Senate The US Politics discussion

Speaking of old Bob Woodward, looks like he has his own opinion of the dossier:

"Earlier, on “Fox News Sunday," Woodward called the dossier a “garbage document” that “never should have been presented as part of an intelligence briefing.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...rd-blasts-intelligence-community-over-dossier

 

It's one thing to bitch about the media. All media has its issues. Our media reports with the goal of ratings much more than informing the public. State-run media like RT reports with the goal of supporting the current political regime. Regardless, bitching about media is no different than bitching about politicians. They suck, but literally we cannot have society without them. No one should even be entertaining the notion that the answer is marginalizing the media. They are the only check on government, like it or not.

 

.

 

State-run jokes like RT and the profit-oriented media such as those that dominate the United States are not the only choices we have.

 

Okay, go make another one. G-TV

 

Non-profit, non-state run news media already exists. The BBC and PBS are prominent examples-- which, despite being funded by the state and the public, are not mouthpieces for the state.

 

I'm pretty sure PBS is mostly private funded via donations now, but I could be wrong. I remember looking into it years ago when republicans were threatening to cut its funding, and I ended up confident that it wouldn't kill pbs.

 

Yeah, and who watches? PBS is largely funded through donations.

 

A lot of people watch and read BBC News. Reporting done by PBS is used by many other sources (John Oliver's show takes heavily from PBS Newshour and Frontline, even entire topics).

And I wasn't making an argument from popularity anyway. I'm aware that the cable news giants and Facebook and such dominate the landscape.

Yes, you're correct. The majority of PBS's funding comes from private donations, and that comes with another set of problems. David Koch, for example, is a major PBS donor and that can influence the network's decisions regarding coverage of major issues such as climate change.

 

Yeah and the BBC is from the UK, not the U.S, which is what the first amendment discussion was about. You're actually arguing for massive consolidation of media by making it non profit. Less voices, not more.

 

I don't know why you think I was responding to the First Amendment discussion.

 

Because you were? Were you responding to the Scottish Herald typo?

 

This is what I was responding to.

I think the "freedom of the press" discussion is dumb and misses what's wrong with our corporate media. For-profit journalism actually curbs the freedom of the press, as resources tend to be shifted away from "serious" journalism that doesn't make a lot of money to the light nonsense that does. The desire for stories to get more eyeballs is what drove News of the World to hack the phones of murder victims, not some Solemn Duty of the Fourth Estate to inform the public.

 

Ah okay. You were responding to the first portion of her post. But Guy, there is no way you are going to get enough "serious" journalism strictly from non-profit sources in our country. We never have.

And who should fund this media?

 

A largely state-funded, independent, non-profit journalistic organization is completely feasible even in our capitalist dystopia. Of course, the political will isn't there and personally journalism is but a small aspect of the changes I want in society.

 

But now wait a second. Didn't you just argue that RT was a joke? You use a singular organization not multiples. If this state monopoly is state-funded, then what is to stop the Kochs from lobbying legislators who pass their budgets from influencing it that way? We already have lobbyists who influence legislation now.

 

Well he already said that during the campaign. He just never was forced to say what specifically he meant. Remember the whole "we're going to take care of everybody and not let anyone die in the streets"?

 

It would be hilarious if he managed something better than the ACA, which would mean single-payer.

 

/\/\ Well who knows? He might propose something like that. He has been all over the place ideologically with health care if you go back a decade.

 

I don't mean to repeat myself but: He just might. He has been all over the place ideologically if you go back a decade.

Seriously, he has no real discernible core, hence his "Meryl Streep is the greatest actress" to "she is completely overrated" in a year.

That's what makes him a bit unpredictable(and potentially dangerous). No one really knows what he might do.

 

On the issue of the press... I kind of hope the WH does end press briefings and keep them off WH grounds. Maybe the media will be outraged enough to actually do some investigate journalism, instead of trying to cozy up and get into the club!



Some good news from the states... and this time it's actually good news out of my homestate of Rhode Island!

Governor Gina Raimondo is proposing 2 years of free college for in-state students of good academic standing at any state college/university (which in RI means the 6 CCRI community college campuses, Rhode Island College, University of Rhode Island at its 3 campuses).

Finally a bold initiative with vision! That's been sorely missing from Raimondo so far. The cost of college was one of her big campaign issues too, so finally seeing some action, it's the biggest reason why I've been disappointed with her so far. Looking forward to seeing the details soon. I don't agree with her on everything, but I've gotten to meet her or see her at different things about a dozen times over the last seven years, and she's very intelligent, she just needs to focus on some bold initiatives and it's great to see her finally doing that and making RI one of the states leading the charge on an important issue in a good way, instead of lagging behind like usually.
http://www.providencejournal.com/ne...at-state-colleges-under-raimondo-budget--poll