What Should We Do About A Lying Billionaire Who Dominates the Free Press?

As long as the government doesn't interfere with what the press (regardless of who owns it) says then we have freedom of the press. Whether or not what the press prints is accurate is irrelevant to freedom.

 

Yep I agree with this.

 

Fox came into being because there was an unmet demand for a conservative perspective. To shut Fox down would be anti-Free Speech.

You can attack their journalistic style, even it's integrity, but you can't regulate it or we just become one step removed from China.

And your stance actually gives the wack-jobs verification of a "socialist" agenda. Because that is crossing the line. And they will claim that liberals really just want to control everything using the gov't like they ridiculously do claim with banking and the environmental industries.

I find it so hilarious that the poster above equates regulations with a socialist take over. Gov't running things!

Again, regulations are in place to protect people from corporate greed. Their is no limit to what a company will do to get money. And that's ok. We like greed - it's the engine of capitalism. But left uncheck, it will result in banking collaspses, great depressions, oil spills, nuclear accidents, cancer-causing environments, mad-cow infested meat, cars with dangerous defeats, toys with lead paint - the list goes on and on and on.

Conservatives call this "socialism". I call it "sanity".

But if you try to regulate their information, guess what, that really is coming close to communism.

 

So you're saying there's a demand for non-Murdoch controlled media, that people would be willing to pay for.

Hrmm, if only there was a system that would allow you to start such an enterprise.

Of course, evil Murdoch would just take it over, there is no way you could resist the money evil Murdoch would throw at you, he's basically forcing you to sell to him.

 

nevermind

 

But there are already laws preventing him from doing that. As it stands, there are multiple news outlets and networks. People aren't forced to watch FOX - they are actively making that choice.

What method do you propose to distinguish fact vs fiction?

 

It takes a David to kill Goliath.

 

This is a pretty startling suggestion, glynch. We have the ability to regulate and stop monopolies, so I don't think it's necessary to go farther than that. Certainly, there is a difference between FOX"news" and other media since other outlets don't just warp the facts to meet a specific market, but we can't ban it. I would be more comfortable if there was greater realization that Fox is contrived fiction, so I feel your pain, but we have to take the good with the bad.

 

I love Stewart. I have a man crush on him and I'm not afraid to admit it. What I love most about him is that he goes after EVERYONE. He isn't a sucker, he isn't afraid, and he isn't in anyone's pocket. On top of that, while I agree with him a lot but certainly not 100% of the time, he's a stand-up guy. I admire that. I like him for the same reasons I like .... BILL O'REILLY!!!111!! OMG OMG OMG OMG yeah I said that.

Agreed.

Glynch, you've been posting left-of-left things since day one, as is your right. I rarely agree with you, as is my right. Actually, I don't think I've ever agreed with you unless it had to do with specific things like abortion or drug prohibition. But I do ADMIRE you for your knowledge and fearlessness re: speaking your mind. Some posters here get ugly in their posts. I don't know as I've seen you do that. You drive me nuts with virtually everything you post, but I don't think I've ever seen you get ugly. I admire that as well (assuming it's true, of course).

Yet despite all of this, I'm still kind of shocked that even you would advocate for something like limiting freedom of the press. Like thumbs said, you can insert the names of Soros, Turner, etc. in place of Murdoch and ask the same questions and get 1,000 different answers from 1,000 different people with 1,000 different opinions. The responses in this thread are evident of that, and not one person has agreed with you.

Fox provides balance. If there wasn't a want or a need for its programming, it wouldn't exist.

 

Lynus, sometimes there is a running gig and counter-gig -- no malice is intended. Glynch gigs me on my tea party participation, and I gig him on some of his stances like support for Hugo Chavez. However, I think even glynch will be the first to give testament of my unflagging admiration of him despite our differences of opinion. The same holds true for rimrocker, mc mark, franchiseblade, GladiatoRowdy, Pgabriel et al with whom I have running battles. The board would be dull without a little gentlemanly feistiness.

 

I completely agree, and I am aware. The posters I respect on both sides, the ones who keep things civil, are generally the only reason I still visit this area of the BBS.

 

THis sort of ties into the discussion I am having with Glynch on another topic regarding how our system is set up to protect the minority viewpoint in Congress. I think you need to consider that political fortunes change so what benefits one seems to hinder one political view now in the future they might rely upon the very same hindrances to protect their view. So while you may want to see that Murdoch is censored, or restrained by government in some other way, while the Democrats hold power consider what if a Conservative Republican Administration comes in and decides to censor John Stewart using the same tools used to censor Murdoch.

While it may be frustrating to have to put up with Fox news and their market share I would rather have that than have the media under government control since government's can change.

 

Lies are not "balance."

 

The best part of being a moderate is getting to see the nutjobs on both sides

 

You forgot Poland. :grin: