Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Xochitl]
    #2635453 - 05/04/04 01:03 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

Xochitl writes:

There seems to be an assumption here that the airwaves are privately owned. They are not. The public owns the airwaves.

Assuming this is true, that doesn't change the fact that the equipment feeding content into those airwaves is privately owned. Sinclair Group owns the transmitters of the stations in question. If the powers that be at Sinclair choose not to use their transmitters to broadcast the same thing that other transmitters broadcast, that is of course their right. How could it be otherwise?

This is identical in principle to a newspaper (or several newspapers) choosing not to run a cartoon they judge their readership may not appreciate.

Your providing the definition of an "official" strengthened the point I was making, and I thank you for the assistance, though I feel it was not really necessary. Clearly the board of the Sinclair Group is not a "public body", but a private one.

So, in the case of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, they essentially limited public information on public airwaves for political purposes.

So the broadcast was a political ploy? So much for Koppel arguing it wasn't.

I do not see how a reading of names is political spin or anti-war activism when there is no political or anti-war coloring of the reading.

You may not see it. The owners of the stations did. Koppel himself said it, but he tried to present it as capable of being spun either way, politically.

The role of the media and its journalists is provide citizens with information.

Are television stations required to present news? So much for the Cartoon Network and HBO, then.

Funny how when the media actually provides information without spin or bias for once, they are attacked.

Funny how you would ignore the context of Koppel's unabashed opposition to the war. Koppel's attempt to claim that it was a neutral act might have held water if it were someone other than Koppel reading it -- Rush Limbaugh, for example.

So, the score is: the Sinclair Broadcasting Group prevented the release of straight fact/public record on public airwaves for political reasons.

Sinclair Group prevented no such thing. The information is widely available from sources other than a single Nightline broadcast. Anyone who wants to expend the effort to find the names of those killed in action can do so.

What if Sinclair disagreed with other news stories?

If they were to choose not to air them, I imagine they would eventually lose viewers, then sponsors, and be hurt financially. Possibly even hurt to the point where they might be forced to sell their stations.

Are they going to continue to prevent the broadcasting of these because of their political stance?

Could be. That is their right.

Is this a pattern that will continue?

Perhaps. What's the problem if it does?

How is "a good thing" for nation again?

How is it a bad thing for anyone other than Sinclair? As I point out, anyone with an interest in finding out who has been killed can do so through sources other than a single show on a single tv channel. It certainly isn't bad for "the nation". Worst case scenario is some people have to expend more effort informing themselves of the names of US troops who have died in Iraq to date. Note that this same effort would need to be expended to find the names of those US troops killed in Afghanistan.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,634
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 9 minutes
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2635619 - 05/04/04 02:17 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

So the broadcast was a political ploy? So much for Koppel arguing it wasn't.

No, the (abridge, ban, black out, blacklist, bleach, bleep, blue-pencil, bowdlerize, clean up, conceal, control, cork, criticize, cut, decontaminate, delete, edit, examine, excise, expurgate, exscind, inspect, launder, narrow, oversee, purge, purify, refuse transmission, repress, restrain, restrict, review, revile, sanitize, scissor out, squelch, sterilize, strike out, supervise communications, suppress, withhold)ing of the broadcast was a pollitical ploy.


This is a clear case of corporate (abridge, ban, black out, blacklist, bleach, bleep, blue-pencil, bowdlerize, clean up, conceal, control, cork, criticize, cut, decontaminate, delete, edit, examine, excise, expurgate, exscind, inspect, launder, narrow, oversee, purge, purify, refuse transmission, repress, restrain, restrict, review, revile, sanitize, scissor out, squelch, sterilize, strike out, supervise communications, suppress, withhold)ship.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,634
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 9 minutes
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2635624 - 05/04/04 02:19 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

Also I forgot to mention conservative bias in the media.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezeronio
Stranger
Male

Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2635666 - 05/04/04 02:34 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

