https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/o...rus-trump.html mui
It's an opinion piece. Big deal. It certainly doesn't taint the entire organization. Even Fox puts up some stupid opinions.
Point taken but they published it, so they own it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
Wow. So much Kool-Aid, so little time to drink.
I trust the NY Times much more than I do our government.
To use your words, what will you do as Trump makes things up and then does not own it?
Hunter
That is a bold statement and sad at the same time. Sorry you feel that way. I have some trust in government NONE in the biased left wing or right wing media, I repeat NONE. When the first, the very first of all of the hundreds of investigations that has been opened and conducted on Trump turn something up I will be first in line saying "he should own it". At this point that has not happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by UTAH
A much better question is will you still trust when the government and the media are the same?
"When" has already occurred---it is called trump/fox newtainment.
Ahhh…. now THAT's a topic that would really get to the core of these issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by CactusCurt
Me, I would not trust such an "arrangement."
Hunter
That is a relationship by choice. I'm talking about commercial control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Grubb
I'm not sure what Dave or Curt mean in their most recent posts. I originally thought the question was about the government taking control of the media. Was I wrong? If I understood it correctly, that has not yet happened. However, I can see it happening if the media doesn't start policing itself. That would be a really bad thing.
Pravda might be a good example...:evilgrin:...BenQuote:
Originally Posted by Mike
I can't comment on the original post since I didn't bother to read it---the title speaks for itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
That said, we are facing---and in fact are already into the midst of a real problem in this country with respect to the independence of the press. Going back to the GWB era there was a shift in rules by the FCC. The ruling change (as I recall under the management of Gen Powell's son) enabled single companies for the first time to control mass media outlets of multiple types within the same area as well as to aggregate the overall market. Put another way, Fox (insert any major media outlet here) was released to buy up TV, radio station(s), newspaper(s) etc. unhindered or restrained. The argument at the time against this, was exactly what we are seeing now, with the major players thinned out and all remaining sources competing for favored status of one political group or another. Obviously Fox has brought that to an art form with trump and it guarantees that media markets dominated by Fox will have a steady diet of Fox stew. They are not alone----CNN and MSNBC et al pursue favor with the Democratic party and we are left with having to cast about for independent news sources in an attempt to have a less tainted view of the news.
Anyone thinking that "their source" is "pure" of this bias is simply out to lunch.
It isn't difficult to figure out the original post based on your's and others comments. It doesn't take a master mind to identify an OPED or Editorial in a newspaper---they are separated for a reason. That is not the case with "free" news-----there the opinions are everywhere and often successfully disguised as "objective reporting", a product they have no interest in providing.
And here is an editorial comment----most "free" news is worth exactly what you "pay" for it.
I agree that allowing one entity to own multiple news providers across platforms is a bad idea. I'll go even farther and say that allowing a single entity to acquire a majority of any type of media in a region is bad.