Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on August 20, 2011, 06:28:00 AM
-
Do you think the media should be free to shape the election as they see fit or do you think they should act in an unbias and equal way for the benefit of America and our political system?
-
Do you think the media should be free to shape the election as they see fit or do you think they should act in an unbias and equal way for the benefit of America and our political system?
They can do whatever they want, but the public is free to call them on any bullshit they come across, whereas TA thinks the people should swallow the crap because opening your mouth in protest is anti free market. Appearantly if you're pro free market you shouldnt be challenging views that are false but presented as facts. ::)
If the media is smart they will perform their duties without bias and as factually as possibly or it will be the end of them. Thats the reason you see many of these big boys taking hits to their viewership over time as mistrust rises
-
Do you think the media should be free to shape the election as they see fit or do you think they should act in an unbias and equal way for the benefit of America and our political system?
the media acts in an unethical, evil manner when they choose ratings over integrity and spend an inordinate amount of time pointing out sarah palin's dumb mistakes.
in the same breath-
the media would never purposefully neglect ron paul just because he works against their agenda - they have too much integrity.
which is it, champs?
-
kinda says something TA ignored this thread lol...
-
translation.... I saw this thread but I just can't handle it lol....
-
translation.... I saw this thread but I just can't handle it lol....
I should strap myself down in preperation for his response, Im sure it will blow me away.
-
bump
-
He's desparately trying to find an article that he can cut and paste to answer this question and make himself look smart.
-
answer the question fuckface
-
post #2 BindaRE_Dundats post is applicable as well especially the first paragraph.
-
Hugo, awesome job on cornering the weasel! He won't recover.
-
8)
So?
-
hahahahah
-
-
LOl!
-
Do you think the media should be free to shape the election as they see fit or do you think they should act in an unbias and equal way for the benefit of America and our political system?
I "Think" they should treat facts in an equal manner and present them as such, but I do not want to limit their ability to present them as they wish. Meaning, I would not want to dismantle the Free Market Media we do have. I do however want NPR and PBS to remain intact.
With that said, I think that each viable contender should be given 1 Public radio station, 1 Public television station, 1 Public internet site all of these available the public 24 hours a day and that Presidential candidate can air whatever he or she wants on those media outlets. The fund raising should work like this-Congress determines how much it would cost for a Candidate to be able to purchase all of the media outlets. Only then does his or her status become active and viable. The money goes directly to the Government and can be used for whatever Congress chooses. (hopefully not Wars and Bailouts)
-
I took a break from the Political Board and just happened to see this. Sorry I did not see it sooner. I was talking with Skyler Mckinley on a daily basis back in 07 and 08. He was Mike Gravel`s National Campaign Director. We would discuss this thing all of the time. Basically the media first decides who they think is a viable candidate and who is not. THEY CHOOSE who is going up for debates and who is not and they usually base that off of Fundraising totals each month or every 3 months. Sometimes, as in the case of Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, they disinvite or Don`t invite even if the money was raised. Its pretty corrupt which is why I think all debates should be done on public television. Let candidates go on Private News Stations all they want, but all Debates should be held on the public channel, be it radio, Television or the Internet.
So what it comes down to is, basically the media does in fact choose to a large degree.
-
Also it is the people`s responsibility to fact check and call out the inaccuracies as they see them. There used to be only one outlet for that and that were the Editorial Section of the Newspapers and hope that it gets published.
Now, the internet has turned all of that around and has empowered the people like never before. THAT was what was missing since the start of our Democracy. The Voice of the People and the ability to be heard and challenge those in power. Youtube and the internet etc.. are unprecedented tools of the people as long as they utilize them and keep the heat on the anyone in power. A politician cannot run from the internet. At the same time, this can also cause the politician to be overly selective and almost non-existent as they do not want to be scrutinized by the public writ large. Think Sarah Palin.
As the older demographic dies off, the elections will be placed more and more in the hands of the people. I do commend Ron Paul on that front for basically instilling that idea upon his followers, regardless if some of his policies are bat-shit.
Finally the people are getting the power they should have always had.
-
I'm not reading it. ::)
-
-
Since Hightower died I've been watching Police Academy. 8)
-
I'm not reading it. ::)
Don`t beg me for a response then act disappointed once I give it to you.
-
LOL
the guy on the bike reminds me of TA hahahaha
-
Don`t beg me for a response then act disappointed once I give it to you.
what? did it take u 3 days?
-
I "Think" they should treat facts in an equal manner and present them as such, but I do not want to limit their ability to present them as they wish. Meaning, I would not want to dismantle the Free Market Media we do have. I do however want NPR and PBS to remain intact.
With that said, I think that each viable contender should be given 1 Public radio station, 1 Public television station, 1 Public internet site all of these available the public 24 hours a day and that Presidential candidate can air whatever he or she wants on those media outlets. The fund raising should work like this-Congress determines how much it would cost for a Candidate to be able to purchase all of the media outlets. Only then does his or her status become active and viable. The money goes directly to the Government and can be used for whatever Congress chooses. (hopefully not Wars and Bailouts)
Oh, fucking nice try douchbag. You've bombarded us with this free market media crap for over a week now. You just conveniently turn my question about the reality of what is to what you think it should be. Well then, why didn't you just give your opinion on this in the first place when you were spamming the board at every mention of Ron Paul?
Now why don't you try to actually answer the question.
-
I took a break from the Political Board and just happened to see this.
Save the BS excuses.... I posted this when you were replying to several other theads on political. No way you missed a thread with your fucking name on it. ::)
-
Save the BS excuses.... I posted this when you were replying to several other theads on political. No way you missed a thread with your fucking name on it. ::)
I answered the question and I was only making a point about The Free Market that Ron Poopers seem to forget that it is the Free Market that does Paul in every single time. If there were more public channels available for the Main Stream population to tune into, I don`t think he would have this problem.