scumbag propagandists

Are you familiar with the First Amendment?

The issue is, who would decide when they lose their license? That steers very close to having state-run media, which is just a few steps away from dictatorship.

I don't think so. Neither you or I can run into a theater and yell "fire". That is exacyly what they din in Feguson MO. when they had the facts, they had the dash cam video, they had a DUTY to get those facts out there. Instead they let a false narrative fester (hands up don't shoot), which caused riots, arson, beatings, etc. They did it for a political agenda, and ratings. Me and you would be held accountable for the stampede we caused by yelling "fire". Why aren't they? At the very least as individual journalists graduate and are handed a diploma, they should also be issued a license and a few parameters. Always telling the truth. Always giving opposing viewpoints, never letting personal biases flavor reporting and if they do, clearly label it as opinion and not fact. Just a few parameters to make sure they are always operating within them. Otherwise you get what we have now, wild west reporting with the market deciding and that's fine, but consumer laws in other areas of commerce came into play over time precisely because sometimes the market isn't good enough to motivate people to do the right thing, a loss of livelihood and ability to earn a living always perks peoples ears up to doing things the right way, even when they would rather not.

But I ask you again, who specifically would have the final say on whether a journalist loses their license?

I know where you're going with this, congress shall make no law, blah blah blah. "shall not be infringed" gets infringed daily. My first amendment is limited, I cant yell "fire" in a theater, why should they? That is really the question that needs answered, why should they be allowed to continue lying to people? Why shouldn't they have a firm boundary that says you tell the truth, or you're out? Unless you like knowing the "news" only gives you half the story at best, if you're lucky.

Once again, you fail to answer my question. WHO specifically would have the final say on a journalist losing their license? The courts? The government? Mr. Jones Down the street at the licensing office?

I don't care whether you like it or not that I am not answering YOUR question to YOUR liking. You tell me, who sets up parameters for any industry? Who made OSHA to oversee factory conditions? Who decided things like finger gaurds on box fans was a good idea? Who decided a dedicated ground was required on all electrical appliances? The answer is whoever was considered the leaders of their fields at the time working with government to set up a few parameters. A press that likes to bloviate and self congratulate themselves on being the 4th estate of government had better act like it by giving people ALL the information and letting THEM decide. Not sifting it for them, and not only deciding what stories to cover but what stories to cover UP depending on who gets hurt or helped in either instance and I am sure we both know they block and cover for the democrats while throwing grenades and hit pieces at the republicans. They are no longer being the watchdog of the people, if they ever were, they are the guard dog for the democrats, and in that condition they have violated the mandate laid out for them in the constitution. I knew I would be going up against opposition in my wish to license journalists and if it is something we just have to disagree on fine, but quit asking me WHO needs to make these laws, we both know WHO. I will finish with my request for an answer from you on my question, why cant we yell "fire" in a theater? Why have limits been put on our 1st amendment in that way? Why if the press only gives half the story most of the time, and work to inflame tensions rather than calming them with the WHOLE TRUTH of situations and not their approved narrative, why should they continue to enjoy the benefits of a constitutional mandate they are blatantly disregarding?

Thank you for the spirited debate. I apologize if I sounded rude, I just wanted more information on your position. We shall amicably agree to disagree, and I wish you the best.

I was thinking the same thing, I didn't mean to come off as rude either I am just beyond tired of the blank check the media uses to push favored political candidates and agendas, anything headed that direction I am open to suggestions on for sure and don't want to appear completely rigid in my position, I just want a return to truth in reporting so they can act as intended as a check on government and a voice of the people rather than a impenetrable defense for a favored political party.

Frankenvoter: "Me and you would be held accountable for the stampede we caused by yelling "fire". Why aren't they?" Actually they are bud. The press gets sued in defamation & libel cases all the time, and if they say something illegal that is akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater they can be held legally responsible for it.

IF they were doing it fair and unbiasedly. They have violated their constitutional mandate, therefore cannot expect to enjoy the benefits of it's protection.

There is no mandate that says you have to be fair or unbiased in your opinions son. I have the freedom to say whatever I want as long as it doesn't cause physical or financial harm to anyone, and so does the press, whether we like what they say or not.