Once again there is a big difference how American & the rest of the world media picture the current military situation in Iraq.
The general impression outside USA is that the army is loosing control over Iraq and that the colaition holds only small parts of bigger cities. American media don't even mention the retreat of army from Fallujah or at least it's not shown as a retreat.
Few days ago there was a main headline on CNN web page about results of 1 month old poll that showed that majority of Iraquis support ocupation, while my newspaper reported heavy fights and losses of coalition and hundreds of "collateral damage" amoung civilians in Fallujah.
Of course I can't know what is the truth, but one year ago our media reported that the war is starting under false pretentions, that there are no WMD and that Powell report in UN about proofs USA has about Iraq threat is completely fake. Eurpean media convinced 90% of the public about this, while american media convinced people in contrary. Now I have a feeling that american public is being fucked again.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2635726 - 05/04/04 02:53 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

Well, we have to agree to disagree, then. I saw it as a political ploy. I am not alone in this. But to be blunt, what I or anyone else thinks about it is irrelevant. What matters is what do the owners of the stations involved think about it?

They believed it was a political ploy.

They own the transmitters. They paid for the content (the specific Nightline episode) and have the right to air it or not to air it. This is not "censorship". They were not violating anyone's right to free speech, nor were they preventing anyone from obtaining the information contained in Koppel's program.

If Rush Limbaugh were to do exactly the same thing, and some of the stations carrying Limbaugh's program refused to air it, would anyone here be crying "censorship"?

This is a clear case of corporate (*)ship.

It is a clearcut case that though you have the right to say what you wish, you don't have the right to force another to provide you a megaphone.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,634
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 9 minutes
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2635738 - 05/04/04 02:58 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

No. But you do have a right to be a dissatisfied consumer of tainted media product.

I hope this bites Sinclair Broadcasting on it's ass and maybe wakes America up a little.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: zeronio]
    #2635755 - 05/04/04 03:09 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

Zeronio, the thing here is that none of this is news. None of this is being hidden from the American pople. It is quite literally impossible to pick up any major newspaper without seeing an update of the death toll of American troops. Every time -- every time -- there is another attack on coalition troops resulting in fatalities it is covered. Without exception. Many of the media organs even keep a running box score -- "Number of troops killed since Bush declared end to major combat operations - 438".

Koppel's program was not news. It was editorializing. You would pretty much have to be living in a cave not to be at least close to knowing how many troops have been killed so far. You pretty much can't get away from it.

Quote:

The general impression outside USA is that the army is loosing control over Iraq and that the colaition holds only small parts of bigger cities.




And that general impression is incorrect. If one takes the time to dig into it rather than just half-listening to the sound bites coming out of the boob tube in a sports bar while chugging down a few beers with the gang, it can be seen that from the beginning, there have been a few trouble spots. Fallujah is one. Najaf is another. These attacks are not distributed all over Iraq.

Quote:

American media don't even mention the retreat of army from Fallujah or at least it's not shown as a retreat.




Which American media? I know about it, and I check CNN. Every now and then I check FOX as well. I should point out that I check only their web pages because I don't have a tv. But if it's on their web pages, you can be sure it's shown on tv as well.

The "retreat" from Fallujah, by the way, is not a military move but a political one. It's not that the Marines were getting their asses kicked (quite the reverse) it's that the politicians have decided that they might gain some brownie points with world opinion by showing some restraint. This is of course wishful thinking.

As for the reports of collateral damage among civilians, just how -- in a situation where none of the combatants on one side wear uniforms -- is anyone to determine whether a dead body was a civilian or not?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2635763 - 05/04/04 03:13 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

Baby_Hitler writes:

Quote:

But you do have a right to be a dissatisfied consumer of tainted media product.



Indeed you do. And I very much doubt anyone who normally follows the news to any significant degree is unaware of the flap. Presumably they will react accordingly.
Quote:

I hope this bites Sinclair Broadcasting on it's ass and maybe wakes America up a little.



