I mean the monopoly thing yeah, but I meant a parent network sending obvious propaganda stories and ads to be played alongside legitimate news broadcasts. That seems like it should be illegal.
I mean the monopoly thing yeah, but I meant a parent network sending obvious propaganda stories and ads to be played alongside legitimate news broadcasts. That seems like it should be illegal.
I mean the monopoly thing yeah, but I meant a parent network sending obvious propaganda stories and ads to be played alongside legitimate news broadcasts. That seems like it should be illegal.
Well it hasn't stopped Fox.
Fox won a court case that they have no obligation to tell the truth.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
I mean the monopoly thing yeah, but I meant a parent network sending obvious propaganda stories and ads to be played alongside legitimate news broadcasts. That seems like it should be illegal.
Well it hasn't stopped Fox.
Difference being that if you’re watching Fox you know you’re watching Fox. Sinclair uses the trust you have in your local news and undermines by forcing them to run their own, scripted, opinion pieces using the same people you trust.
I mean the monopoly thing yeah, but I meant a parent network sending obvious propaganda stories and ads to be played alongside legitimate news broadcasts. That seems like it should be illegal.
Well it hasn't stopped Fox.
Difference being that if you’re watching Fox you know you’re watching Fox. Sinclair uses the trust you have in your local news and undermines by forcing them to run their own, scripted, opinion pieces using the same people you trust.
The court case involved a local Fox affiliate, not Fox News Channel.
You guys expect that Dobby and Cheeto would let this ever get to a courtroom anyway?
I remember hearing something recently that Municipal internet related work/contracts/studies are on the rise. Does anyone have info whether that's actually happening?
Just use people's actual names. Hilarious nicknames are probably not as hilarious as you think and I don't even know who Dobby is supposed to be. It could be like three different prominent political figures.
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III would never let any illegal portion of this actually get to a courtroom. And apparently there are multiple officials in the Trump administration who are short with protruding ears and high voices.
The NRA-sponsored award was given to Pai in recognition of months of heavy criticism over his successful push to repeal the agency’s net neutrality rules. Pai led the push to repeal the rules, which were overwhelmingly supported by the public, in December.
This isn't anywhere near their ostensible wheelhouse. It's purely "he made liberals upset".
The NRA-sponsored award was given to Pai in recognition of months of heavy criticism over his successful push to repeal the agency’s net neutrality rules. Pai led the push to repeal the rules, which were overwhelmingly supported by the public, in December.
This isn't anywhere near their ostensible wheelhouse. It's purely "he made liberals upset".
That's not just shitting on liberals. From the quote, it makes it sound like they gave him the award for shitting on everybody (who's not a massive telecom).
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
The body isn’t even cold yet, but AT&T is wasting no time in rolling out new “features” that fly in the face of net neutrality. The company has expanded its “sponsored data” program to prepaid wireless customers, offering content companies the option to “sponsor” their data so that it doesn’t count against users’ caps.
This, in case you’re wondering, is what you find under the definition of “paid fast lanes” in the net neutrality false promises hall of fame.
I'm not 100% sure how reputable BGR is, and the article is written pretty informally, but if true, this is concerning
The NRA-sponsored award was given to Pai in recognition of months of heavy criticism over his successful push to repeal the agency’s net neutrality rules. Pai led the push to repeal the rules, which were overwhelmingly supported by the public, in December.
This isn't anywhere near their ostensible wheelhouse. It's purely "he made liberals upset".
And in followup, accepting the award is most likely unethical as well:
The NRA-sponsored award was given to Pai in recognition of months of heavy criticism over his successful push to repeal the agency’s net neutrality rules. Pai led the push to repeal the rules, which were overwhelmingly supported by the public, in December.
This isn't anywhere near their ostensible wheelhouse. It's purely "he made liberals upset".
And in followup, accepting the award is most likely unethical as well:
Walter Shaub is a former director of the US Office of Government Ethics.
You know, we all knew Pai was corrupt. But now he's just rubbing it in our faces.
Walter Shaub, the man who, when he saw how corrupt the Trump administration was shaping up to be, threw up his hands, "Why isn't anyone listening to me?!"
I feel bad for him. When your job is government ethics, having literally no one listen to you must be frustrating.
How can/has the FCC affected the NRA with its policies?