Son? Do you know something I don't? I could have used some fatherly advice growing up, dad, if that's who you really are. The free market is a great way to drive down costs and drive up quality almost always. Sometimes regulation is not only needed but called for. Should we allow every restaraunt out there to keep their meat at whatever temperature they want to for however long they want to, buyer beware after all. Or were regulations required telling people if they expected to stay in business it's best they keep that meat in a cooler somewhere around 38 deg F? It's a free market, I'm free to go somewhere else all I wish, why the need for the regulation? Maybe because I cant count on the "news" to inform me that pablos down the street has some bad fajitas because they are in the back pocket of the owner and make sure to bury all bad pub. See what I mean? The press is only good for what everyone claims they have a teflon coating for when they do it impartially and unbiasdly. They like to call themselves the 4th estate and equate themselves with the 3 branches of government. They are unelected arbitors of what is right and wrong, not impartial observors of what is happening reporting on it. They have made themselves a part of the process and as such need some boundaries spelled out for themselves as to proper business practices. Individual journalists should be issued a license at the same time they are issued a diploma, a license they can lose, when caught doing what they do best.

Disagree 100%. You sound like you want to control what people say. Bad idea. I don't trust anyone to tell me what information I can and can't see, I will decide for myself what is legit news and what isn't. I don't need the government censoring people and spoon feeding me only what they want me to hear. Equating this to food safety precautions is absurd. Nobody's speech ever made you get sick or die, and if the press does something equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater they absolutely CAN and OFTEN ARE held accountable, a fact you're conveniently overlooking. You act like the rules of free speech that apply to us don't apply to the press, welp, you're wrong. They do have to abide by the same rules as us, and if someone gets hurt because of something they say, they are legally liable for it.

You want to enact some kind of totalitarian decree that if someone is a member of the press they aren't allowed to speak about their opinions. How ridiculous. And newsflash: you don't need a diploma to be a journalist. Anyone can be a journalist, no license or degree necessary, nor should it be. You want the state to tell people what they can and can't say on air or in print. Extremely bad idea. If you haven't noticed, mainstream legacy media is dying already anyway. They do not have the power or influence to sway public opinion in any kind of major way. Most people do not trust the mainstream mass media at all, and many polls have shown this. People might seem stupid, but most of them are smart enough to know when they are being lied to. The market will dictate which media outlets survive and which ones fail. If they are lying and being biased, people will find out and they will stop watching or reading news from that outlet. No state interference is necessary, it would actually only increase the problem, making it impossible for the press to be critical of anyone in the government.

Until Trump pointed it out most people didn't know they weren't being told the whole story. I have been on my rant for about 5 or 6 years or so, around the time it became obvious the press' job during the Obama reign was to polish his image and bury negative press about him, he was never fully vetted to begin with and it made it very plain and clear to everyone the way they will choose sides, rather than being an impartial observer. About 5 or 6 years for me but Queensryche "Operation Mindcrime" which came out over 30 years ago now, has a line in "Revolution calling" where he says "I used to trust the media to tell me the truth, but now I see the payoffs every where I look, who do you trust when everyones a crook?" Ice -T 25 years ago had his band Body count and a song Called "freedom of speech" (yeah boy, but you just watch what you say) talking about PC censorship, Don Henley's "dirty laundry" that came out in the 80's has the media pegged. It was all out there in public consciousness, the manipulation by them, but it is only now, that a president is putting some pressure on them that it is actually reaching a critical mass. How many debate questions have the media fed to the DNC prior to this election when we just happened to find out about it? The free market didn't keep that from happening either. We only KNOW about it as a public mass at this point because of the President making it an issue, otherwise they would have continued to go happily on manipulating elections until they had the socialist paradise THEY think we should have. They need to have constraints put on themselves. Just a few
1) they will always tell the truth
2) they will always give an opposing viewpoint, not just the one they want to influence public opinion with
3)they will not bury facts they deem the public "just doesn't need to know"

Unbiased truth coupled with full disclosure. It is what they are SUPPOSED to be doing already. If they have to be forced into it I am fine with that. If you can show me a plausible alternative I am all ears.

"Until Trump pointed it out most people didn't know they weren't being told the whole story." Wrong. Many polls showed the vast majority of people didn't trust the media long before Trump was even running for president.

I am well aware of the media's BS, no need to preach to me about it. The difference between me and you is that I don't care what they say, as long as it isn't illegal. The press has the right to have an opinion, just like you do. If someone owns a media outlet and they want to promote a particular party or candidate they are perfectly entitled to do so, as long as they aren't breaking the law. Nobody has the right to regulate their speech. So good luck with your idea because you're going to have to get rid of the 1st amendment.

