That’s the right answer. Fines and shutdowns would be in violation of the 1st amendment. Doesn’t that strike you as a bad thing?
Unfortunately this is a trend that appears to be getting worse because it actually worked.
the trump guys were wrong or lied about their inauguration attendence… isn’t that what it was about?
i’m not suggesting either way whether free and open media is a good or bad thing. i simply said china doesnt allow it because of what is happening right now. and i wouldnt call this a free and open media… it is clearly an agenda-driven media
Can you explain in in what way you think that CNN shouted “fire”?
Get rid of 24/7 news in some way that doesn’t violate the 1st amendment. Taking away their advertisement rights (propose a bill that cleans the media of special interests) would be a step in the right direction. No money = no air time for BS.
There are limitations to what you can say, that was my point. There is no easy answer.
No. I didn’t say they did, I said they can’t.
You mean like NPR and PBS.
Yes and I see your point but the fact is that your average american does not listen to public broadcasting. These private news organizations should have to comply to the same regulations as public news.
I think what we really need is a central news agency, preferably set up and run by the government with strict regulations. That would definitely keep all personal and special interests out of the media, and keep the population informed with unaltered information based purely on facts.
They could probably use this a model to get started:
Seriously though, fake news sucks. It is difficult to dig through all the stories out there to obtain something that can be relayed as truth sometimes. But when Trump goes on record saying he’s going to do something, and then goes against it, that is not the fault of CNN.
There’s no easy answer to the problem of 24/7 ad revenue driven news stations, but we need to find one. News isn’t news anymore, it’s about click bait and sensationalism. Add in the fact that these “news” stations are owned by massive corporations that will benefit greatly from one candidate being elected over another and it’s pretty clear how you end up with biased media. If you can honestly say the majority of the mainstream media didn’t want Clinton to win over Trump, and that their coverage reflected that, you must live in some kind of rose tinted bubble.
And yes, I’m pissed that Trump and Co came out with that total BS lie about them having the biggest crowds ever, and even more piss that when called out about it they used the term “alternative facts”. They had a legit claim about media bias with the fact that the media were circulating that terrible angle shot that made it look like no one was there when it was a huge crowd, but only an idiot would try and claim it was the biggest crowd ever. By flat out lying in their claim and then trying to hide behind “alternative facts” they let the media shift the conversation.
Besides that, who fucking cares. You have bigger things to worry about than the fact that your supporters watched the inauguration live on the their PC’s from their jobs because they had to be at work on a Friday at noon unlike the typical Obama supporter. 
This is what I would hope any level-headed individual would feel and what I’ve been trying to drive home; no matter who you support or voted for, you have to call bullshit when it is in fact bullshit. Don’t be the person that Trump talked about here:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/01/23/donald-trump-iowa-rally-shooting-sot.cnn
Also, I don’t like Trump, but I did watch the live stream of the inauguration from my desk, so that’s also true lol.
Off topic, but I think the greater problem is that the American public has become to accustomed to commentary and punditry, and accepting it as “news”. There more interested in spectacle than fact. That’s just the simplest reason why you’re idea wouldn’t work, not having any operating income to actually support a newsroom would be the other.
I find NPR to be fairly unbiased. I think they do a pretty good job of presenting both sides of an issue (when the sides are willing to respond to interview requests). PBS News Hour has been pretty good from what I’ve seen, but I’m not typically home in time to catch it.
… but if someone is the type of person willing to accept the sort of easily verifiable lies the administration presented over the weekend, they’re not likely to find any source unbiased.
i agree with you in a sense but i also suspect that it is a tail wagging the dog situation. The typical trump voter (this is a generalization but the easiest way to classify) is already disillusioned with the major news outlets and has already largely checked out… whereas, the typical liberal is a far more active consumer of various forms of media, including and particularly the news or current events.
since these kinds of people are more readily targeted because of their consumption patterns the advertising dollars are chasing them and that is why the media is slanting hard left or anti-trump… because the ad dollars funding the new outlets are chasing the liberal, millenial and/or female eyes the news they see in between the ads has to keep them engaged.
It is much harder to get advertising engagement with employed men in the 18-45 category other than football
God dammit you almost did it. lol
We’re definitely on the same page here. I agree that the vast majority of mainstream media wanted Clinton. I think part of that was more so being anti Trump, though. For now, it’s on the people to do their due diligence to make sure they aren’t collecting biased information.
Also, let’s not confuse fake news with sensational news. There is a constant stream of completely fictional stories being put out there for people to consume and spread via FB and Twitter. (e.g. Clinton running a child sex trafficking business out of a pizza shop.) Planet Money from NPR tracked down someone who was responsible for a big portion of the fake news stories out there. It’s really interesting (and frustrating) to hear his take on it. NPR
Someone posted this to FB today as a reference for fake news and I think at this point, it’s laughable to consider any mainstream media as being unbiased.
Out of that chart I’d say NPR and Reuters seem pretty good at reporting both sides. Of course they don’t have 24/7 cable news programs to sell ad buys on.
The NY Times and WaPost being in the center is pretty laughable. And NBC News? Come on now.
They acknowledge the left leaning bias in the chart. There’s only 4 that appear directly in the middle. NPR, BBC, AP and Reuters.
Also, don’t confuse NBC with MSNBC. While they share resources, the reporting from NBC News is far less biased than MSNBC (which they show as “Hyper-Partisan”).
Reuters is my main go to but i can say that i have seen A LOT of left-leaning sentiment in much of the analysis, opinion or views commentary.
So Dakota and Keystone approved by executive order today…
Word is tomorrow he signs executive order restricting immigration for refugees and some visa holders from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
I think this dude is going to check off every one of his campaign promises inside 45 days by executive order and then just take 3 and a half years off and come back to run for term 2.
Didn’t the DAPL already look at alternate routes to avoid being so close to a water supply? I wonder if they will still do that to avoid the certain protests that will be re-sparked by this.