If it damages Sinclair financially, then would it not be yet another confirmation that the free market system works?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezeronio
Stranger
Male

Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2635835 - 05/04/04 03:41 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

You described better then me what American media report about Iraq. Political withdrawal from Fallujah could be much more problematic then you think and that is shown to you. The resistance was so strong that the army had to get out, otherwise they would have to obliterate the city, civilians and rebels. Which would be more close to a defeat then to a victory. Also repeating the old positive polls as the main news is a classic smoke curtain.
I've seen stuff like that during the wars in Yugoslavia. You can't trust the media from the coutries that are in war. If you want a good picture then you have to find information that come from countries that have nothing to do with the conflict. That should rule out Iraq war reporting from Arabs, Americans, British & co.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: zeronio]
    #2635869 - 05/04/04 03:54 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

zeronio writes:

Political withdrawal from Fallujah could be much more problematic then you think and that is shown to you.

Agreed. People can argue all they want about whether it is correct to go to war, but once you're in one, win it! Don't half-ass it. This was America's biggest problem in Viet Nam.

The resistance was so strong that the army had to get out, otherwise they would have to obliterate the city, civilians and rebels.

Actually, that is not correct at all. Not even close. It's not that the Iraqi fighters were so strong, but that they were willing to use tactics they knew (or thought) the Americans were reluctant to counter. Tactics such as holing up in Mosques, using women and children as shields, etc.

It's not complicated to win when you're talking about one city. Surround it, offer safe passage to women and children, then go in and disarm whoever's left. Those who don't want to disarm, shoot. No need to level the city, no need to shoot everything that moves.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezeronio
Stranger
Male

Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2635967 - 05/04/04 05:29 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Agreed. People can argue all they want about whether it is correct to go to war, but once you're in one, win it! Don't half-ass it. This was America's biggest problem in Viet Nam.




You can't win if you're fighting against the population and that's what I'm afraid is going on now. Isolated terrorist attacks have grown into an uprise of part of population.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: zeronio]
    #2636051 - 05/04/04 06:59 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

zeronio writes:

You can't win if you're fighting against the population...

If you're fighting against the entire population, or even a significant part of it, correct.

...and that's what I'm afraid is going on now. Isolated terrorist attacks have grown into an uprise of part of population.

Completely untrue. Not even close. Those attacking coalition troops are a very tiny percentage of the 25 million Iraqis. Many (perhaps most) of those carrying out the attacks aren't even Iraqis at all, but Iranians, Syrians, even Palestinians in some cases.

Do you read any of the Iraqi blogs? I do. I've provided links to them here in other posts. The vast majority of the Iraqis are staying out of this entirely. Some Iraqis are even acting on their own as vigilantes against al-Sadr's thugs.

Easing the pressure against Fallujah for even an instant was a mistake. Sitting outside Najaf letting the attackers mortar installations is a mistake. The politicos seem to have convinced themselves that showing this kind of restraint will somehow be perceived by the world as admirable. They are dead wrong. The attackers don't respect or admire restraint, they respect action. So does the "Arab Street" in general. The best way to ensure more attacks is to respond ineffectively to them. The current passivity on the part of the coalition decision makers is insanity, nothing less. There is no way to sugarcoat it. Those planning things have freaking lost their minds.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2636409 - 05/04/04 10:02 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Assuming this is true, that doesn't change the fact that the equipment feeding content into those airwaves is privately owned. Sinclair Group owns the transmitters of the stations in question. If the powers that be at Sinclair choose not to use their transmitters to broadcast the same thing that other transmitters broadcast, that is of course their right. How could it be otherwise?




Actually, they dont own the transmitters - they lease them. You are correct however; Sinclair has the right to edit, remove, silence, and censor news stories that they would rather not the public see during the election year.

Quote:


This is identical in principle to a newspaper (or several newspapers) choosing not to run a cartoon they judge their readership may not appreciate.