Not trying to defend Pai or the NRA, just trying to get a better understanding.
The NRA is a conservative advocacy group, by cutting down on free communication on the internet, the FCC has strengthened the hand of Fox News and other monopoly information providers who can now more ably assist the NRA.
Also they are registered (if that's the correct term) as a lobbying organization.
Also also, as a OGE450 filer I can tell you that we are actively trained to avoid anything that doesn't pass the "Headline Test," (how would it be received if your situation was part of a headline?). A test that this administration is actively trying not to pass.
How can/has the FCC affected the NRA with its policies?
Not trying to defend Pai or the NRA, just trying to get a better understanding.
The NRA is a conservative advocacy group, by cutting down on free communication on the internet, the FCC has strengthened the hand of Fox News and other monopoly information providers who can now more ably assist the NRA.
More simply: The NRA's primary business is communication. The bulk of which is electronic, and regulated by Pai.
In the general sense it's like the Post Master General accepting gifts from Amazon. Maybe it's just a gift, or maybe they want a better deal. The appearance of potential for impropriety is what the people at OGE concern themselves with.
To make matters worse, in that regard, Pai just made it possible for anyone to gain communication advantage over their competition on the internet.
Internal documents call the new initiative an "anchor delivered journalistic responsibility message."
But the staffers who shared the documents with CNN say the promos are inappropriate -- yet another corporate infringement on local journalism.
As scripted, the promos decry "fake stories" from national news outlets -- echoing President Trump's inflammatory rhetoric about "fake news."
The promos are supposed to start airing on local stations later this month. The instructions sent to station news directors say that the 60- and 75-second spots should run frequently "to create maximum reach and frequency."
Sinclair's political bent has been a factor in its pending acquisition of Tribune Media. Sinclair is already the biggest owner of local television stations in the country -- with 173 it either owns or operates -- and Tribune will give it dozens more, furthering the company's ambitions. Some analysts believe Sinclair wants to rival Fox News, although officials at Sinclair have rejected those suggestions.
The FCC is currently reviewing the Tribune deal. Sinclair critics -- Democratic lawmakers and some of the company's Republican rivals -- have alleged that the FCC has given Sinclair preferential treatment.
The instructions to local stations say that the promos "should play using news time, not commercial time." Like the Epshteyn commentaries, this takes away from local news time.
It's basically pure propaganda with a Trumpian bent if you read the thing:
The promos begin with one or two anchors introducing themselves and saying "I'm [we are] extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that [proper news brand name of local station] produces. But I'm [we are] concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country."
Then the media bashing begins.
"The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media," the script says. "More alarming, national media outlets are publishing these same fake stories without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the national media are using their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control 'exactly what people think' ... This is extremely dangerous to our democracy."
Then the anchors are supposed to strike a more positive tone and say that their local station pursues the truth. "We understand Truth is neither politically 'left or right.' Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever."
It's literally a script designed to tell you "Don't listen to other news, only pay attention to your Sinclair approved news". And then you back that up with must run segments full of conservative bullshit.
At the end of the promo, viewers are encouraged to send in feedback "if you believe our coverage is unfair."
The instructions say that "corporate will monitor the comments and send replies to your audience on your behalf."
In other words, local stations are cut out of the interactions with viewers. Management will handle it instead.
Sinclair really needs to be reined in fast but I can't see this FCC doing it.
Wow, reading that post caused V for Vendetta flashes in my mind. GG Sinclair. GG indeed.
Also I hate that "blah blah fake news is spreading" rhetoric when they can't even give some examples. It makes people sitting in front of the TV nod their heads in agreement when nothing is actually being said.
"The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media," the script says. "More alarming, national media outlets are publishing these same fake stories without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the national media are using their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control 'exactly what people think' ... This is extremely dangerous to our democracy."
Then the anchors are supposed to strike a more positive tone and say that their local station pursues the truth. "We understand Truth is neither politically 'left or right.' Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever."
That is all objectively true. The anchors just need to name the organizations doing it: Breitbart, Fox News, and Sinclair Broadcasting.
"The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media," the script says. "More alarming, national media outlets are publishing these same fake stories without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the national media are using their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control 'exactly what people think' ... This is extremely dangerous to our democracy."
