Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

1963Cobra · 07-19-2010, 08:11 AM

I am not saying go back to those days although i would like to send some people back. It's just when somebody serves for more than 40 years whats the point. Congress was never meant to be a life time job it was meant to serve and go home.

As far as the media (back on topic) the best way to deal with the bias is to not watch and let them die a natural death. they rely on advertising to stay in business and the less viewers they have the less advertising they get. If the KC Star continues to publish their editorial page as it is people will continue to stop taking the paper. It will die a natural death, I know i stopped getting it because of the opinions of the edititors. However remember they have a right to say what they want but you have the right not to read it. I find people who complain about O'Rieley or Oberman funny just turn off that channel, the more you complain about them the more press they receive.

And Fritz i agree ESPN a Beer and a BBBJ to CIM and the woirld would be a better place.

lacrew_2000 · 07-19-2010, 10:41 AM

I'm all for cancelling subscriptions, and tuning out media I don't like....I just have this feeling in the pit of my stomach that the taxpayers will 'bail out' the media one day...in the interest of 'diversity'.

john_galt · 07-19-2010, 01:53 PM

I don't agree with you Fritz. I cancelled my subscription to the RedStar four years ago in April. I called the ready rep and tried to get hold of an editor (ended up leaving a message) to explain why a guy who will skip lunch to buy a paper is boycotting the local paper. They didn't care of course but now they are failing in a spectacular fashion. Now if I was organized (meaning more than one of me) then I could approach advertisers with the message.

The first amendment guarantees us all the right to free speech but not that anyone has to listen. However, the Marshall court provided limitations on 100% free speech in this case "fighting words". Later courts provided the "fire in the movie house" limitation. So our first amendment rights, whether you like it or not, are not unlimited.

There is also a speech limitation on slander and libel in this country. I only ask the question is if printing a known lie is actionable, is not printing a known truth also actionable?

The media bailout was predicted a year ago.

Guest052813-01 · 07-19-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_galt

I don't agree with you Fritz. I cancelled my subscription to the RedStar four years ago in April. I called the ready rep and tried to get hold of an editor (ended up leaving a message) to explain why a guy who will skip lunch to buy a paper is boycotting the local paper. They didn't care of course but now they are failing in a spectacular fashion. Now if I was organized (meaning more than one of me) then I could approach advertisers with the message.

The first amendment guarantees us all the right to free speech but not that anyone has to listen. However, the Marshall court provided limitations on 100% free speech in this case "fighting words". Later courts provided the "fire in the movie house" limitation. So our first amendment rights, whether you like it or not, are not unlimited.

There is also a speech limitation on slander and libel in this country. I only ask the question is if printing a known lie is actionable, is not printing a known truth also actionable?

The media bailout was predicted a year ago.

I know all about the limitations of Amendment I, but I chose to be concise and not elaborate as you did. Points taken.

Bottom line - there's still not a whole hell of a lot we can do about it.

N2SEX46 · 07-19-2010, 06:13 PM

My state of Kansas is in a pathetic pickle. We have Brownback the D.C. insider with $Millions of corporate money to get him in Cedar Crest, we have Tihart & Moran, both Congressmen who rubberstamped everything Bush/Cheney dictated and I have read nothing from our estate (media) to inform us. We have Mrs. Moore who wants to run for Congress so Dennis can go be a lobbyists in D.C. Sorry John_Galt, but they are corporate owned and what can we do about it? I watch CNN, Fox and others for variety, but all I hear from any of them is rhetoric, destortions, half truths and out and out lies, and not from just Republicans but the Democrats as well. The one thing I do hear a lot lately is people on the street saying, "Maybe it's time to think Independent." I don't really have an answer, just this venue to air out my grievance.

john_galt · 07-20-2010, 01:19 AM

You do what I've been doing; you get involved in the primaries. Your choices are what you make them. Vote against Tiahart and Moran (I have grown tired of their bickering). Vote against Moore! Of course I could point out that you've mentioned democrats and republicans, You have to choose one or the other. Independent??? Your frustration with Moore telegraphs to me that you may be a democrat hoping to get some independent conservatives to vote for an independent opening a way for a democratic dark horse. Am I close???

But to reiterate; you have the most choices right now in the primaries. If you don't get involved you shouldn't be complaining.

N2SEX46 · 07-20-2010, 03:25 PM

Actually, I'm a Republican,, alas a very frustrated one. You are definitely RIGHT ON when you say I have the most choices, and yes the primaries are a few weeks away. You bet your bippie I'm involved and just for Grins & Giggles, I signed a petition for some guy in Eudora, KS who needs signatures to get on the ballot as an Independent for Congress. You're also correct in that all I hear is bickering among the Tiahrt and Moran groupies as to whom is the better candidate. To be honest, neither strike me as worth much, but my only other recourse is to write in someone. Oh well, as I said, we have a few weeks left and anything can happen. Thanks for introducing this hot topic, which is still the media, not the idiotic and worthless "I promise........" candidates we're cursed with having to listen and react. Cheers.

HeyMikie · 07-22-2010, 02:13 AM

I hate to bring up the Looonnnng past, but I remember when the TV news was 10-15 minutes that simply reported what happened with very little editorializing. Now "news" (even weather!) is entertainment and all about selling more advertising time. I do not believe there is much to support the First Amendment freedom argument (although big Pharma used that logic to justify TV ads and won in the USSC, it's a feature pretty much seen only in the USA, other countries don't tolerate ads for drugs posted to the public), it is just another way to increase revenue.

It is easily remedied, the FCC allocates the Broadcast licenses to companies with a requirement that they use the public airwaves to benefit the community welfare (That's how news broadcasts were initially included), if the someone in the FCC still had the stones to demand nn% of non-commercial, public service broadcasting, like in the sixties, there would be less BS and more substance (aah, I'm just dreaming now).

It seems that we turned the corner with the O.J. fiasco and the Court TV broadcasts that developed into 24X7 gossip fests. Hell, the JFK assassination didn't get that much coverage.

Of course, no one would have have the audacity to hawk razorblades and margarine during that coverage, now they'll air Viagra and tampon commercials at every quiet moment.

Yes JG, media coverage is a travesty that demonstrates how far our civilization has declined and reflects the degradation of our current society. Vomitorium memberships, anyone?

OK.. off my rant.