No, it is not. The public airwaves and a privately printed and distributed newspaper are not the same.

Quote:

Your providing the definition of an "official" strengthened the point I was making, and I thank you for the assistance, though I feel it was not really necessary. Clearly the board of the Sinclair Group is not a "public body", but a private one.




They are a private body who maintains and operates a public body.

Quote:

So the broadcast was a political ploy? So much for Koppel arguing it wasn't.




No, the Nightline episode wasnt political - it was an expression of fact - plain and simple. Do you get ABC down in the Dominian Republic? The removal of the show by Sinclair was a political move - they removed it from selected cities because they disagreed with it.

Ted Koppel supports the war, by the way, and in his own words, did not do the show for political reasons. He simply wanted to honor our young dead and put faces on the names. If didnt catch the show (I'm sure you'll say you did), it was a very simple tribute. How is this political again? How is this not a broadcast of fact?

Quote:


You may not see it. The owners of the stations did. Koppel himself said it, but he tried to present it as capable of being spun either way, politically.




No, Koppel didnt see the material as political - he said it was material that is often capitalized on for political reason by other parties.

Quote:

Are television stations required to present news? So much for the Cartoon Network and HBO, then.




Cartoon Network and HBO are cable channels. We are talking about major networks on public airwaves. These channels are required by the FCC to provide news content.

Quote:

Funny how you would ignore the context of Koppel's unabashed opposition to the war. Koppel's attempt to claim that it was a neutral act might have held water if it were someone other than Koppel reading it -- Rush Limbaugh, for example.




I'd gladly support Limbaugh reading the list of the dead. I do not find the broadcasting of plain and true fact to be something to avoid.

Quote:

Sinclair Group prevented no such thing. The information is widely available from sources other than a single Nightline broadcast. Anyone who wants to expend the effort to find the names of those killed in action can do so.




They prevented a Nightline show that was 100% fact. They prevented information - whether or not such information can be found elsewhere is irrevelent.

Where else have you seen the full list of names, faces, ages, and rank of all dead soliders in American media, by the way? Since its so accessible and all, lets see it.

Quote:

Are they going to continue to prevent the broadcasting of these because of their political stance? Is this a pattern that will continue?

Perhaps. What's the problem if it does?




Are you serious?  :rolleyes:


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2636423 - 05/04/04 10:11 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

There seems to be an awful lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over small meduia company deciding not to air, in a handful of small cities, a news show that would not normally attract many viewers anyway. The decision by Sinclair not to air the show has probably caused far more people to be aware of it than would otherwise have been the case.

As for the question of whether this is censorship I have to agree with Pinky. All news is edited, whether over the air, in print, or on the internet. Do any of you here think that Sinclair should have been compelled to broadcast the show? Be very, very careful of that road.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 19 years, 8 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2636485 - 05/04/04 10:47 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

KingOftheThing said:
you dont know for a fact bush had nothing to do with it, and i dont have 100% proof that he did.




Please, don't let that simple little thing stop you from making accusations.
Quote:


point is, bush is involved in some fucked up shit with his corporate buddies. i would bet $100 that the bush administration is calling the shots and telling fox, clear channel and others what not to air. bush makes me sick, he is a despicible human being and worse a fundamentalist christian.
Quote:


Right.
Quote:


ITS 2000-FUCKING-4 AND OUR GOD DAMN, LUNATIC PRESIDENT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!! HE IS A CREATIONIST!!! OMGGG!!! IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE, HE SAID OUR SOLDIERS ARE DOING GODS WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT THE FUCK EVER HAPPENED TO SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!! HE TALKS TO JESUS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND ASKS HIS ADVICE!!!! THATS LIKE ASKING THE EASTER BUNNY ABOUT FORIEGN POLICY!!!



You don't understand what seperation of church and state means.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 19 years, 8 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Xochitl]
    #2636510 - 05/04/04 11:08 AM (19 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Xochitl said:
No, it is not. The public airwaves and a privately printed and distributed newspaper are not the same.