Then the anchors are supposed to strike a more positive tone and say that their local station pursues the truth. "We understand Truth is neither politically 'left or right.' Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever."
That is all objectively true. The anchors just need to name the organizations doing it: Breitbart, Fox News, and Sinclair Broadcasting.
They're just itching for someone to go Howard Beale on this shit.
"The station you are watching has been compromised by those with a political agenda. News, to drive a specific narrative, rather than inform the public, is mandated to appear in such a way as to pervert the truth, and keep you, the public who's trust real journalists hold in the highest regard, from learning the reality of the world we are in."
And then have to prevent other news broadcasts from covering that.
It might not happen, because literally as the quote says, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". But if it does, at the right time, it could completely undo everything Sinclair is trying to do. They're stockpiling gunpowder, and hoping noone lights a match.
I'm hoping for the kaboom. I'm hoping for an earth-shattering kaboom.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
"The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media," the script says. "More alarming, national media outlets are publishing these same fake stories without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the national media are using their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control 'exactly what people think' ... This is extremely dangerous to our democracy."
Then the anchors are supposed to strike a more positive tone and say that their local station pursues the truth. "We understand Truth is neither politically 'left or right.' Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever."
That is all objectively true. The anchors just need to name the organizations doing it: Breitbart, Fox News, and Sinclair Broadcasting.
They're just itching for someone to go Howard Beale on this shit.
"The station you are watching has been compromised by those with a political agenda. News, to drive a specific narrative, rather than inform the public, is mandated to appear in such a way as to pervert the truth, and keep you, the public who's trust real journalists hold in the highest regard, from learning the reality of the world we are in."
And then have to prevent other news broadcasts from covering that.
It might not happen, because literally as the quote says, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". But if it does, at the right time, it could completely undo everything Sinclair is trying to do. They're stockpiling gunpowder, and hoping noone lights a match.
I'm hoping for the kaboom. I'm hoping for an earth-shattering kaboom.
"The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media," the script says. "More alarming, national media outlets are publishing these same fake stories without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the national media are using their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control 'exactly what people think' ... This is extremely dangerous to our democracy."
Then the anchors are supposed to strike a more positive tone and say that their local station pursues the truth. "We understand Truth is neither politically 'left or right.' Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever."
That is all objectively true. The anchors just need to name the organizations doing it: Breitbart, Fox News, and Sinclair Broadcasting.
They're just itching for someone to go Howard Beale on this shit.
"The station you are watching has been compromised by those with a political agenda. News, to drive a specific narrative, rather than inform the public, is mandated to appear in such a way as to pervert the truth, and keep you, the public who's trust real journalists hold in the highest regard, from learning the reality of the world we are in."
And then have to prevent other news broadcasts from covering that.
It might not happen, because literally as the quote says, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". But if it does, at the right time, it could completely undo everything Sinclair is trying to do. They're stockpiling gunpowder, and hoping noone lights a match.
I'm hoping for the kaboom. I'm hoping for an earth-shattering kaboom.
Do you remember how that movie ends?
Yes. Hoping the Republicans don't (cause Hollywood!), and that there's enough impetus from the "woke" populace to bring about real change.
Don't expect it, wouldn't bet on it, but hoping that we see some real progress over the next three years. Cause the alternative is just not fun to contemplate.
+4
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm sorry to drag this thread up but there was a House committee hearing today invoked by the Republicans controlling said committee. The short of it is that they want to regulate the internet as far as promoting certain people over others - which is a direct violation of the actual meaning of Freedom of Speech. They even had those clown asses Diamond and Silk, the two YouTube women who were paid by the Trump campaign to promote him, in to testify (bonus points: they lied on the record to the committee about that payment even though the FEC has the records).
The exciting part of this however is Representative Ted Lieu out of California (a favorite of mine). He spent his time in the hearing slamming the very concept of the hearing itself. Not just bad mouthing, but with actual data at the start and then going on with some brief specific questions about what the government should & shouldn't do and what tech companies are allowed to. His office's account posted video:
The US Senate is headed for a mid-May vote on a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to block the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality. Starting on May 9th, and carrying through until the vote, the Internet will “go red” to raise awareness and ensure that lawmakers hear from their constituents, who overwhelmingly support restoring open Internet protections.