The problem with "always giving an opposing viewpoint" is that not all viewpoints are created equal. Lets just use for example the new (old) argument that's making its way back around AGAIN, that women should not have the right to vote because they make decisions based on emotions rather than logic. Just for the sake of argument, lets say the percentage of people who think that's a ridiculous idea is 95% (I don't know the actual percentage, I'm just throwing one out there as an example.) Now, 95% of people think women should be able to vote and only 5% think they shouldn't. Why the fuq should the 5% of idiots get the same airtime to argue their point when 95% of people think it's ridiculous? You want to give every opposing viewpoint equal amount of coverage even when it's utterly absurd and not even reflective of the actual opinion of the vast majority of people? What about the people who think we should adopt the Nazi's policies? Should we give them half of the airtime too, just for the sake of "opposing viewpoints?" Should we give people who have the dumbest and most unpopular ideas a platform just because of some arbitrary rule that says you have to give their opinion a voice? Fuq no. If you want to listen to that BS then go seek it out for yourself on the fringe outlets that want to propagate that sh*t. Mandating that the media has to give equal treatment to unequal ideas is crazy. If an idea is retarded then it should be treated as retarded.

Independent media is growing for a reason. People are finding the facts and reporting the facts for themselves. They don't need you or anyone else to tell them what they can and can't say, and I don't need you or anyone else telling me what I can and can't watch or read.

"Why should 5% of the population get airtime to espouse their kook views?"

Because the whole point of this country is majority rule with minority rights, right? They have a right to try to sway people to their opinion. The "news" should not have a right to deem their speech unworthy of being heard. They have a duty to air it, and then let the other 95% decide whether their mind was changed or not.

Not airing the 5% view IS the Nazism you're accusing me of wishing to bring about.

LMFAO! You are very confused. I never said take away peoples rights to speak about their ridiculous opinions. If these idiots who think women shouldn't have the right to vote want to create their own platform or go on other bigots platforms and espouse their retarded views I FULLY DEFEND THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO. They have a right to try to sway people to their opinion ON THEIR OWN DIME. But forcing the press to give equal airtime to such an absurd position when everyone else thinks it's idiotic, is well... *IDIOTIC.* They can go ahead and yell their bigoted views from the top of their lungs wherever they want and on their own media platform, but you are not going to force the press to give these buffoons airtime. Now you're calling ME a Nazi? LOL I am not trying to force anyone to do anything. I am not the one trying to regulate speech (Nazi tactic.) YOU'RE trying to force people who own media outlets and independent journalist to talk about what YOU want them to talk about. F*ck that. Your plan is straight up bullsh*t frankly, and it will never fly a free United States of America. You should really try reading the Constitution some time, if you did, you would know this plan is not only ridiculous but illegal and goes against everything this country was founded on. *FREE* SPEECH. That means YOU don't get to tell other people what they CAN or CAN'T SAY.

as an example, I am not saying the "news" should be required to find a flat earther to dispute claims that the earth is round, when we have indisputable evidence from satellites and whatever else that it is round and that theory has been fully discredited. But when it comes to laws that everyone has to live under, when one is being proposed or beefed up, if there is an opposing viewpoint people have a right to hear it, do they not? I hate using the word "fair", but how fair is it to say "yeah, you have a right to post your views in the paper, IF you can pony up the cost of that page of print, which could be placed at a high enough level to weed out just about anybodys opinion except the owner of the paper. The "news" has become a hybrid of access Hollywood and people magazine, they are not into "just the facts ma'am" anymore, they are actively manipulating and steering public opinion because you get THIER opinion only, and no opposing views. Your idea that "let the buy their own newspaper or TV station" makes me think you're a little out of touch with the common man, those things are out of most peoples reach these days especially when we are at a state where every newspaper you read, every radio station you listen to every TV station you watch, all are owned by 1 of 7 conglomerates who are all in agreement with each other as to what the nights narrative will be, not what the facts are. In a situation like that competition is non existant, it's not like I can say "I'm done with NBC, I'm only watching CBS from now on" because if you aren't hearing about it on one, you're not hearing about it anywhere else either. A star chamber of "news" editors if I've ever heard of one, a sad state of affairs and something that needs corrected, with individual journalists being issued a lisence at the same time they are handed a diploma (if they want to consider themselves legit), a license they can lose, when caught propagandizing, and covering up facts.