PBS Attorney fired for hate rhetoric

[CKwi88]

(01-13-2021, 09:19 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We literally have video of longtime Trump supporters, Q anon proponents, and/or proud boys doing these things. They were maskless. They have extensive online presences detailing their support. Analysis of the arrests show the vast majority fall into this categories. The FBI has said there’s no evidence it was antifa or another group.

It's


A


Cult

[Rotobeast]

(01-13-2021, 02:43 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: D. Alien Lizard People

I'm not sure why, but I've been waiting to see them connected to this issue.

[BmorePat87]

Still waiting to hear about who staged this.

[CJD]

(01-12-2021, 11:29 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why isn't it news?  Had it been a person on the other political side, it would have been all over every network.  

Don't try to devalue the importance of what this vile individual did, simply because you don't like the source that outed him.  He did what he did, and it's bad.  PBS did their level best to minimize the guy's importance in their organization, as they realize how critical their public funding is.  People that turn a blind eye because of their own political affiliations really need to take a hard look at themselves, before the continue to go around "virtue signaling" to the world about others.

There's no doubt this man is complete trash, based on the quotes in the article. Being happy about the virus spreading in "red states," discussing terrorism if Biden doesn't win (of all people who the **** would commit terrorism over Biden?) and talking about re-education camps. He is a fool in the best case and a literal terrorist in the worst.

I think the reason people are asking why this is news is because we don't really understand who this person is or why we should care. In America, you can find extremists, literally, everywhere. You could walk into a Denny's and find 5 people who believe similar things on both sides of the spectrum.

The reason we hear about a lot of the Right's extremists is because they are in public office right now or are high profile lawyers who are suing states to overturn elections like Lin Wood. 

If this guy were a person working with a Democrat and doing something fairly consequential, I'd understand that this would be newsworthy but some loser lawyer for PBS? I guess I just don't see the reason it's important. Just a nobody nut job who was promptly fired for being a nut job.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-13-2021, 06:56 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: There's no doubt this man is complete trash, based on the quotes in the article. Being happy about the virus spreading in "red states," discussing terrorism if Biden doesn't win (of all people who the **** would commit terrorism over Biden?) and talking about re-education camps. He is a fool in the best case and a literal terrorist in the worst.

I think the reason people are asking why this is news is because we don't really understand who this person is or why we should care. In America, you can find extremists, literally, everywhere. You could walk into a Denny's and find 5 people who believe similar things on both sides of the spectrum.

The reason we hear about a lot of the Right's extremists is because they are in public office right now or are high profile lawyers who are suing states to overturn elections like Lin Wood. 

If this guy were a person working with a Democrat and doing something fairly consequential, I'd understand that this would be newsworthy but some loser lawyer for PBS? I guess I just don't see the reason it's important. Just a nobody nut job who was promptly fired for being a nut job.

Thanks for the earnest reply.  Part of why I feel like this story needs a little more exposure is because this man was was making a living from a broadcast company that exists for the sole purpose of enlightening the public and survives primarily from Government funding.  I blame media bias for only selecting stories that fit their given agenda.  And that is fine, as long as it's only the fringe outlets that boldly pronounce what they represent.  However, when it comes to the "mainstream" media, the major networks that have been around from the beginning, the major print publications, etc., I expect a greater degree of unbiased integrity of reporting.  Less leading the reader/listener to feel one way or the other on a topic, but just tell what happened with a straight face, so that people can make up their own minds.

So, getting back to why is this story important?  Because I expect a broadcast company that survives off of your money, my money.. our money, to be held to the standard of knowing just who they have negotiating contracts for them.  Major media chooses to bury a story like the one I posted, because it makes Government look bad, and their M.O. seems to be to make Government look good, or at least one side of Government..  I studied Journalism in college, but chose not to pursue a career in the field, simply because of the political bias that I felt on campus and in my classrooms.  I chose to study communications thinking that media was supposed to question Government, and present the events to the public.  It has turned into a taking of sides and playing cover for the side they are on and exaggerating the negative on the other.