And there are a bunch of politics not related to this thread of the Republicans using the CRA to basically knock out Net Neutrality, kinda. They'll be able to say voted to restore NN, but in reality they're going to use the CRA to defacto enact the opposite. I don't really know if that's for this thread or not, but we still have to remain vigilant. Probably have to until the next technology comes along.
Markey's Net Neutrality CRA Bill is up for a vote this week and expected to pass 50-49 thanks to McCain's absence. If that happens it will force a vote in the House, though the prospects are grim there and even if it managed it would likely be vetoed by Trump. Still, at least it will put the bastards on record.
Markey's Net Neutrality CRA Bill is up for a vote this week and expected to pass 50-49 thanks to McCain's absence. If that happens it will force a vote in the House, though the prospects are grim there and even if it managed it would likely be vetoed by Trump. Still, at least it will put the bastards on record.
Markey's Net Neutrality CRA Bill is up for a vote this week and expected to pass 50-49 thanks to McCain's absence. If that happens it will force a vote in the House, though the prospects are grim there and even if it managed it would likely be vetoed by Trump. Still, at least it will put the bastards on record.
Important thing is that we get the bastards on record as being A-OK with this bullshit. We have the bonus that it's happening before fall and if the vote is essentially party line, it's an issue that can be used to drive people away from banking the GOP. People hate telecoms because they tend to be shitty. Also seems like most people tend to back net neutrality once it's explained to them. I imagine it does for for the same reasons that show most many don't care for gerrymandering. Hell, telecoms restricting people's access to information and promoting those that meet their preferred criteria dove tails nicely into other issues that are likely to be considered more important.
Important thing is that we get the bastards on record as being A-OK with this bullshit. We have the bonus that it's happening before fall and if the vote is essentially party line, it's an issue that can be used to drive people away from banking the GOP. People hate telecoms because they tend to be shitty. Also seems like most people tend to back net neutrality once it's explained to them. I imagine it does for for the same reasons that show most many don't care for gerrymandering. Hell, telecoms restricting people's access to information and promoting those that meet their preferred criteria dove tails nicely into other issues that are likely to be considered more important.
Markey's Net Neutrality CRA Bill is up for a vote this week and expected to pass 50-49 thanks to McCain's absence. If that happens it will force a vote in the House, though the prospects are grim there and even if it managed it would likely be vetoed by Trump. Still, at least it will put the bastards on record.
Woke up to this. Doesn’t appear to be a story for it yet though. Is this just a response to the attempt to overturn their decision?
I can never remember if net neutrality is the good one or the bad one. And so does the cancellation of the rules mean we get a free open internet, or a pay to play internet?
Normally this shouldn't be an issue, but the right's tendency to try and name heinous shit as benevolent (like "right to work"), confuses me.
Woke up to this. Doesn’t appear to be a story for it yet though. Is this just a response to the attempt to overturn their decision?
I can never remember if net neutrality is the good one or the bad one. And so does the cancellation of the rules mean we get a free open internet, or a pay to play internet?
Normally this shouldn't be an issue, but the right's tendency to try and name heinous shit as benevolent (like "right to work"), confuses me.
Net Neutrality is the good thing. Like... ISPs are not allowed to separate their service into "regular (aka shitty) speeds" vs "premium speeds". That's what we have right now with Net Neutrality rules. Without it, ISP's are "free" to throttle people's internet unless they pay a premium, and the internet is "open" to have only the biggest corporations afford to operate at a decent speed.
Posts
Freedom of speech!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Knock it off with the defeatism please
Well it hasn't stopped Fox.
Fox won a court case that they have no obligation to tell the truth.
Difference being that if you’re watching Fox you know you’re watching Fox. Sinclair uses the trust you have in your local news and undermines by forcing them to run their own, scripted, opinion pieces using the same people you trust.
The court case involved a local Fox affiliate, not Fox News Channel.
I remember hearing something recently that Municipal internet related work/contracts/studies are on the rise. Does anyone have info whether that's actually happening?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
(Also Dobby and Cheeto sounds like a supervillain duo from SpongeBob)
Agreed on by who? This is the first I’ve heard of it.
This isn't anywhere near their ostensible wheelhouse. It's purely "he made liberals upset".
That's not just shitting on liberals. From the quote, it makes it sound like they gave him the award for shitting on everybody (who's not a massive telecom).