I think that airwaves are frequencies purchased from the FCC. You aren't actually purchasing said frequency, rather a license to use it.  The airwaves aren't public. You couldn't start using the frequency that your local network affiliate uses to broadcast your homemade porn, for example. They are privately held and operated.

Quote:


Ted Koppel supports the war, by the way, and in his own words, did not do the show for political reasons. He simply wanted to honor our young dead and put faces on the names. If didnt catch the show (I'm sure you'll say you did), it was a very simple tribute. How is this political again? How is this not a broadcast of fact?




I don't want to put words into someones mouth, but I don't think that pinksharkmark owns a television.  Do you think that a special showing sonograms of fetuses that have been aborted would be poliitcal in nature? Why, isn't it a "broadcast of fact"?

Quote:


Cartoon Network and HBO are cable channels. We are talking about major networks on public airwaves. These channels are required by the FCC to provide news content.




Can you show me a link that shows that the FCC Requires networks to have news content ? Also, doesn't the FCC ,as I mentioned above, simply license out the use of specific frequencies. They don't "own" the frequencies, and the private organiztaions pay for the license and thus, they 'own' the airwaves.
Quote:


They prevented a Nightline show that was 100% fact. They prevented information - whether or not such information can be found elsewhere is irrevelent.




It shows that their isn't a nation-wide, government backed conspiracy, as some people see it, to withhold this information. If I own a news channel, I choose what I show and what I don't. It's just that simple. The Sinclair Group didn't prevent anyone from having this list, they just didn't offer it to the populace of the cities in question.
Quote:


Where else have you seen the full list of names, faces, ages, and rank of all dead soliders in American media, by the way? Since its so accessible and all, lets see it.




It's in newspapers, not too hard to compile a list.
Quote:


Are you serious?  :rolleyes:



I think that you are misunderstanding pinkys position. He isn't encouraging this type of 'censorship', he is simply defending the rights of the  Sinclair group to show what htey want on their television channels. Do you think that if the NSDAP decided to push Free Speech TV to show 2 hours of pro-Nazi programming per day, that FSTV should be required to do so? Hardly. It's THEIR damn station.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Xochitl]
    #2637223 - 05/04/04 02:40 PM (19 years, 10 months ago)

Xochitl writes:

Actually, they dont own the transmitters - they lease them. You are correct however; Sinclair has the right to edit, remove, silence, and censor news stories that they would rather not the public see during the election year.

If Sinclair Group doesn't own the transmitters (source please), who does? And if you concede SG has the right not to air the program, why are we still talking about this?

No, it is not. The public airwaves and a privately printed and distributed newspaper are not the same.

Yes they are. There is no difference whatsoever in principle. The fact that the public, through its designated agents, the FCC (and whether the FCC has any business existing in its present form is another argument for another time and place), leases a particular electromagnetic frequency in a particular location to a particular company does not mean that the company doing the leasing is required to transmit exactly the same stuff every other company who has leased the airwaves does. As a matter of fact, they are not required to transmit anything at all.

They are a private body who maintains and operates a public body.

You misunderstand the concept of "public ownership of the airwaves". Sinclair's broadcst facilities are not a public body, any more than UPS's sorting warehouses and trucks are a public body. Sinclair (and others) using "publicly owned" electromagnetic frequencies to deliver content is no different in principle from UPS and FedEx using publicly owned streets to deliver freight.

No, the Nightline episode wasnt political - it was an expression of fact - plain and simple.

No, it was a political statement, plain and simple. A printed list accompanied by photos is simply delivering information. Those photos can be reviewed again and again, the names checked again and again. Flashing photos on the screen while reading hundreds of names provides no information to anyone other than the incredibly tiny percentage of humans with an eidetic memory. I challenge you to find anyone who can today recite twenty of those names, and adequately describe the people associated with those twenty names.

