First time post, and it's because I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
The First Amendment says specifically "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Yet I believe in this day and age we need to implement some system for ensuring journalists with access to national and international news outlets are professionals without any biases that would prefect them from telling the truth, and some mechanism for punishing those who violate their professional, ethical standards.
Basically, I think we need a national licensing board for journalists. The board could be a mix of congressional and presidential appointees who would review applicants. It would likely have to be set up in each state oven the volume. New applicants would have to demonstrate the ability and willingness to report the news without bias and accept terms for what would essentially be disbarment if they are found to have violated those terms.
Obviously this would be for journalists with access to outlets over deserts in audience or circulation, and not bloggers. It would apply to journalists of all political orientations, not just the typical leftists.
Why would this help? It might curb willful disinformation. If a reporter can be shown to have ignored facts or willfully misrepresented facts, then boom. Done. If outlets have a trend of violations, boom. Done. We could shut down the fake news. We could shut down the partisan, un-American lies. We could reform a once proud profession that has in face been the cornerstone of our emigrated republic since before the Revolution.
It could be dangerous, but we're living in dangerous times. We need to do something.
What say you?
Welcome Marc, good to have you here.
But I must respectfully disagree.
As the site owner, my partner and I are constantly writing news articles, we are the new journalists, the very people that bring you the truth as opposed to the national media's lies.
Problem with advocating permits to disseminate news is. Who will determine what is news, the govt? We're just now breaking the bonds of govt over the last 60 years, or leftist govt the last 40, and you want to allow govt the sole power to censor?
That's what it would come down to, people afraid to report on any given news out of fear of license revocation. No, news is better if left under the protection of the bill of Rights, even when they print lies, because it affords people like me to straighten their asses out on the spot.
Check out our other site.
https://conservativehardliner.com/
Quote from: MarkMac1976 on January 19, 2020, 07:37:56 AM
First time post, and it's because I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
The First Amendment says specifically "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Yet I believe in this day and age we need to implement some system for ensuring journalists with access to national and international news outlets are professionals without any biases that would prefect them from telling the truth, and some mechanism for punishing those who violate their professional, ethical standards.
Basically, I think we need a national licensing board for journalists. The board could be a mix of congressional and presidential appointees who would review applicants. It would likely have to be set up in each state oven the volume. New applicants would have to demonstrate the ability and willingness to report the news without bias and accept terms for what would essentially be disbarment if they are found to have violated those terms.
Obviously this would be for journalists with access to outlets over deserts in audience or circulation, and not bloggers. It would apply to journalists of all political orientations, not just the typical leftists.
Why would this help? It might curb willful disinformation. If a reporter can be shown to have ignored facts or willfully misrepresented facts, then boom. Done. If outlets have a trend of violations, boom. Done. We could shut down the fake news. We could shut down the partisan, un-American lies. We could reform a once proud profession that has in face been the cornerstone of our emigrated republic since before the Revolution.
It could be dangerous, but we're living in dangerous times. We need to do something.
What say you?
Mark, no.
Quote from: Solar on January 19, 2020, 08:05:56 AM
Welcome Marc, good to have you here.
But I must respectfully disagree.
As the site owner, my partner and I are constantly writing news articles, we are the new journalists, the very people that bring you the truth as opposed to the national media's lies.
Problem with advocating permits to disseminate news is. Who will determine what is news, the govt? We're just now breaking the bonds of govt over the last 60 years, or leftist govt the last 40, and you want to allow govt the sole power to censor?
That's what it would come down to, people afraid to report on any given news out of fear of license revocation. No, news is better if left under the protection of the bill of Rights, even when they print lies, because it affords people like me to straighten their asses out on the spot.
Check out our other site.
https://conservativehardliner.com/
They'd have us in the gulags breaking rocks...
Quote from: MarkMac1976 on January 19, 2020, 07:37:56 AM
First time post, and it's because I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
The First Amendment says specifically "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Yet I believe in this day and age we need to implement some system for ensuring journalists with access to national and international news outlets are professionals without any biases that would prefect them from telling the truth, and some mechanism for punishing those who violate their professional, ethical standards.
Basically, I think we need a national licensing board for journalists. The board could be a mix of congressional and presidential appointees who would review applicants. It would likely have to be set up in each state oven the volume. New applicants would have to demonstrate the ability and willingness to report the news without bias and accept terms for what would essentially be disbarment if they are found to have violated those terms.
