the mistake is in taking everything touched by the government and turning it into R vs. D.
While I can agree with this that is nearly impossible. Not becuase everybody wants to turn things into an R vs. D. but because the R and D represent two different world views. That world view can influence behavior. We are not new to this and that is why there are so many hoops to jump through whenever the government is involved. It is an inevitable reality and why Obama had to, by law, nominate a Republican to the FCC. Diversity of opinion is what is important.
The FCC should be a non-political body receiving general direction from the legislative branch, and then setting specific policies in line with that direction (when practical - sometimes they need to be able to push back when 'the boss' is wrong) based on their non-political expert opinions.
The best way to go about this is by principle and in that regard, the FCC, FTC, congress and the courts have repeatably have stated the principles which are good. How we get there is a legal techno clusterfuck that is changing faster than companies can lay the wire.
Then your low/. number betrays your age if you think this is anything new.
If Pai is so bad then Obama shouldn't have nominated him. He could have nominated any other Republican and ignored McConnell's recommendation. Pai is not the first to work previously in the industry he now regulates. His predecessor, for one, was a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry that the FCC oversee.
It's really hard to take the recent complaints seriously about Pai when the previous administration made so many power grabs by different agencies. Even if I like what Obama did the way he did things was bad.
If the ISP is transparent about blocking legal content, there is nothing the [Federal Trade Commission] can do about it unless the FTC determines it was done for anti-competitive reasons. Allowing such blocking is not in the public interest
The FTC has a good handle on the issues and what is at stake in addition to the legal framework to give everyone what they want. Who is best to regulate the internet between the FCC and FTC? I don't know and I don't think anyone here on/. knows* and it's a legal matter that will work itself out. The scaremongering about a 2 year old regulatory decision in a discussion that has been happening since at least 1980 is off the charts.
* Queue the plethora of comments about why title 2 is necessary yet not explaining the legal distinction between information and telecommunication services and why the status of broadband services is/was/has been, through regulatory and judicial decisions, information services.
Just to be clear. Appointing a lobbyist to head an agency that oversees the industry from which that lobbyist shills for is akin to mafia style business. I hope you expressed the same contempt for Tom Wheeler.
You didn't ask about trust until now. You said "What's your source that does so much better than CNN?" No, I do not trust the majority of "sources" and I feel I have to fact-check nearly all news reporting. I do so if I care enough about the topic. My default trust level is distrust. I do not have a specific source I go to for trust in news if that answers your question and why it is difficult for me to answer your question. Bing/google news collection have their problems which is why I generally only use them for "happening" not specifics. For instance, If I go there in the US section I see the Alabama election is happening. If I want specifics I have to research and that doesn't mean going to a specific source but rather general searching and inquiry.
As far as Oliver or Colbert, are they comedians with a journalist twist or journalists with a comedic twist. Yes, I know what they say but that distinction is important. They say they are not a news source but that doesn't mean you can't learn about news from them which many do and have done. It's a nice out for them to say what they want which is fine. (IMO, I consider Oliver the later and Colbert the former)
I think you're overstepping by saying that sources like CNN aren't "real news. . Declaring news FAKE shouldn't be done flippantly and not without something to base it on
But I have given justification and reasoning behind why I think it fake news. You disagree which is fine. For me, CNN is trying or was "real news". They have failed basic journalistic ethics and standards repeatedly enough to damage their reputation (Clinton News Network). For me, that is enough to categorize them as fake news equivalent to propaganda and misinformation because the effect is the same. The only difference is intent, which honestly doesn't speak to CNN because that means they are too stupid or too biased to not put out manipulative misinformation.
MSM brought us war because of yellow journalism. They are not immune when they deliver misinformation just because they are well funded.
rarely get the financing necessary to run a credible campaign
The funny thing is that the more moneyed candidates have been losing. Well financed != victory.
few hot-button topics of no interest to their corporate backers
If you are a single issue voter, so what? If a congressmen has a corporation in their district that employs many of their constituents, do you expect the employees to be favorable to that corporation in the election? It would seem like corporate welfare to an outsider but do you think the people voting would want favorable treatment of that corporation by the government and want that interest represented at the federal level?
first-past-the-post voting systems, and one that politicians have learned how to game extremely effectively.
If enough people wanted it, it would happen. Elections are ran by the state so if the those people wanted it changed it would be. It has it's flaws but so does other systems. Nothing is prefect so why change something that works well enough for the people that vote in that system?
