  Maybe I missed something and you could show me. 15 years 4 hours a day, and they are still waiting for him to cross the line and incite violence. Maybe time to move on?

[Dill]

(03-02-2017, 12:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: When you decide to fight words with violence, yes, you are part of the problem.  If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have yourself to blame.

So far, I haven't decided to "fight words with violence." 

But there could be something missing from your theory of democratic persuasion.

I don't think that German liberals who couldn't dissuade people from voting Nazi in 1932 had only themselves to blame.

And I don't think that black voters of North Carolina had only themselves to blame when the Klan wrested political power from them in 1875.

Much depends on what words people are fighting.

[Belsnickel]

So, Pew had a poll (I know, I know, polls bad, blah blah) and it was interesting to me. http://www.people-press.org/2017/03/02/large-majorities-see-checks-and-balances-right-to-protest-as-essential-for-democracy/

Specifically:


I'm kind of curious how folks on here feel. Is a free press essential to democracy? I'm not saying a press that in unaccountable and can just print whatever, but the ability for a press to be critical of the administration. Is that essential to a democracy? And this is for everyone, because this was also the lowest scoring one among Democrats on this.