Obviously this would be for journalists with access to outlets over deserts in audience or circulation, and not bloggers. It would apply to journalists of all political orientations, not just the typical leftists.
Why would this help? It might curb willful disinformation. If a reporter can be shown to have ignored facts or willfully misrepresented facts, then boom. Done. If outlets have a trend of violations, boom. Done. We could shut down the fake news. We could shut down the partisan, un-American lies. We could reform a once proud profession that has in face been the cornerstone of our emigrated republic since before the Revolution.
It could be dangerous, but we're living in dangerous times. We need to do something.
What say you?
Welcome. However, I am with Solar and Taxed. How can another bunch of bureaucrats clean up the mess the MSM has created? Who would make up this board and who would select the members? It would be the fox guarding the hen house.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 19, 2020, 08:32:48 AM
Welcome. However, I am with Solar and Taxed. How can another bunch of bureaucrats clean up the mess the MSM has created? Who would make up this board and who would select the members? It would be the fox guarding the hen house.
I like the way it's going with the internet, where the sheep are armed and guarding the wolf pen. So to speak... :biggrin:
Quote from: taxed on January 19, 2020, 08:28:28 AM
They'd have us in the gulags breaking rocks...
You didn't push popular opinion your govt masters gave you, off to the rock pit with you!!!
Quote from: taxed on January 19, 2020, 08:28:28 AM
They'd have us in the gulags breaking rocks...
That is already happening now, Media companies are deciding what is appropriate to disseminate. Getting kicked off of social media is the equivalent of it.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on January 19, 2020, 09:49:50 AM
That is already happening now, Media companies are deciding what is appropriate to disseminate. Getting kicked off of social media is the equivalent of it.
I'm not biting.......
Quote from: taxed on January 19, 2020, 09:57:10 AM
I'm not biting.......
It is the same result. Your are isolated grom the public. I generally agree with Ben Shapiro. You have a phone/you are a journalist. Media companies are deciding who has permission to speak to the public.
Quote from: MarkMac1976 on January 19, 2020, 07:37:56 AM
First time post, and it's because I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
The First Amendment says specifically "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Yet I believe in this day and age we need to implement some system for ensuring journalists with access to national and international news outlets are professionals without any biases that would prefect them from telling the truth, and some mechanism for punishing those who violate their professional, ethical standards.
Basically, I think we need a national licensing board for journalists. The board could be a mix of congressional and presidential appointees who would review applicants. It would likely have to be set up in each state oven the volume. New applicants would have to demonstrate the ability and willingness to report the news without bias and accept terms for what would essentially be disbarment if they are found to have violated those terms.
Obviously this would be for journalists with access to outlets over deserts in audience or circulation, and not bloggers. It would apply to journalists of all political orientations, not just the typical leftists.
Why would this help? It might curb willful disinformation. If a reporter can be shown to have ignored facts or willfully misrepresented facts, then boom. Done. If outlets have a trend of violations, boom. Done. We could shut down the fake news. We could shut down the partisan, un-American lies. We could reform a once proud profession that has in face been the cornerstone of our emigrated republic since before the Revolution.
It could be dangerous, but we're living in dangerous times. We need to do something.
What say you?
One other point. We already have something like this funded by govt, called NPR/PBS, Brits tried something stronger yet, called the BBC, all of these entities wound up being leftist mouth pieces.
Fact is, we Conservatives own the internet in spite of leftist social media. We are the voice of the people and the left are in total meltdown panic mode over it.
I get your point and on its face it sounds good, but the less control Govt has over our First Amendment, the better.
Tough topic as few people have the time to critically examine every issue and social media is so prevalent and targeted that getting to the truth is a hard trip. We tend to follow our tribe and that can be positive and negative. The OP below covers the subject and while many on this site may disagree, it offers insight.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation-war/605530/
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." Friedrich Nietzsche
Quote from: midcan5 on February 12, 2020, 05:23:22 AM
Tough topic as few people have the time to critically examine every issue and social media is so prevalent and targeted that getting to the truth is a hard trip. We tend to follow our tribe and that can be positive and negative. The OP below covers the subject and while many on this site may disagree, it offers insight.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation-war/605530/
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." Friedrich Nietzsche
Only Fools Are Tribal Followers! If you had any critical thought of your own, you wouldn't fall for such BS opinion pieces.
This is a perfect example in differentiating the left and the Right. The left want to be a part of a group, let other think for them, while the Right wants to be left the fuck alone by the busy body's Marxists.