Hold the phone. There is a difference in voicing your opinion about federal issues through arguments/votes and conflating a legally required open comments for a federal bureaucracy with "speak on our own behalf in large numbers, nobody is listening". The government and FCC/FTC ARE listening. If you don't believe that then you can tell me what the FTC got wrong in 2007. Seems to me they understand perfectly well the issues and what is at stake.
Go ahead and tell me why the FCC/FTC are wrong or that how you think such and such issue is important with what solution. If you convince me then I can use my vote in 3 elections to help that goal. It's slow and that is the point with federal governance. But do not expect me to follow along "nobody is listening to democracy!" bullshit. Because we are having this discussion and have been having it for decades precisely because the government is listening.
Do you see how misunderstanding and misrepresenting a legal requirement of a federal bureaucracy is not the same as voting or arguing to have your interests upheld by that bureaucracy?
It doesn't help that HOW things are done at the federal level matter. I can agree that net neutrality is important but the way it is done is MORE important.
This is the part where you tell me that the people voting are too stupid to vote for their own self interests. Out of the 536 federal elections none of the constituents understand the issues like you, right?
I am confused. Are people smart enough to have their opinion matter for the FCC or are they too stupid to vote in 3 people to represent their interests at the federal level?
Even when we [The People] speak on our own behalf in large numbers, nobody is listening.
There is your problem. You mistake the US as a democracy and the FCC under whims of popular opinion. The government is listening to "The People" through their elected representatives in Congress and Trump. Have you ever considered that "The People" disagree and the best way to handle that disagreement is through elections which we have had (having) to decide how best the government address the concerns of "The People"? Sometimes in elections your opinion loses to the other opinion.
If the current FCC chair is so bad then Obama shouldn't have nominated him to serve in the FCC. Yes, under law he was required to nominate a republican and he was suggested by the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McTurtle (seriously looks and sounds like a turtle) but Obama didn't have to accept that recommendation and pick any other republican to fill the position.
What's the problem here and how is the government ignoring "The People"?
I have heard this a lot in defense of many news sources. I think it comes down to opinion pieces and news reporting which are very blurred these days. It seems like there are more activists than journalists in news media.
However, even on the news reporting CNN has gotten a lot wrong lately and has had to make a lot of retractions. One mistake, fine. But repeatedly? There is something wrong. That tells me their organization is blind to facts if they have an opportunity to push their narrative.
I gave you three examples I have used before but ok you want more. Aggregates: bing.com/news news.google.com and slashdot.org Specific: It changes over time. currently NPR (radio to/from work) and Ben Shapiro (not sure why I got on a Shapiro kick lately but he is a sharp cookie). Used to be John Oliver or Stephen Colbert etc. It changes over time and it changes for a variety of reasons.
As far as out perform CNN. Is a turd better with a peanut or a kernel of corn? I have a low opinion of most media and news sources. Too many "journalists" are actually activists. I am not sure I can answer that question. I know what I don't like.
Did that satisfy you? Note, I don't have TV in my home so no channel news stations.
but you shouldn't be calling them liars when we're baited with so much misinformation
You can lie by telling the only the truth that many media organizations do and is partly why information from any source is seen as illegitimate. I agree that getting it right is a big deal and just as Rome wasn't built in a day the bed media lay in now wasn't made in a night. Again, you can lie by telling only the truth. Media and news have propped themselves into this position by bastardizing any sense of journalistic integrity. I expect the White House to promote positions favorable to the WH just like every other previous administration did before it. What I have not expected is a continued almost concerted effort to reject any sense of ethics and integrity from many media companies that would sooner parade a false narrative then report the facts. Clickbait is the game and integrity is a shame. This has been happening for years and before Trump.
How much damage does a retraction undue? How many will still believe the big lie that CNN told of collusion between Trump, Wikileaks and the Russians and are too lazy to find the truth? Many on/. have disdain for FOX and that reputation was built by continual grievances. CNN is doing their best to out do them.
You're doing a fine job telling us the sources you don't use.
I try to avoid will use with heavy dose of skepticism. I told you I use aggregate sources to find out what is "happening" and use multiple sources to find "truth". Have I used CNN or Fox or NPR? Yes. That doesn't mean I don't see their bullshit nor like it.
Because (Biased != Fake
Yes but if you are not honest about your bias upfront then your ethics are in question. I have to do more work to find the bullshit you are selling me. I don't appreciate biased sources wasting my time because they have something to sell. Nor do I like being manipulated to buy what they're selling.