I'm not 100% sure how reputable BGR is, and the article is written pretty informally, but if true, this is concerning
And in followup, accepting the award is most likely unethical as well:
Walter Shaub is a former director of the US Office of Government Ethics.
You know, we all knew Pai was corrupt. But now he's just rubbing it in our faces.
Not trying to defend Pai or the NRA, just trying to get a better understanding.
Walter Shaub, the man who, when he saw how corrupt the Trump administration was shaping up to be, threw up his hands, "Why isn't anyone listening to me?!"
I feel bad for him. When your job is government ethics, having literally no one listen to you must be frustrating.
The NRA is a conservative advocacy group, by cutting down on free communication on the internet, the FCC has strengthened the hand of Fox News and other monopoly information providers who can now more ably assist the NRA.
Also also, as a OGE450 filer I can tell you that we are actively trained to avoid anything that doesn't pass the "Headline Test," (how would it be received if your situation was part of a headline?). A test that this administration is actively trying not to pass.
More simply: The NRA's primary business is communication. The bulk of which is electronic, and regulated by Pai.
In the general sense it's like the Post Master General accepting gifts from Amazon. Maybe it's just a gift, or maybe they want a better deal. The appearance of potential for impropriety is what the people at OGE concern themselves with.
To make matters worse, in that regard, Pai just made it possible for anyone to gain communication advantage over their competition on the internet.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/07/media/sinclair-broadcasting-promos-media-bashing/index.html
It's basically pure propaganda with a Trumpian bent if you read the thing:
It's literally a script designed to tell you "Don't listen to other news, only pay attention to your Sinclair approved news". And then you back that up with must run segments full of conservative bullshit.
Sinclair really needs to be reined in fast but I can't see this FCC doing it.
Also I hate that "blah blah fake news is spreading" rhetoric when they can't even give some examples. It makes people sitting in front of the TV nod their heads in agreement when nothing is actually being said.
That is all objectively true. The anchors just need to name the organizations doing it: Breitbart, Fox News, and Sinclair Broadcasting.
"The station you are watching has been compromised by those with a political agenda. News, to drive a specific narrative, rather than inform the public, is mandated to appear in such a way as to pervert the truth, and keep you, the public who's trust real journalists hold in the highest regard, from learning the reality of the world we are in."
And then have to prevent other news broadcasts from covering that.
It might not happen, because literally as the quote says, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". But if it does, at the right time, it could completely undo everything Sinclair is trying to do. They're stockpiling gunpowder, and hoping noone lights a match.
I'm hoping for the kaboom. I'm hoping for an earth-shattering kaboom.
Do you remember how that movie ends?
Don't expect it, wouldn't bet on it, but hoping that we see some real progress over the next three years. Cause the alternative is just not fun to contemplate.
The exciting part of this however is Representative Ted Lieu out of California (a favorite of mine). He spent his time in the hearing slamming the very concept of the hearing itself. Not just bad mouthing, but with actual data at the start and then going on with some brief specific questions about what the government should & shouldn't do and what tech companies are allowed to. His office's account posted video:
And on May 9th, the internet is Going Red:
https://www.battleforthenet.com/redalert/
And there are a bunch of politics not related to this thread of the Republicans using the CRA to basically knock out Net Neutrality, kinda. They'll be able to say voted to restore NN, but in reality they're going to use the CRA to defacto enact the opposite. I don't really know if that's for this thread or not, but we still have to remain vigilant. Probably have to until the next technology comes along.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-net-neutrality-vote-20180508-story.html
Great timing, what with the potential AT&T bribe story.
Who crossed over. And how did McConnel let it enter the floor in the first place
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Yep, it's an excellent wedge issue.
Collins, and he doesn't have a choice on CRA legislation.
Woke up to this. Doesn’t appear to be a story for it yet though. Is this just a response to the attempt to overturn their decision?
Normally this shouldn't be an issue, but the right's tendency to try and name heinous shit as benevolent (like "right to work"), confuses me.
Net Neutrality is the good thing. Like... ISPs are not allowed to separate their service into "regular (aka shitty) speeds" vs "premium speeds". That's what we have right now with Net Neutrality rules. Without it, ISP's are "free" to throttle people's internet unless they pay a premium, and the internet is "open" to have only the biggest corporations afford to operate at a decent speed.