If you've ever watched PBS or listened to NPR, it's not tough to figure out which political side that their producers stand on.  Point is, it shouldn't be that way.  They should be as vanilla bland as it gets, politically.  But they're not, and it's likely that at least someone else in their organization knew of this man's opinions/feelings and should have reported/outed him themselves, but they didn't.  And that bothers me.

[CJD]

(01-13-2021, 09:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Thanks for the earnest reply.  Part of why I feel like this story needs a little more exposure is because this man was was making a living from a broadcast company that exists for the sole purpose of enlightening the public and survives primarily from Government funding.  I blame media bias for only selecting stories that fit their given agenda.  And that is fine, as long as it's only the fringe outlets that boldly pronounce what they represent.  However, when it comes to the "mainstream" media, the major networks that have been around from the beginning, the major print publications, etc., I expect a greater degree of unbiased integrity of reporting.  Less leading the reader/listener to feel one way or the other on a topic, but just tell what happened with a straight face, so that people can make up their own minds.

So, getting back to why is this story important?  Because I expect a broadcast company that survives off of your money, my money.. our money, to be held to the standard of knowing just who they have negotiating contracts for them.  Major media chooses to bury a story like the one I posted, because it makes Government look bad, and their M.O. seems to be to make Government look good, or at least one side of Government..  I studied Journalism in college, but chose not to pursue a career in the field, simply because of the political bias that I felt on campus and in my classrooms.  I chose to study communications thinking that media was supposed to question Government, and present the events to the public.  It has turned into a taking of sides and playing cover for the side they are on and exaggerating the negative on the other.

If you've ever watched PBS or listened to NPR, it's not tough to figure out which political side that their producers stand on.  Point is, it shouldn't be that way.  They should be as vanilla bland as it gets, politically.  But they're not, and it's likely that at least someone else in their organization knew of this man's opinions/feelings and should have reported/outed him themselves, but they didn't.  And that bothers me.

Okay, that's understandable. PBS is publicly funded, so there is additional accountability required when discussing things like this. However, I don't think it's fair to blame PBS for not realizing this guy thought these things sooner. Politics in the office are very unusual discussion topics. I personally only know the politics of, like, 4 people I work with (in an office of over 100 people) and those are people who I've become close friends with. I could maybe guess a fair number of people's general poltics, but whether or not they are extremists is a lot harder to nail down. 

Maybe this guy has said to his co-workers stuff like "I really hope Biden wins. The things these Trump supporters believe without evidence is truly crazy to me." A statement like that may be a precursor to the terrorism if Biden loses and the re-education camps belief, but nothing in that sentence would ring any "extremist" alarms in anyone's head. A lot of extremists only share their true values with their closest friends and allies.

Have you ever heard the phrase "hiding your power level?" It's originally from Dragon Ball Z where the characters could "sense" how strong a character was, so they developed the ability to hide this power level to hide from their enemies and, in some cases, surprise them during a fight.

A lot of extremists have taken this phrase and ran with it to the tune of "don't reveal how truly radical you are. Just say you believe in *innocuous cover belief*. The people who agree with you will understand what you're saying, but normies may go along with us as long as they don't understand what our true beliefs are." I could very well see that being the case with this guy. This article is just a case of him accidentally revealing his power level (and getting fired for it).

I'd be more concerned if this guy was a creative control director for the channel or something. A position that has control over what is shown on television. As a lawyer, I don't think his beliefs affected the channel's content at all, at least I can't think of a way it could.

As a contrast, do you remember when one of the writers for Tucker Carlson was revealed to be a racist on an alt account he used? If this story were like that one, I would totally get where you're coming from. 

Overall, it is very frustrating when you learn cretins like this exist on your "political side." Both sides must purge these people from their ranks. It's disgusting that someone could consider themselves on the left and think that harm to people is a good thing. 