It wasn't providing information, it was providing spectacle. A non-flashy and restrained spectacle, but a spectacle nonetheless. It was a publicity stunt callously using the dead to advance Nightline's agenda.

Ted Koppel supports the war, by the way, and in his own words, did not do the show for political reasons. He simply wanted to honor our young dead and put faces on the names.

Well, gee, that's a surprise. He denies there was any motivation other than honoring the dead? He and his producer have also both denied they were even aware the program would be aired during "sweeps week", and if you believe that in-your-face, laugh-out-loud whopper, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

And both Koppel and his producer say the inspiration for this stunt came from Life Magazine's similar move thirty-five years ago -- a move which was a famous (and Koppel and his producer know this) crystallizing factor in the opposition to the Viet Nam war. For them to pretend otherwise is more than disingenuous, it's insulting to the intelligence of Americans.

If didnt catch the show (I'm sure you'll say you did), it was a very simple tribute. How is this political again? How is this not a broadcast of fact?

I don't have a tv so I didn't catch the show. I didn't have to catch it to recognize it for what it was. The format of the show has been described quite plainly in numerous sources I can access.

There are facts, and there are facts. No mention was made of what the deaths of those people accomplished. No list of names (with pictures) of Iraqis released from prison -- who will now live rather than die-- due to the actions of those troops was read. No footage of grinning Iraqi kids playing soccer rather than huddling in Hussein's "kiddie jails" was shown.

No, Koppel didnt see the material as political - he said it was material that is often capitalized on for political reason by other parties.

To be accurate, one must say that Koppel denies seeing the material as political.

We are talking about major networks on public airwaves. These channels are required by the FCC to provide news content.

I was unaware of that fact. So cable channels are not required to provide news, but the FCC requires those who broadcast over airwaves rather than through coax cable to provide news as a condition to granting a license? Interesting. I won't ask you for a source to back that up. I'll accept it at face value.

They prevented a Nightline show that was 100% fact.

I can provide information to you that is 100% fact as well. That doesn't mean the information provides a factual picture of what I'm describing.

They prevented information - whether or not such information can be found elsewhere is irrevelent.

No broadcaster has the obligation to provide all the facts about everything. If that were true, there would never be time to broadcast anything other than news, 24-7. Even the news networks sift and filter and discard information. That's reality.

Where else have you seen the full list of names, faces, ages, and rank of all dead soliders in American media, by the way? Since its so accessible and all, lets see it.

I didn't say it was available through the media. I said it was available. And it is. If it weren't, Koppel could hardly have done the show, could he?

Are you serious?

Is that an answer to my question? I ask again, what problem do you envision if they opt not to air other publicity stunts?


pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2637322 - 05/04/04 03:03 PM (19 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

I think that airwaves are frequencies purchased from the FCC. You aren't actually purchasing said frequency, rather a license to use it. The airwaves aren't public. You couldn't start using the frequency that your local network affiliate uses to broadcast your homemade porn, for example. They are privately held and operated.




You think wrong. The airwaves that ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. use are regulated and licensed by the FCC in the name of the ownership of the national public - much like, say, a national park. The National Forest Service maintains and regulates the land, but citizens and tax payers own it. Why is (non-cable) television and radio free? Because the citizens own the airwaves. If you want more channels or better quality, you can pay for them.

Citizens cannot broadcast their own pornography because that does not abide with FCC regulations and protocol.

Quote:

Do you think that a special showing sonograms of fetuses that have been aborted would be poliitcal in nature? Why, isn't it a "broadcast of fact"?




I do not consider a list of how many abortions have taken place political in and of itself, no. However, graphic pictures of aborted fetuses and the memorial shown on Nightline are not the same. Nightline did not show dead bodies of American soliders; it was incredibly respectful, rather - like a live reading of the Vietnam Memorial Wall. Also, abortions are usually private affairs, unlike war. Our soliders fighting in our name on tax dollars is not a private matter - it is public. I can see how such an abortion special could be apolitical, but it would be difficult to achieve. Possible, yes. I would have no problem with an apolitical or politcally balanced show on abortion.