Because there's only one other person ill-informed enough to declare CNN "FAKE news" with nothing to back it up. Siding with CNN's chief critic suggested to me that you were a fan. Apologies if you're simply like-minded.
And it has nothing to do with their mark of "journalistic integrity" as of late? You don't have to love Trump to know that CNN has been in the shitter.
Yes. They both have good records of issuing accurate, biased stories. Fox's often edge closer to editorials (e.g. justifying atrocious behavior from our President [foxnews.com]), but neither makes a habit of lying. Either is a much better source of facts than our White House.
So we agree that CNN is equivalent to Fox. which both are not shining beacons of journalistic excellence. Yet, you are acting rather defensive over a biased news source. Why? Although, I haven't seen Fox blackmail someone. A new low for "journalism".
What's your source that does so much better than CNN?
I don't use one source. Aggregates and multiple sources. I lump CNN with Fox and HuffPo and Salon. I try to avoid will use with heavy dose of skepticism. You can lie by telling the nothing but the truth.
... There was no fortunately about it. The FBI recommended what be done with the original.
Again, the FBI had a backup, recommended original re-purpose, all was within standard procedures for a server to be discontinued, and there was no obligation, legal or otherwise, to keep the original. Congrats, any subpoena can get the data... What's the controversy?
You didn't add anything new. If the FCC has the same "management" style it would lawful with backups for other investigations.... What is the point in linking that story?
From your post, I take it that you would side with slave owners to count slaves equally in the census? Why would you want to give slave owners more power?
It seems you haven't done any research into the 3/5 compromise let alone try to understand it. You shouldn't call anyone a coward while posting as a coward. Hypocrite is your name.
Slashdot Mirror
But if I say "I am an African-American woman". You must listen and believe. :)
BTW, I am an African-American woman.
the mistake is in taking everything touched by the government and turning it into R vs. D.
While I can agree with this that is nearly impossible. Not becuase everybody wants to turn things into an R vs. D. but because the R and D represent two different world views. That world view can influence behavior. We are not new to this and that is why there are so many hoops to jump through whenever the government is involved. It is an inevitable reality and why Obama had to, by law, nominate a Republican to the FCC. Diversity of opinion is what is important.
The FCC should be a non-political body receiving general direction from the legislative branch, and then setting specific policies in line with that direction (when practical - sometimes they need to be able to push back when 'the boss' is wrong) based on their non-political expert opinions.
That is what is happening. How the internet be regulated has been a political discussion for decades. Part of the problem is that technology changes so fast that regulatory bodies cannot keep up. We should not expect that the government get it right the first time when a few years is a lifetime for technology.
The best way to go about this is by principle and in that regard, the FCC, FTC, congress and the courts have repeatably have stated the principles which are good. How we get there is a legal techno clusterfuck that is changing faster than companies can lay the wire.
Then your low /. number betrays your age if you think this is anything new.
If Pai is so bad then Obama shouldn't have nominated him. He could have nominated any other Republican and ignored McConnell's recommendation. Pai is not the first to work previously in the industry he now regulates. His predecessor, for one, was a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry that the FCC oversee.
It's really hard to take the recent complaints seriously about Pai when the previous administration made so many power grabs by different agencies. Even if I like what Obama did the way he did things was bad.
If the ISP is transparent about blocking legal content, there is nothing the [Federal Trade Commission] can do about it unless the FTC determines it was done for anti-competitive reasons. Allowing such blocking is not in the public interest
The FTC has a good handle on the issues and what is at stake in addition to the legal framework to give everyone what they want. Who is best to regulate the internet between the FCC and FTC? I don't know and I don't think anyone here on /. knows* and it's a legal matter that will work itself out. The scaremongering about a 2 year old regulatory decision in a discussion that has been happening since at least 1980 is off the charts.
* Queue the plethora of comments about why title 2 is necessary yet not explaining the legal distinction between information and telecommunication services and why the status of broadband services is/was/has been, through regulatory and judicial decisions, information services.
Just to be clear. Appointing a lobbyist to head an agency that oversees the industry from which that lobbyist shills for is akin to mafia style business. I hope you expressed the same contempt for Tom Wheeler.
Why would anyone waste their time with spam bots if nothing of value was added? Which concerns were not addressed in the document I linked?
Pshhh. Says you! My favorite color is clear. The most accepting of other colors. The invisible favorite of everyone's color!