Seriously, do you ever try, just once and awhile, to see things from the other side? I do, it's why I have a keen grasp of the politics and why I'm neither a commie fool or a mindless follower, thinking someone else knows what's better for me, than me....
Quote from: Solar on January 19, 2020, 08:05:56 AM
Welcome Marc, good to have you here.
But I must respectfully disagree.
As the site owner, my partner and I are constantly writing news articles, we are the new journalists, the very people that bring you the truth as opposed to the national media's lies.
Problem with advocating permits to disseminate news is. Who will determine what is news, the govt? We're just now breaking the bonds of govt over the last 60 years, or leftist govt the last 40, and you want to allow govt the sole power to censor?
That's what it would come down to, people afraid to report on any given news out of fear of license revocation. No, news is better if left under the protection of the bill of Rights, even when they print lies, because it affords people like me to straighten their asses out on the spot.
Check out our other site.
https://conservativehardliner.com/
I agree with you about the censorship. But there must be some way we can take action against any media who knowing spew lies... But NOT determined by government.
Quote from: Mercy Otis Warren on May 04, 2020, 11:47:48 AM
I agree with you about the censorship. But there must be some way we can take action against any media who knowing spew lies... But NOT determined by government.
We have laws, slander is the main one. When someone or organization goes after people they can be sued.
I have no use for the term journalist, that's why I refer to them as urinalists, they do nothing but piss all over everything, and it's been that way since our Founding.
In fact, our Founders were well aware of it but knew that stifling speech would be more detrimental in the long run to our Republic.
Just look at Europe, Britain in particular and the BBC, the country, or those in power control what the people see and hear.
And yes, the BBC is nothing but a taxpayer funded CNN.
The best antidote against leftist news is us, the people, writing and exchanging ideas, and now we have the web. Yes, in spite of social media, we Conservatives own the internet and we're winning, that's why the left fought so hard for Gov regulating the cable suppliers.
We still have Free Speech and any regulating of the web would spell our demise, Fed or other as you infer. Let's keep it free and open as leftist media dies a violent death.
The best and only way to deal with leftist news is through debate. Present a superior arguement backed up with evidence. The thing that really sets the US apart from the UK, Germany and Canada is total freedom of speech. In Canada, we have laws against hate speech. In the US, anyone can express any opinion, whether it is racist or marxist, without fear of legal sanction, provided it is not libel. You must protect that right. If the most radical CNN reporter is shut down, so can any of us. You counter the leftist with a solid counter argument. As the saying goes, I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it.
Solar wrote: "This is a perfect example in differentiating the left and the Right. The left want to be a part of a group, let other think for them, while the Right wants to be left the fuck alone by the busy body's Marxists."
That is probably the most susinct definition there is.
Quote from: Tory Potter on May 05, 2020, 08:06:24 AM
The best and only way to deal with leftist news is through debate. Present a superior arguement backed up with evidence. The thing that really sets the US apart from the UK, Germany and Canada is total freedom of speech. In Canada, we have laws against hate speech. In the US, anyone can express any opinion, whether it is racist or marxist, without fear of legal sanction, provided it is not libel. You must protect that right. If the most radical CNN reporter is shut down, so can any of us. You counter the leftist with a solid counter argument. As the saying goes, I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it.
That was the lib mantra from the 60s all the way up until 2000. My how the left has morphed into Marxist ideals.
Quote from: Tory Potter on May 05, 2020, 08:06:24 AM
The best and only way to deal with leftist news is through debate. Present a superior arguement backed up with evidence. The thing that really sets the US apart from the UK, Germany and Canada is total freedom of speech. In Canada, we have laws against hate speech. In the US, anyone can express any opinion, whether it is racist or marxist, without fear of legal sanction, provided it is not libel. You must protect that right. If the most radical CNN reporter is shut down, so can any of us. You counter the leftist with a solid counter argument. As the saying goes, I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it.
Good observation.
Unfortunately, too many of our citizens do not appreciate the value of the First Amendment.
Quote from: Tory Potter on May 05, 2020, 08:40:03 AM
Solar wrote: "This is a perfect example in differentiating the left and the Right. The left want to be a part of a group, let other think for them, while the Right wants to be left the fuck alone by the busy body's Marxists."
That is probably the most susinct definition there is.
:biggrin:
It is in my world. I just want to be
leftist alone. :biggrin: