Slashdot Mirror
FCC Complaints For the 2016 Primary Debates (muckrock.com)
v3rgEz writes: Wish that you could have tuned into all the primary debates without a cable subscription? You're not alone. According to MuckRock analysis of primary-related FCC complaints, that was one of the most common complaints, as well as allegations of corporate bias, candidate preferences by the networks, and general gripes about how corporate supposedly open debates have become. I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about the U.S. primary system, too.
Here's a list of inconvenient facts that liberals and Slashdotters love to deny:
You can thank me later for telling it like it is.
In America?
I'm shocked.
Hint: the candidates themselves are bought and sold on the marketplace. They're rich fucks trying to get elected to better serve their corporate masters, who bankrolled their campaigns. What does it matter if their lies and their antics are broadcast on Fox or PBS?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
A joint press conference is not a debate. Trading insults in an unstructured (except for time) way is not a debate. BSing and not being able to get called on it is not a debate.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
What with the usual bragging about a free market, neoliberalism and capitalism. Corporate bias for a candidate ? Neo-liberal version of capitalism. Live with it, or emigrate to Costa Rica, Europe, New Zealand.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Despite living in an area where Comcast has the government-granted monopoly, they are blocked by the city from offering service to our block. That means no Monday Night Football, limited college football, no HBO, etc.. That was merely a pain, but now that the cable companies are blocking us from part of the democratic process, it's getting intolerable.
I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about the U.S. primary system, too.
The problem with the primary system is that it matters so much. It wouldn't if there were more than 2 parties (and thus 2 candidates) that counted.
To fix this we need to fix the US election system. Here's why that matters.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
And I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about what a waste of oxygen timothy is.
the candidate debates arent meant as a meaningful or informative approach to education of the viewer as to the appropriate policical candidate to select for office. Debates drive ad revenue and clickthrough rate for major media corporations, which in turn fuel contributions to candidates the networks deem fit-for-purpose to operate the nation. As for allegations of corporate bias, this is intended. you may be voting for a candidate, but through a convoluted system of redistricting, superdelegates, electoral colleges, shadow donors, overt print television and radio bias, and voter ID and registration regulation as a form of vote-suppression the real candidates you are in fact to choose from are quietly selected for you.
This isnt to say major corporations want you to vote for their candidate, far from the case. the plutocratic class wants you to want to vote for their candidate. Without you overtly insisting your support, the entire concept of voting is revealed to be a sham. The most egregious theme of american elections however is this: even without a majority turnout of americans, and with that minority still largely uninformed and voting on personal opinion at best, the united states continues to elect a president and that president continues to be one for which overwhelming support by a corporate citizenry is undeniably afforded.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The FCC is just as politically tainted as the Department of Justice, EPA, IRS, BLM, DHS, HHS, HUD, SSA, VA and the rest of Obama's diseased agencies. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Their man Obama benefited from the same corrupt media treatment in the last 2 elections. He still does.
If you can't afford cable you shouldn't be voting. Jokes aside, it's nice to see all the anti establishment fervor plus some of the old alliances ( the rich and evangelicals for one) breaking down. Maybe we'll see some real change.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I have internet access but no TV. I tried watching the debates live on YouTube, and have only sometimes been successful. I wonder why CNN or FNC or the other channels don't either stream LIVE (for NON-cable subscribers) or allow live streaming feeds on YouTube.
Content wise, they're being paid for it either way - whether I watch it on TV or on Internet, the channel is still getting paid. Even the carriers - Charter in my case - are being paid regardless of whether I watch it over TV or over the internet. I just don't see the arguments from the Carrier POV of forcing people to get a cable connection to view content that can also be available online.
At this stage of the game, the internal dealings of a political party isn't any different than the internal dealings of the local bowling club. People are free to assemble and do what they want on their own terms. If that happens to include choosing CNN to host their debate, so what? That's no different than a club renting out a church basement or local legion hall for their monthly meeting. A political party is a private association of people who are, among themselves, deciding who they might want to put forward as a candidate in a general election.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'd really like to see debates run not by the 6 largest media companies.. They have a vested interest in keeping money *in* politics (because they get a lot of it!)
I don't like any of the 5 remaining viable candidates, yet I feel compelled by my civic duty to vote.
Where is "none of the above/uncommitted" when you need it?