Quote:

Can you show me a link that shows that the FCC Requires networks to have news content ?




http://www.fcc.gov/onsite-resources.html - It'll be found somewhere there. Look for references to public interest obligation and Communications Act of 1934 and the Telcom Act of 1996 and the public interest, convenience and necessity clause. The public owns the electromagnetic spectrum. Period. Do some research.

Quote:

It shows that their isn't a nation-wide, government backed conspiracy, as some people see it, to withhold this information. If I own a news channel, I choose what I show and what I don't. It's just that simple.




I never mentioned any government conspiracy.

Quote:

Do you think that if the NSDAP decided to push Free Speech TV to show 2 hours of pro-Nazi programming per day, that FSTV should be required to do so? Hardly. It's THEIR damn station.




That is subscription satellite television. We are talking about the free, public airwaves that the major networks of ABC, NBC, CBS, (non-cable) Fox, WGN, etc. operate on.


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,634
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 9 minutes
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Xochitl]
    #2637339 - 05/04/04 03:09 PM (19 years, 10 months ago)

I suspect that one of the reasons that internet bandwith has plateued for the last several years is that the media companies don't want internet television stations taking their business away from them.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2637609 - 05/04/04 04:22 PM (19 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

If Sinclair Group doesn't own the transmitters (source please), who does?




It was mentioned in the New York Times or USA Today. I'll see if I can find it online.

Quote:

And if you concede SG has the right not to air the program, why are we still talking about this?




I never said SBG broke any laws. Yes, they have the technical right - I never said otherwise. But considering the great medium of television for a majority of the citizen population, their actions should be set to a higher standard than petty, political kneejerk reactions like preventing people from watching Nightline.

Quote:

No, it is not. The public airwaves and a privately printed and distributed newspaper are not the same.

Yes they are. There is no difference whatsoever in principle.




Privately funded, edited, and distributed newspapers do not operate on publicaly owned airwaves. They are quite different - apples and oranges. Television and newsprint have totally different sets of regulation and legislation.

Quote:

You misunderstand the concept of "public ownership of the airwaves". Sinclair's broadcst facilities are not a public body, any more than UPS's sorting warehouses and trucks are a public body. Sinclair (and others) using "publicly owned" electromagnetic frequencies to deliver content is no different in principle from UPS and FedEx using publicly owned streets to deliver freight.




No, you do not understand. I never said that Sinclair was a public body in the same vein as the FCC; I said they were a private organization that operates on public medium. They are not free to operate as they choose - they must yield to the regulation of the FCC whether or not you like it. This includes an agreement to broadcast for the public interest.

How exactly is removing a news show because they disagree politically with the content in the public interest?

Quote:

No, it was a political statement, plain and simple. A printed list accompanied by photos is simply delivering information. Those photos can be reviewed again and again, the names checked again and again. Flashing photos on the screen while reading hundreds of names provides no information to anyone other than the incredibly tiny percentage of humans with an eidetic memory. I challenge you to find anyone who can today recite twenty of those names, and adequately describe the people associated with those twenty names.




Following your logic, all television and radio news is merely a political statement that should be disregarded as such.

Quote:

It wasn't providing information, it was providing spectacle. A non-flashy and restrained spectacle, but a spectacle nonetheless. It was a publicity stunt callously using the dead to advance Nightline's agenda.




Did you watch this Nightline episode? How often do you even watch Nightline? Certainly enough that you'd find an agenda...

Quote:

I don't have a tv so I didn't catch the show.




Wait, guess not. You sure have a strong opinion about something you did not even see. Certainly, when we discuss a particular television show or book, you must actually read or watch the material in order to even begin to debate it - certainly to be able to honestly judge its merit.

How is all televised news not a spectacle following your definitions and logic?

