ilovefuzz.com

Well, we had a watchdog, but he was a pitbull and they told us we couldn't keep him.

Chankgeez wrote:Well, we had a watchdog, but he was a pitbull and they told us we couldn't keep him.

Iommic Pope wrote:

snipelfritz wrote:http://www.mediaite.com/tv/scottie-nell-hughes-on-kaine-speaking-spanish-didnt-need-a-translator-for-rnc-speeches/

Four years of the RNC posturing to get the Hispanic vote all down the drain. Reince must be shitting himself.

Ok, I understand that there is media bias all over the world, but how do you guys get away with it being so blatant? And racist? Don't you have some kind of a watchdog to at least maintain the illusion of objectivity?

Whatchu mean? Scottie Nell Hughes is an acknowledged Trump surrogate put on CNN usually with a Clinton supporter or others from varying points of view. She's not a moderator or the one person on the show giving her (stupid and batshit) opinion.

Iommic Pope wrote:watchdog to at least maintain the illusion of objectivity?

Also, not sure how a watchdog would work. Government telling media what they can and can't say? Big no-no.

Everyone is biased from some angle or perspective. Most people on CNN acknowledge that bias though and you just take what they say with a grain of salt. "The Media" is only crooked if you're too much of an idiot to realize that "truth" is an illusion and we're all living in chaos.

It isn't to impose upon freedom of speech it's to ensure neutrality when reporting facts. Which I guess doesn't apply when it's opinion.
I shouldn't be surprised at the depth to which you guys are entrenched in opinion over information.
And while we aren't immune to the problem here, there are standards to which the national broadcaster (the ABC) at least have to adhere to, and to some minor extent the other networks sort of kind of toe the line on as well.
We do have a fair amount of opinion on TV as well, and we do have a fair amount of conservative/xenophobic drivel also, but I don't think I've ever seen anything as blatant as that down here.
Don't get me wrong, we're at the whim of the Murdoch opinion machine as well, but our government steps in to block things like Billionaires buying out majority shares in media outlets so that it doesn't all become one big loaded bullshit machine (see Gina Rhinehart 2012/3). And there are a few formats dedicated to fact checking that can generally muster up an apology from even the most idiotic of talking heads.

The filpside is that you guys do have great outlets that produce wonderful satire. I got more news from the Daily Show and Colbert Report way back when. The downside to that is that they unfortunately get lumped in with "the left" because of the crazy polarising that seems to go on, and all because you are now at the point of having to choose between the lesser of two evils.

I wasn't aware she was a known supporter and put on talk pieces with other panelists, sorry I thought she was a journalist. Which begs the question, who even watches that shit? And then makes a decision based on it?

If anyone wants to know what's happening down here I recommend checking out Shaun Micallef's Mad as Hell.
So good.

But back to fucking cyberpunk y'all!

This is a quote just on the dim prospects for bipartisanship in early 2009:

I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2009/02/0 ... life-back/

The American news media has ever since been attempting to thread this needle with Italian-style tire rims and anthrax.

Ok, that puts it in perspective then.
Thanks man.

After that departure I am seconding PV's notion to make this thread about the cyberpunk present.

Iommic Pope wrote:I wasn't aware she was a known supporter and put on talk pieces with other panelists, sorry I thought she was a journalist. Which begs the question, who even watches that shit? And then makes a decision based on it?

Yah, that's not really obvious if you don't have CNN on at work all the time. I like politics like sports, so people debating each other is fun to watch.

How are we going to cross the party divide when we aren't jacked into the internet with our neurocables?

Gotta go into the city to pick up some stims and credits that i'm owed for the last job i did inside.

psychic vampire. wrote:How are we going to cross the party divide

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k8YpQKzl_k[/youtube]

Iommic Pope wrote:It isn't to impose upon freedom of speech it's to ensure neutrality when reporting facts.

I think the thing about the US is that Americans with an IQ over 100 generally understand that, literally, everyone has bias and every organization that has ever existed/will ever exist is going to be biased in some way, shape, or form and no amount of government oversight will prevent that.
Assuming the government will actually prevent bias/opinion from seeping into news casts and will maintain any real neutrality is based on a lack of understanding of how the government works, in my opinion.
The government is biased (even if it's a mixed bag of bias).
There is no such thing as a non-partisan government or organization.
Everyone has an angle which is informed by a certain ideology that will ultimately affect how they present news or mediate it.
Facts themselves (at least, how people often define them and present them) lend themselves to bias or opinion.

So, I suppose that's why all the major news organizations are just cesspools of opinion and theories which aren't remotely based in reality.
Because America always amplifies the worst parts of society just to prove that those parts exist.

TL;DR: 'Merica, furst 'mendment, freeedum, dystopia and apathy.

snipelfritz wrote:

Iommic Pope wrote:I wasn't aware she was a known supporter and put on talk pieces with other panelists, sorry I thought she was a journalist. Which begs the question, who even watches that shit? And then makes a decision based on it?

Yah, that's not really obvious if you don't have CNN on at work all the time. I like politics like sports, so people debating each other is fun to watch.

Yeah, I don't have cable so I don't get to see a lot of this stuff.
Cable is stupid expensive here and not particularly worth it.
It's not like it's content I'm compelled to hunt down on the internet either.
You guys generally post the most relevant links to stuff here anyway.

jrfox92 wrote:

Iommic Pope wrote:It isn't to impose upon freedom of speech it's to ensure neutrality when reporting facts.

I think the thing about the US is that Americans with an IQ over 100 generally understand that, literally, everyone has bias and every organization that has ever existed/will ever exist is going to be biased in some way, shape, or form and no amount of government oversight will prevent that.
Assuming the government will actually prevent bias/opinion from seeping into news casts and will maintain any real neutrality is based on a lack of understanding of how the government works, in my opinion.
The government is biased (even if it's a mixed bag of bias).
There is no such thing as a non-partisan government or organization.
Everyone has an angle which is informed by a certain ideology that will ultimately affect how they present news or mediate it.
Facts themselves (at least, how people often define them and present them) lend themselves to bias or opinion.

So, I suppose that's why all the major news organizations are just cesspools of opinion and theories which aren't remotely based in reality.
Because America always amplifies the worst parts of society just to prove that those parts exist.

TL;DR: 'Merica, furst 'mendment, freeedum, dystopia and apathy.

Oh yeah, man, I'd never assume government to ever be neutral. They certainly aren't here.
What I was saying though, was that these bodies exist (in some shape or form) and it's the policies that are put in place after being agreed upon by the major parties, and then upheld by federal bureaucrats, that protect against total media weirdness. Not the elected government themselves, but the actual infrastructure.
Of course, the shitsacks getting elected can always attempt to fuck with these standards (as T. 'bott did when the ABC gave it to him in spades. He didn't like being criticized too much, so he smeared every public address he gave with accusations of them being blatant leftists, then threatened an inquiry and attempted to pull their funding.), but mostly there is pretty much outcry when freedom of the press is visibly seen to be being tampered with. And it generally doesn't stand.
The media here is also varied and critical of things like that, so it'd never get to the point where it was the Ministry of Truth or anything.

Could we end up with a network like that? Possibly, but not likely. Most Australians wouldn't watch it anyway and the ratings alone would be enough to kill it.
Do we get "personalities" espousing their bullshit opinions as fact? All the time. (See Sonia Kruger for her call to ban Islam on a morning program this past week.)
Do they get their arses handed to them? Absolutely.

So, apologies there, I thought she was a journalist and that was a report.