Yes, I do know that bothering to show up at the poll but abstaining from the Presidential race is a legitimate way of protesting, but it's not nearly as satisfying as "none of the above."
Also, there are down-ballot races on one of the major party's primaries where I do feel good about supporting at least one candidate over his/her competitors.
See https://ballotpedia.org/Top-tw... .
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Having read the article (don't be afraid to read, the article's quite short), the analysis shows that the complaints are coming from left, and right, and center. It even includes a bit of "conspiracy theory" about someone whose cable went out during two debates and suspects foul play. For all the ills of corporate-run media, the alternative is government-run media which itself has negative connotations derived from examples in history. Even the putatively benevolent PBS is considered biased by large swaths of the population. For the issue of who hosts debates, I see no solution that is better than the current landscape. There are certainly different approaches, but not better.
Regarding requiring paid cable. I believe this is a more valid complaint. That said, an argument can be made that even free broadcast requires one to support manufacturers by purchasing their radios and TVs. So then we ban the airwaves altogether and force candidates to speak loudly in an open-air theater. (We can't have sound support, that's to submit to the sound-system manufacturer's cartel!).
Before I wander off mumbling to myself, I will say that all this fist-shaking and hand-wringing over corporate influence, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, money in politics, etc. seems a waste of energy better spent elsewhere. No amount of money or corporate influence helped Jeb Bush, and Hillary's many years of grooming the electorate hasn't made her journey to the general election the cake walk everyone expected. The unprecedented nature of this election cycle is a wonderful counterexample to so many arguments that have been made across the political spectrum.
If you still believe individuals elect Presidents of the US you've been smokin' too much Colorado weed. For one nobody but Trump is bankrolling almost all of his campaign so far. Not Hillary Clinton or Sanders, or Cruz, or anyone else. Among those who basically are in the wealthy hands of big donors. That my friends goes to the Clinton's. Not only that but the Super Pac's end up forking a lot of the bill for the smear ads in media and the "town hall" campaigning is simply a means to make the little guy feel important.The real money was had long ago in private super expensive dinners people like Hillary have months, years before the campaign kicks off. What popular Donald Trump has yet to realize that he may have the people's vote, but because he fails at being in the pockets of special interests he won't have a chance. Trump and Sanders threaten the boys club and carefully mated marriage between government and big business. Clinton, Cruz, Rubio, they are all in on it.
A joint press conference is not a debate. Trading insults in an unstructured (except for time) way is not a debate. BSing and not being able to get called on it is not a debate.
It can't be a real debate. A real debate requires that each of them be trying to persuade a fairly neutral party who has the power to shut them down and the intelligence to recognize when they are bullshitting. That way they have to actually know facts and understand how to use them to present their position. Pretty much the only time it ever happens is in the appellate courts.
What is sadder is that you wasted your time responding to an obvious troll, that put very little effort into his or her post. Don't feed the trolls and they will crawl back under bridge from which they spawned.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I don't know whether its legal, but I find all the debates I hear about in the news on youtube. In fact, I even can't subscribe to a cable plan, as I don't live in the USA.
Hey, it's April Fools Day +/- 1, that is, + a month and minus a day, so here's some troll-food for laughs, bold is where I fixed it for you
Here's a list of inconvenient facts[citation needed] that liberals and Slashdotters love to deny:
There is no evidence that humans evolved from any animal, ape or otherwise. The evidence of humans evolving from other Homo species and other primates is similar in strength to other this-animal-evolved-from-that-one evidence, where the animals are similarly related and both diverged as far back as modern man diverged from other Homo species and from other primates. The fact that you only call out humans and not all animal evolution is very telling of your likely bias. God created humans as they are today. I assume you mean as they were 4+ thousand years ago, because if he created me as I am today, why do I have memories of being a child? Oh, I get it, God created me as I am today, with those memories of events that never happened already existing. Thanks for the edumacation [NOT].
Geologic evidence shows the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. While there may be some evidence to support this claim, the evidence to support a claim of a 4+ billion-year-old earth, or at least a many-millions-of-years-old earth, is much more consistent and compelling This lines up perfectly with the Bible. I will grant you that the best scholarship puts the age of the Bible at less than 10,000 years old
Humans lived on the Earth alongside the dinosaurs. Their fossilized remains are frequently found at the same level in the ground. Strata alone does not prove co-existence. It is evidence that cannot be merely brushed aside, and scientists have an obligation to try to offer theories as to why two things would be in the same strata that are just as testable as the theory that they co-existed.