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

Just an FYI from someone that runs a non-profit radio station and often converses with PBS about fundraisers so we don't overlap each other and drive away potential donors.

When the GOP is in power, they cut funding to PBS because *gasp* they have the audacity to teach your children science and that doesn't fly with the religious wing of the GOP. When the GOP is in charge, you see lots of fundraisers and drives to appeal to donors on PBS to stay alive because of this. Lose the religious Right and Republicans will never win another election so PBS is considered the enemy to the GOP.

PBS Newshour is the most down the middle out there on the National stage. Yes they lean left, but outside of BBC World News America which also leans left, all other "news" agencies are much further to each side. If you know of a more down the middle National broadcast, I would seriously love to see it since everything has an agenda.

I'm not expecting anyone to watch the entire hour plus video, but take the time to watch the first 15 to 20 minutes to understand how we got to this point with modern News. I'm not a Matt Taibbi fan, but this is pretty well done. He reminds me of an old Newsweek or Time article in the late 70s or early 80s about this new in depth thing called News "Shows". They were rating all of the reporters and anchormen and when they got to 20/20 they said this about Geraldo Rivera "We love his style of reporting, we just wish it was by someone else". That describes Matt Taibbi to me.

[SunsetBengal]

Quote:PBS Newshour is the most down the middle out there on the National stage. Yes they lean left, but outside of BBC World News America which also leans left, all other "news" agencies are much further to each side. If you know of a more down the middle National broadcast, I would seriously love to see it since everything has an agenda.

That's exactly my point. When I grew up, the big 3 Networks were all that most people had to get their information from. When you watched the nightly news, evening news, or whatever the other one was called, those anchors were stone faced. They gave no emotional inflection, added no personal commentary, just told the story. It was the news of the day. It was left up to the viewer or reader to form their own opinion, based upon the information that they were told.

The News was supposed to be a public service, not a for profit endeavor. It wasn't until "ratings", that all important determiner of who gets the advertising dollars, became important in the news world that news people started deviating from "hard news" toward soft, human life stories, commentary and opinion pieces and such. We currently live in a situation where commentary and opinion programs about the news make so much money that the actual news decided to imitate in hopes of achieving similar financial gains. What is the result?

The result is a polarized population that only feels like their side is the one that's doing the right thing, because everybody wants to feel like they support a winner.

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-15-2021, 01:08 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That's exactly my point. When I grew up, the big 3 Networks were all that most people had to get their information from. When you watched the nightly news, evening news, or whatever the other one was called, those anchors were stone faced. They gave no emotional inflection, added no personal commentary, just told the story. It was the news of the day. It was left up to the viewer or reader to form their own opinion, based upon the information that they were told.

The News was supposed to be a public service, not a for profit endeavor. It wasn't until "ratings", that all important determiner of who gets the advertising dollars, became important in the news world that news people started deviating from "hard news" toward soft, human life stories, commentary and opinion pieces and such. We currently live in a situation where commentary and opinion programs about the news make so much money that the actual news decided to imitate in hopes of achieving similar financial gains. What is the result?

The result is a polarized population that only feels like their side is the one that's doing the right thing, because everybody wants to feel like they support a winner.

The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated under Reagan by the FCC and when Democrats tried to have it reinstated he vetoed it.

Started the war on the middle class and brought fake news to your living room. Hell of a guy

[Belsnickel]

(01-15-2021, 01:08 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That's exactly my point. When I grew up, the big 3 Networks were all that most people had to get their information from. When you watched the nightly news, evening news, or whatever the other one was called, those anchors were stone faced. They gave no emotional inflection, added no personal commentary, just told the story. It was the news of the day. It was left up to the viewer or reader to form their own opinion, based upon the information that they were told.

The News was supposed to be a public service, not a for profit endeavor. It wasn't until "ratings", that all important determiner of who gets the advertising dollars, became important in the news world that news people started deviating from "hard news" toward soft, human life stories, commentary and opinion pieces and such. We currently live in a situation where commentary and opinion programs about the news make so much money that the actual news decided to imitate in hopes of achieving similar financial gains. What is the result?