You didn't ask about trust until now. You said "What's your source that does so much better than CNN?" No, I do not trust the majority of "sources" and I feel I have to fact-check nearly all news reporting. I do so if I care enough about the topic. My default trust level is distrust. I do not have a specific source I go to for trust in news if that answers your question and why it is difficult for me to answer your question. Bing/google news collection have their problems which is why I generally only use them for "happening" not specifics. For instance, If I go there in the US section I see the Alabama election is happening. If I want specifics I have to research and that doesn't mean going to a specific source but rather general searching and inquiry.
As far as Oliver or Colbert, are they comedians with a journalist twist or journalists with a comedic twist. Yes, I know what they say but that distinction is important. They say they are not a news source but that doesn't mean you can't learn about news from them which many do and have done. It's a nice out for them to say what they want which is fine. (IMO, I consider Oliver the later and Colbert the former)
I think you're overstepping by saying that sources like CNN aren't "real news. . Declaring news FAKE shouldn't be done flippantly and not without something to base it on
But I have given justification and reasoning behind why I think it fake news. You disagree which is fine. For me, CNN is trying or was "real news". They have failed basic journalistic ethics and standards repeatedly enough to damage their reputation (Clinton News Network). For me, that is enough to categorize them as fake news equivalent to propaganda and misinformation because the effect is the same. The only difference is intent, which honestly doesn't speak to CNN because that means they are too stupid or too biased to not put out manipulative misinformation.
MSM brought us war because of yellow journalism. They are not immune when they deliver misinformation just because they are well funded.
rarely get the financing necessary to run a credible campaign
The funny thing is that the more moneyed candidates have been losing. Well financed != victory.
few hot-button topics of no interest to their corporate backers
If you are a single issue voter, so what? If a congressmen has a corporation in their district that employs many of their constituents, do you expect the employees to be favorable to that corporation in the election? It would seem like corporate welfare to an outsider but do you think the people voting would want favorable treatment of that corporation by the government and want that interest represented at the federal level?
first-past-the-post voting systems, and one that politicians have learned how to game extremely effectively.
If enough people wanted it, it would happen. Elections are ran by the state so if the those people wanted it changed it would be. It has it's flaws but so does other systems. Nothing is prefect so why change something that works well enough for the people that vote in that system?
Hold the phone. There is a difference in voicing your opinion about federal issues through arguments/votes and conflating a legally required open comments for a federal bureaucracy with "speak on our own behalf in large numbers, nobody is listening". The government and FCC/FTC ARE listening. If you don't believe that then you can tell me what the FTC got wrong in 2007. Seems to me they understand perfectly well the issues and what is at stake.
Go ahead and tell me why the FCC/FTC are wrong or that how you think such and such issue is important with what solution. If you convince me then I can use my vote in 3 elections to help that goal. It's slow and that is the point with federal governance. But do not expect me to follow along "nobody is listening to democracy!" bullshit. Because we are having this discussion and have been having it for decades precisely because the government is listening.
Do you see how misunderstanding and misrepresenting a legal requirement of a federal bureaucracy is not the same as voting or arguing to have your interests upheld by that bureaucracy?
It doesn't help that HOW things are done at the federal level matter. I can agree that net neutrality is important but the way it is done is MORE important.
This is the part where you tell me that the people voting are too stupid to vote for their own self interests. Out of the 536 federal elections none of the constituents understand the issues like you, right?
I am confused. Are people smart enough to have their opinion matter for the FCC or are they too stupid to vote in 3 people to represent their interests at the federal level?
Pay off your mortgage with this one simple trick that banks hate!
The IRS won't tell you this one investment trick to pay off your mortgage.
They are adults only when they have The Right Opinions (tm) and too old to change their mind!
*looks around*.... Yes. :D
Even when we [The People] speak on our own behalf in large numbers, nobody is listening.
There is your problem. You mistake the US as a democracy and the FCC under whims of popular opinion. The government is listening to "The People" through their elected representatives in Congress and Trump. Have you ever considered that "The People" disagree and the best way to handle that disagreement is through elections which we have had (having) to decide how best the government address the concerns of "The People"? Sometimes in elections your opinion loses to the other opinion.
If the current FCC chair is so bad then Obama shouldn't have nominated him to serve in the FCC. Yes, under law he was required to nominate a republican and he was suggested by the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McTurtle (seriously looks and sounds like a turtle) but Obama didn't have to accept that recommendation and pick any other republican to fill the position.
What's the problem here and how is the government ignoring "The People"?
Next question?
What is the air velocity of an unladen swallow?
