Trump is Trying to Shut Down the Internet

Post Reply New Topic

the ones I use

"Communist News Network" makes no sense whatsoever. They would scare away their corporate sponsors if they promoted any from of socialism.

"Clinton News Network" is 100% accurate though. CNN was part of the anti-Bernie mob. Thus, they are largely responsible for Trump's victory. That's the real reason why they are despicable.

Here lies the problem
I'm not sure if "Jim Lehrer's news hour" is still around but that struck me as impartial and content not subject to commercial sponsor's wishes but I think even they were careful to "tow the line"

Al Jazeera or BBC is a good source of news on the US and EU as it's impartial but both are impacted by the long arm of US foreign policy. Huff post and the Guardian are a good read as they tend to stick it up Washington and London

^^^
Wishful Thinking

Unfortunately, there are still some liberals who trust the "liberal news media" more than Noam Chomsky and the people who live by his values.

I hope the right-wingers load the mainstream media into a woodchipper. Only then can the Chomskyites become the new liberal establishment.

After all, the macho Trump right got into power because the liberals successfully defeated the "compassionate" fundie conservatism of the Bush era.

HuffPo sometimes makes good content.

Unfortunately, they are left-wing extremists. I don't like to throw the term "left-wing extremism" around because it's not really a big deal. Left-wing extremism isn't very dangerous or deadly. It's mostly just hilarious ... but it still exists.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post

I swear, some of the articles on HuffPo were written by escaped mental patients. It's kinda like Buzzfeed ... but slightly less stupid.

I tend to "triangulate" different sources and make up my own mind. Certainly better than "others" on this thread (or in Trump's inner circle) who wait with "bated breath" for whatever Fox news or Brietbart publish.

A cursory google search suggests AP or Reuters aren't much better than any other news source
https://www.infowars.com/how-reliable-is-reuters/

Comes back to the question...if Trump and his fawning sycophants label sources "fake news" then what is reliable news for them??

The Internet is here to stay, whether Trump likes it or not.

I do miss the days when news was bland, boring, serious, and unbiased. When CNN first started, it attempted to brand itself as "vanilla news", meaning, what I described above, but unfortunately it's largely tabloid fodder these days.

One of the reasons for the degradation in the quality of news is that previously, news corporations had consistent funding from sponsors and customers. Businesses would pay large sums of money for air time to air commercials on news programs, and new papers received funds from actual paper sales.

These days, with the decline in TV watchers, and a significant decline in news paper subscriptions, combined with the abundance of free news that the internet offers, news corporations have had to turn to internet advertising revenue, the value of which is determined by the amount of traffic to a website or number of clicks on an article. This is why you will see headlines these days which don't summarize the story, as they used to, but are designed to pique one's curiosity, for example "Popular Toy Store May Go Bankrupt Soon". It leaves the reader wondering "What store? Is it Toys R Us?" and then they click to get the answer. There are also intentionally incomplete headlines such as "Taxi Driver Locked Teenaged Girls and Cab and Drove them to Police Because They". These are headlines on Yahoo today.

This revenue drop has also resulted in poorer quality news. You might notice, many news stories these days don't seem to have been read by editors. That's because there often are none. It was not only the job of the editor to proof read, but to also fact check I was speaking with a journalist with what used to be the largest news paper on the west coast, and he said news room staff has decreased from 300 people to 100 people during his career as a journalist.

Another thing we have seen over the past 17 or so years is a change in the types of stories. This is also due to the internet. The internet used to be a place where people would turn for a break from everyday life, with websites such as ebaumsworld or wecanhazcheeseburgers, and that culture has persisted to a large degree. People seem to prefer to click on stories that are less than serious, or stories that trigger strong emotional responses. For example, a story about "An instagramer's incredible transformation" may receive more clicks than a story about all of the resolutions passed at the UN that day, or a famine in Ethiopia (yes again).

Here is a list of headlines from the New York times on July 22, 1985.

South Africa's state of emergency went into effect, and with the near-absolute powers granted them under the emergency.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff oppose ratification by the United States of internationally agreed revisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions on treatment of combatants and war victims that are intended to enhance humane treatment of combatants and civilians during war.

Israeli-Chinese economic ties have been quietly developing in recent months, according to Israeli officials.

Reworking of the U.S. bases treaty with the Philippines has been called for by Philippine Government leaders in retaliation for a proposed reduction in United States military aid to Manila recently voted by the House.

President Reagan must take a role in the budget negotiations, the Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, said.

Military research at top universities is returning in force, spurred by the Reagan Administration's project to develop a shield against nuclear missiles and reviving a heated debate over the proper role of universities in developing weapons systems.

The New York Times is still a fairly reputable, serious source of news, however, at the time, these headlines were nothing unusual and fairly standard. Compare them with the standard headlines of today and the differences are striking and concerning.

How about have Trump shut down his twitter account... Like he really has ANYTHING interesting to say !

Yeah, those right-wingers always trying to block and silence people with opposing views!

I'm not to block or silence anyone.. I'm the first person who believes in Freedom of speech ! Just make sure you have something worth speaking about ! Stop trying to blame everyone else ! if Trump doesn't agree with it, it's called " fake news " why can't he just admit maybe I was wrong, I'll look into it.. anything is better then shutting people down with his so called Fake news answer.....

You: I believe in free speech

Also you: I wish people who said things I don't agree with stopped saying them, not just to me but to anyone else

Let me make myself very clear, I listen to what everyone has to say, right or wrong I'm not afraid to hear others opinions, and yes I do have an open mind and I'm not judgmental. This ENTIRE post has been about one person and one person only, Trump. I could care less about anything he has to say due to he has no idea what the hell he's talking about... But hey, since you seem to keep him in great regard's, come to my country and take him home to the UK with you.. Trust me when I say this, he won't be missed !

Freedom of speech is not the same as agreeing with said speech. One is a principle that everyone gets a voice, the other is about what that voice is actually saying. It's perfectly compatible to allow a person's speech and then pick apart what was actually said, they are two completely different things. Second, the freedom of speech is a contract between a government and citizen, not a pact among citizens-- your freedom of speech goes away when you exit public property. Take WP for example, it has it's own set of rules and regulations regarding speech and members can be/have been banned for speech that violates the internal rules, the government and it's contract of 'free speech' doesn't apply here because WP is a private property, not a public property, thus the government has no authority to mandate it's own contract here.

You already have. You want Trump to shut down his twitter account because he has nothing interesting to say. I'm going to point out the obvious here that what you actually mean is that in your opinion he has nothing interesting to say. So because *you* are not interested in what he has to say no-one should hear what he has to say. You then say you support free speech despite the obvious (to me anyway) contradiction?


Where have you got the impression I hold him in high regard? Where have I given any indication about what I feel about him either good or bad? Because I pull you up for wanting to abolish free speech that means I have to support the person whose speech you are trying to silence? That's a non-sequitur. I *genuinely* support free speech no matter who is saying it or what they are saying (legal boundaries respected of course).

As for him coming to the UK....well....the left are hard at work trying to stop that from happening. Funny that.