Quote:

Well, gee, that's a surprise. He denies there was any motivation other than honoring the dead? He and his producer have also both denied they were even aware the program would be aired during "sweeps week", and if you believe that in-your-face, laugh-out-loud whopper, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.




Actually, it was aired on the last week of the deadliest and most historical month ever in this war.

Quote:

And both Koppel and his producer say the inspiration for this stunt came from Life Magazine's similar move thirty-five years ago -- a move which was a famous (and Koppel and his producer know this) crystallizing factor in the opposition to the Viet Nam war. For them to pretend otherwise is more than disingenuous, it's insulting to the intelligence of Americans.




Sources?

If your theory is correct about Time Life/Vietnam, why do you think the simple show of names, faces, ages, and rank of dead soliders has such a high track record of gallanizing anti-war sentiment and support? Consider and answer this question please.

Why do you consider the presentation of facts on a current affair to be manufacturing political points, but censoring such a presentation of facts not a political move in itself?

Quote:


I don't have a tv so I didn't catch the show. I didn't have to catch it to recognize it for what it was. The format of the show has been described quite plainly in numerous sources I can access.




You should know the material before arguing. Thanks.

Quote:

No mention was made of what the deaths of those people accomplished. No list of names (with pictures) of Iraqis released from prison -- who will now live rather than die-- due to the actions of those troops was read.




Well, why do you think this is? Why do you think the names of American soliders is more relevent to Americans on their own airwaves than the names of Iraqis? Hmm tough one.

Quote:

No footage of grinning Iraqi kids playing soccer rather than huddling in Hussein's "kiddie jails" was shown.




I have seen plenty of images like that on American news, especially on ABC News.

Quote:

I was unaware of that fact. So cable channels are not required to provide news, but the FCC requires those who broadcast over airwaves rather than through coax cable to provide news as a condition to granting a license? Interesting. I won't ask you for a source to back that up. I'll accept it at face value.




Information provided in my previous post. Enjoy.

Quote:

I can provide information to you that is 100% fact as well. That doesn't mean the information provides a factual picture of what I'm describing.




What are you talking about? The names, ages, rank, and faces of the dead soliders are true - they are facts. How are they not factual?

Quote:

I didn't say it was available through the media. I said it was available. And it is. If it weren't, Koppel could hardly have done the show, could he?




Oh, I see. The information is available, but not through the media. Then how else is the news-viewing public supposed to get information then? The role of the media is to present such hidden and burried information especially in times like these. Again, I find it funny that when the major networks actually air something that is all fact and no bias, spin, or editoralizing - people are up in arms.

Quote:

what problem do you envision if they opt not to air other publicity stunts?




As someone who actually watch the full program - unlike yourself - I disagree with your premise that it was a publicity stunt.

One problem that I envision if groups like SBG continue this pattern of blocking news programs and information that they happen to disagree with is the silencing opposition to their favored regime, policies, legislation, and campaigns. I shouldnt have to explain why such a setup should be avoided.


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Boycott Sinclair Broadcasting advertisers fft2 960 0 10/20/04 12:53 PM
by fft2
* Protest Sinclair fft2 702 0 10/20/04 12:54 PM
by fft2
* Neocon agenda
( 1 2 all )
Moonshoe 2,143 29 09/19/04 01:30 AM
by ekomstop
* Cases filed in the Minnesota District Court (Sinclair vs. Obama) lonestar2004 1,172 17 02/25/08 11:53 AM
by HighHat
* Sinclair's News Story Tonight JesusChrist 412 2 10/22/04 06:09 PM
by Phred
* Neocons and psychedelics
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Xlea321 9,794 152 04/20/06 06:05 PM
by Luddite
* Boiled Angel -- In 1994 A guy in florida was arrested for drawing dirty pictures. Baby_Hitler 2,526 2 10/08/05 04:59 PM
by bukkake
* poll about bush (mostly for repubs/neocons) KingOftheThing 942 14 09/28/04 06:06 PM
by JesusChrist

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,129 topic views. 3 members, 6 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.