Spot on.
I have heard this a lot in defense of many news sources. I think it comes down to opinion pieces and news reporting which are very blurred these days. It seems like there are more activists than journalists in news media.
However, even on the news reporting CNN has gotten a lot wrong lately and has had to make a lot of retractions. One mistake, fine. But repeatedly? There is something wrong. That tells me their organization is blind to facts if they have an opportunity to push their narrative.
I gave you three examples I have used before but ok you want more.
Aggregates: bing.com/news news.google.com and slashdot.org
Specific: It changes over time. currently NPR (radio to/from work) and Ben Shapiro (not sure why I got on a Shapiro kick lately but he is a sharp cookie). Used to be John Oliver or Stephen Colbert etc. It changes over time and it changes for a variety of reasons.
As far as out perform CNN. Is a turd better with a peanut or a kernel of corn? I have a low opinion of most media and news sources. Too many "journalists" are actually activists. I am not sure I can answer that question. I know what I don't like.
Did that satisfy you? Note, I don't have TV in my home so no channel news stations.
Honestly, I don't care so long as NASA gets to do great and amazing things.
but you shouldn't be calling them liars when we're baited with so much misinformation
You can lie by telling the only the truth that many media organizations do and is partly why information from any source is seen as illegitimate. I agree that getting it right is a big deal and just as Rome wasn't built in a day the bed media lay in now wasn't made in a night. Again, you can lie by telling only the truth. Media and news have propped themselves into this position by bastardizing any sense of journalistic integrity. I expect the White House to promote positions favorable to the WH just like every other previous administration did before it. What I have not expected is a continued almost concerted effort to reject any sense of ethics and integrity from many media companies that would sooner parade a false narrative then report the facts. Clickbait is the game and integrity is a shame. This has been happening for years and before Trump.
How much damage does a retraction undue? How many will still believe the big lie that CNN told of collusion between Trump, Wikileaks and the Russians and are too lazy to find the truth? Many on /. have disdain for FOX and that reputation was built by continual grievances. CNN is doing their best to out do them.
You're doing a fine job telling us the sources you don't use.
I try to avoid will use with heavy dose of skepticism. I told you I use aggregate sources to find out what is "happening" and use multiple sources to find "truth". Have I used CNN or Fox or NPR? Yes. That doesn't mean I don't see their bullshit nor like it.
Because (Biased != Fake
Yes but if you are not honest about your bias upfront then your ethics are in question. I have to do more work to find the bullshit you are selling me. I don't appreciate biased sources wasting my time because they have something to sell. Nor do I like being manipulated to buy what they're selling.
Because there's only one other person ill-informed enough to declare CNN "FAKE news" with nothing to back it up. Siding with CNN's chief critic suggested to me that you were a fan. Apologies if you're simply like-minded.
And it has nothing to do with their mark of "journalistic integrity" as of late? You don't have to love Trump to know that CNN has been in the shitter.
Yes. They both have good records of issuing accurate, biased stories. Fox's often edge closer to editorials (e.g. justifying atrocious behavior from our President [foxnews.com]), but neither makes a habit of lying. Either is a much better source of facts than our White House.
So we agree that CNN is equivalent to Fox. which both are not shining beacons of journalistic excellence. Yet, you are acting rather defensive over a biased news source. Why? Although, I haven't seen Fox blackmail someone. A new low for "journalism".
What's your source that does so much better than CNN?
I don't use one source. Aggregates and multiple sources. I lump CNN with Fox and HuffPo and Salon. I try to avoid will use with heavy dose of skepticism. You can lie by telling the nothing but the truth.
Why is it if I criticize one news source I must automatically subscribe to another? Sheesh. So CNN is on par with FOX news... Congrats I guess.
... There was no fortunately about it. The FBI recommended what be done with the original.
Again, the FBI had a backup, recommended original re-purpose, all was within standard procedures for a server to be discontinued, and there was no obligation, legal or otherwise, to keep the original. Congrats, any subpoena can get the data... What's the controversy?
You didn't add anything new. If the FCC has the same "management" style it would lawful with backups for other investigations. ... What is the point in linking that story?
I also see REAL news from CNN
Um...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I don't know how you could describe CNN as "real news".
From your post, I take it that you would side with slave owners to count slaves equally in the census? Why would you want to give slave owners more power?
It seems you haven't done any research into the 3/5 compromise let alone try to understand it. You shouldn't call anyone a coward while posting as a coward. Hypocrite is your name.