Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
Well said!!!!
I'm really behind Fred, but somebody needs to take a cattle prod to him. He acts like he's on sleeping pills most of the time. How about a little LIFE in these speeches? The Left is beating him down for this. He needs to look like he doesn't have one foot in the grave.
You are right, it is the "thought police" trying to take over. They need to realize it works both ways.
That's the problem, though, Debbie, they're so ARROGANT that they don't realize that we really and truly could turn the tables on them, if we so chose, and take every slanted leftinistra point of view off the airwaves by means of legislation.
And yes, as much faith and confidence as I have in Fred to lead our nation, he really, really needs to put forth a bit of the passion and fire that the public needs to see from him.
Good piece, Hawk...fire up that cattle prod for Fred--the slow drawl is wonderful in explaining to the dim dems what they need to hear, but a bunch of us are as hyper as rabbits on viagra!
I do not watch TV.
Here in the UK it is licensed, you must pay to watch. I come from Portugal and was very surprised to discover this. All the more so because they do have comercials... Hence it is paid for already...
Needless to say then that, all the litle TV I do watch, comes from the internet.
As my knowledge of US TV is very little I cannot be certain, but from what I do watch it seems to me that real journalism is hard to find.
What is plentyfull is a wide range of opinion spots. Some of these are masked as news shows, yes I'm pointing at FOX. But not only them! The situation is at a point where even FOX's skewed representation is presented as a opposition of the left's vision (CNN, MSNBC, pretty much everything else). This is quite a silly argument to make, or better yet a silly situation to be in.
As to that law, it does not make sense. I believe there is a current tendency for conglomeration, so the argument used for its creation can still be used today. As I said it does not make sense, because what should be in place are deonthological rules for journalism. These should be the rules that news casters should follow ( TVs follow market rules - go for the throat)...
These rules are clearly not on the editors minds, specially when the instant gratification of gossip seems such an efficient and effective way of increasing ratings.
I come from country which has state sponsered TV (2 channels), this is ideal for governments to push their points across. In fact such accusations have been made. But from seeing that TV and the other private TVs, I see for the most part it has been the opposite, private TVs clearly pushed some points for who paid them best. It all depends on the integrity of whoever runs the company. We have one TV which is clearly populistic and seems to take sides even when presenting news. Although I must say it seems to simply choose whatever angle is more incindiary (ratings above all).
As to the thought police idea... Its here already.
I'm going to mention FOX because it is clearly more radicalized than the others.
Controlling what you think requires two things: putting forth what must be thought as true, excluding what are opposing views.
China does this in a very concrete way. No free access to information (sites locked down, Google and Yahoo restricted) and indoctrination since infancy.
In a democracy this isn't possible, and FOX is not a conservative conspiracy to indoctrinate the US citizens. But, in practice, when all you see is one channel, and that channel's portrayal of reality is skewed, then that is how your vision of reality will end like.
Sorry for this very long comment...
Not a problem Eduardo, I actually find it fascinating considering I get hundreds of channels and watch as many different news sources (excluding CNN) as I can as well as reading as many news sites as I can also.
I cannot begin to imagine having limited access to all sides of an issue.
Thanks for that.. it was enlightening.
Commenting by HaloScan