The result is a polarized population that only feels like their side is the one that's doing the right thing, because everybody wants to feel like they support a winner.

You want to change it? Stop paying attention to the stuff. Stop buying into conspiracy theories and false news. These ratings wars have created safe havens for people that spoon feeds them the news they want to hear.

(01-15-2021, 09:17 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated under Reagan by the FCC and when Democrats tried to have it reinstated he vetoed it.

Started the war on the middle class and brought fake news to your living room. Hell of a guy

Yup. They nixed the Fairness Doctrine in the name of the free market and that was the end of it.

[GMDino]

(01-15-2021, 01:08 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That's exactly my point.  When I grew up, the big 3 Networks were all that most people had to get their information from.  When you watched the nightly news, evening news, or whatever the other one was called, those anchors were stone faced.  They gave no emotional inflection, added no personal commentary, just told the story.  It was the news of the day.  It was left up to the viewer or reader to form their own opinion, based upon the information that they were told.

The News was supposed to be a public service, not a for profit endeavor.  It wasn't until "ratings", that all important determiner of who gets the advertising dollars, became important in the news world that news people started deviating from "hard news" toward soft, human life stories, commentary and opinion pieces and such.  We currently live in a situation where commentary and opinion programs about the news make so much money that the actual news decided to imitate in hopes of achieving similar financial gains.  What is the result?

The result is a polarized population that only feels like their side is the one that's doing the right thing, because everybody wants to feel like they support a winner.

(01-15-2021, 09:17 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated under Reagan by the FCC and when Democrats tried to have it reinstated he vetoed it.

Started the war on the middle class and brought fake news to your living room. Hell of a guy

(01-15-2021, 09:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You want to change it? Stop paying attention to the stuff. Stop buying into conspiracy theories and false news. These ratings wars have created safe havens for people that spoon feeds them the news they want to hear.


Yup. They nixed the Fairness Doctrine in the name of the free market and that was the end of it.

Matt and Nati are dead on.  Reagan, figurehead to promote what the GOP was looking to do, was behind the birth of our current media hellscape and economy with the dying middle class and elite 1%ers.

But I wanted to touch on the news before that.

Many people turned on "the news" when Cronkite spoke out against Vietnam.





https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106775685

There are a LOT of other factors obviously but as the most trusted voice in America this carried more weight than Tucker Carlson talking to the "My Pillow" guy.

It didn't get us out of the war but I'm bringing it up as an example that even the "straight news" had opinions in it.

Part of what made it different was they made a clear dividing line between the two...usually.

For example Paul Harvey "News and Comment" ran well into the 90's with him opining on the news and how awful "liberals" were and how we needed more "god" in everything. In my radio days I called it "News & Rumor" and was chastised that his listeners didn't like that...no matter how true it was.

When I was in college we had an assignment to write a non-biased news story about a plane going down. Almost every report that was longer than a sentence or two was shown to show some kind of bias. Maybe I didn't think it was biased by the girl next to me did for one reason or another and vice versa.


So our media sources are bad now but the news is still the news. In fact we have more options to get different versions of the same story now so we, as readers/listeners, should have the ability to see what meshes fact wise but we can't let our own biases get out of the way most times.

It is something that we as active listeners must work on and pay attention to also.

[BmorePat87]

(01-15-2021, 09:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You want to change it? Stop paying attention to the stuff. Stop buying into conspiracy theories and false news. These ratings wars have created safe havens for people that spoon feeds them the news they want to hear.


Yup. They nixed the Fairness Doctrine in the name of the free market and that was the end of it.

Yea, it's hard to accept claims from people who criticize left leaning media and say they want fair reporting, but then they spread misinformation and conspiracies. 

An aversion to off-center media bias doesn't cause someone to seek out fringe media in hopes of hearing fair reporting. People seek out fringe media to reaffirmation their own bias.