The Earth is nearly flat. Much of the supposed evidence for a round Earth is actually the result of optical illusions caused by the atmosphere.Given the pictures we have from space, I don't even know how to respond, other than to say "Bless your heart".
The sun and the oceans regulate global temperature. Human activity has a negligible effect on the Earth's temperature. You are technically correct, in the sense that +/- several degrees C allegedly caused by human behavior is noise given that without the sun, we would be several hundred degrees C colder and without the ocean, the temperature profile of the planet would be vastly different. However, that difference of a few degrees C has non-negligible effects on both human and non-human life.
Historical cycles in Earth's temperature shows that the Earth is far more likely to experience another ice age in the next century than global warming.[citation needed]
You can thank me later for telling it like it is. I would, if you were. I did, and you can.
----
For the record: I am a Bible-believing Christian who knows Jesus died for my sins (and yours too - but if you don't believe me I'm not going to bother you about it unless you want me to) and goes to church several times a week (not that going to church makes you a Christian any more than being in a car makes you a driver). I also accept that either the universe is about 13B years old and the planet is about 4.5B years old -OR- that God, in his infinite wisdom, made it look that way for a good reason. Setting up the world to look that way so Christians could argue with each other doesn't seem like the kind of "goodness" that the God I worship values. So, the world may very well be 4 thous
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Have gnu, will travel.
I can see it now
Slashdot Moderator: If you were to implement universal health care, what programming language would you use to create the government portal?
Reddit Moderator: Which Meme best describes your position cat videos?
If the clown show debates for this year's election prove anything it's that this two part system just doesn't work. Vote third party, vote independent, vote for a write-in, vote for someone who really is a good choice, but for the love of God whatever you do don't vote for "the lesser of two evils" and don't vote for a name or the letter in parentheses beside it. Become informed and make a smart choice. Vote because the candidate deserves it, not because they are part of a particular party. Stop thinking that if you can only choose from two people and anyone else is "throwing away your vote", because the reality is that we are stuck that way because everyone thinks that way, but that can change once we start to think differently. Please think. Our future and the future of our children depend on it.
There is, it's called Facebook...
So do it. Nothing is stopping you from trying. You'll need enough money to produce it, and enough media presence to guarantee an audience sufficient to get the candidates to spend their time. Note that those last two requirements, if met, will mean that you, too, will have a vested interest in keeping money in politics because you, too, will be getting your cut of the pie.
Nothing will stop you from doing it. Here are two huge things that will stop you from doing it...
If the difference between the words "doing" (your word), and "trying" (my word) confuse you, I suggest a dictionary.
Perhaps combine entertainment with serious opportunity for candidates to show us what they're actually made of, if questions were well designed. (With goofiness to lighten it up, maybe a musical guest. Im thinking Sabado Gigante guy as MC. ) Hell, just cast 'em on all the game shows, for that matter and let 'em at it. Who would'nt love that? The categories you could come up with. . . It could help reduce the rancor and show us how they think . . on their toes. . or who has a working brain cell. . . . or a heartbeat.
Mandatory Coverage on 3 Major Broadcast networks is required. Both on radio and on TV. Anyone in a rural location should be able to tune in with their AM radio and hear the debates.
Coverage of politics is in "the public good" and needs to be mandatory for FCC licensing.
We cannot mandate CATV - though coverage would be provided by mandating 1 of the 3 major TV networks provide coverage.
We cannot mandate Internet - though internet streaming services should cover it as well.
No copyright of the debates allowed. Freely re-broadcast forever.
How do we fix the debates? Automatically control the microphones of the candidates. That would control the time limits - no going over time, period. If the candidate goes off topic, shut-off his mic and he/she/it loses the rest of their time for that answer. Talking over someone else and they lose their next time. Do it twice and escort them from the building.
Civility is important in our political world. You don't have to like the other person, but you do need to treat them with respect. Being rude is NOT allowed.
Every candidate with 5% of the polled voters gets invited to the debates. No hand-picking of who can and who cannot be there. Which polling companies are used much change for each debate.
Don't get me started on campaign finance reform. My simple rule is this - if you cannot vote in the election for the candidate, then you cannot give money or services which help or harm that candidate. We want the government to represent voters, right? The only way to make that happen is to only have voters fund a campaign - PERIOD.