Conquer Club

Following President Trump's signing of an executive order designed to enable greater regulation of America's out-of-control media, civil rights leaders across the country have spoken up and said that they agree the content of America's media should be more rigorously controlled and censored:

Mark Zuckerberg is setting a "dangerous precedent" by allowing a post by Donald Trump to remain on Facebook, a group of civil rights leaders has warned.

"We are disappointed and stunned by Mark's incomprehensible explanations for allowing the Trump posts to remain up," they said in a joint statement.

The joint statement, released on Monday night, was signed by Vanita Gupta, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Sherrilyn Ifill, director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; and Rashad Robinson, president of Color of Change. It has been published online by Axios.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52877801

I usually like your angles, but you are starting to sound a bit like Saxi

The usual CIA trollbots will disagree with me whether I speak as neutrally as possible or whether I babble like a rabid chimpanzee (aka 'saxi style'), so I figured I might as well start enjoying myself.

My general point is that there is now a broad bipartisan consensus in America that the existing laissez-faire approach to social and mainstream media does more harm than good and that the content they publish needs to be regulated and controlled.

mrswdk wrote:The usual CIA trollbots will disagree with me whether I speak as neutrally as possible or whether I babble like a rabid chimpanzee (aka 'saxi style'), so I figured I might as well start enjoying myself.

My general point is that there is now a broad bipartisan consensus in America that the existing laissez-faire approach to social and mainstream media does more harm than good and that the content they publish needs to be regulated and controlled.

This is not a thing.

mrswdk wrote:The usual CIA trollbots will disagree with me whether I speak as neutrally as possible or whether I babble like a rabid chimpanzee (aka 'saxi style'), so I figured I might as well start enjoying myself.

My general point is that there is now a broad bipartisan consensus in America that the existing laissez-faire approach to social and mainstream media does more harm than good and that the content they publish needs to be regulated and controlled.

Lumping together these very different things is where you're wrong.

The mainstream media already does an adequate job of regulating itself. It needs no outside regulation. Publishers insist that stories submitted by reporters are supported by documentary evidence and/or credible witnesses. If errors creep into a story, corrections are published. Reporters who falsify stories are mercilessly weeded out -- fired at the very least, often blacklisted for prolonged periods and/or sued for damages. There are real consequences for lying, so everyone involved does their best to weed out any possible lies.

It's social media that does all the harm, because there are no consequences for lying. People are free to publish any fanciful nonsense they want. Some of this is harmless fluff, but a lot of it consists of very dangerous conspiracy theories and hatemongering. This is where some regulation is needed. It seems, however, that the first few tentative steps in that direction have already been taken.

Dukasaur wrote:The mainstream media already does an adequate job of regulating itself. It needs no outside regulation.

If that's true then how come most Americans don't trust the media to tell them a true or full account of what is actually happening in the world?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/ame ... -down.aspx

All the stuff you said about the MSM is so far from true in the UK that it hurts, but given this thread is about America I have stuck to discussing the American media,

It's social media that does all the harm, because there are no consequences for lying. People are free to publish any fanciful nonsense they want. Some of this is harmless fluff, but a lot of it consists of very dangerous conspiracy theories and hatemongering. This is where some regulation is needed. It seems, however, that the first few tentative steps in that direction have already been taken.

Exactly, social media needs more active regulation and content control and the ball is finally starting to move in the right direction.

mrswdk wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:The mainstream media already does an adequate job of regulating itself. It needs no outside regulation.

If that's true then how come most Americans don't trust the media to tell them a true or full account of what is actually happening in the world?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx

It's like an intellectual version of Gresham's Law. Bad data drives out good.

People are bombarded with so much bullshit that they don't know the truth when they see it, and they don't know whom to trust.

mrswdk wrote:All the stuff you said about the MSM is so far from true in the UK that it hurts,

Weren't you the guy arguing in favour of the BBC a few months ago? When did you change your mind?

mrswdk wrote:

It's social media that does all the harm, because there are no consequences for lying. People are free to publish any fanciful nonsense they want. Some of this is harmless fluff, but a lot of it consists of very dangerous conspiracy theories and hatemongering. This is where some regulation is needed. It seems, however, that the first few tentative steps in that direction have already been taken.

Exactly, social media needs more active regulation and content control and the ball is finally starting to move in the right direction.

Dukasaur wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:The mainstream media already does an adequate job of regulating itself. It needs no outside regulation.

If that's true then how come most Americans don't trust the media to tell them a true or full account of what is actually happening in the world?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx

It's like an intellectual version of Gresham's Law. Bad data drives out good.

People are bombarded with so much bullshit that they don't know the truth when they see it, and they don't know whom to trust.

Well, not really. Americans know who they can trust - they just know it's none of the American MSM:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-m ... 2018-07-31

mrswdk wrote:All the stuff you said about the MSM is so far from true in the UK that it hurts,

Weren't you the guy arguing in favour of the BBC a few months ago? When did you change your mind?

I still like the BBC. The rest are one big sewer in need of a scrubbing though. Nothing you said about the MSM applies to any British newspaper. The Guardian and Times are slightly better than the rest but even they are biased and prone to editorialising to suit their own agenda.

mrswdk wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:The mainstream media already does an adequate job of regulating itself. It needs no outside regulation.

If that's true then how come most Americans don't trust the media to tell them a true or full account of what is actually happening in the world?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx

It's like an intellectual version of Gresham's Law. Bad data drives out good.

People are bombarded with so much bullshit that they don't know the truth when they see it, and they don't know whom to trust.

Well, not really. Americans know who they can trust - they just know it's none of the American MSM:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-most-trusted-tv-news-brand-in-the-us-isnt-even-american-2018-07-31

Yeah, the BBC comes out on top with a 90% rating, but Fox's 87% and PBS' 86% aren't dramatically different. Four of the top five outlets are American. Not very good evidence for what you said.

mrswdk wrote:

mrswdk wrote:All the stuff you said about the MSM is so far from true in the UK that it hurts,

Weren't you the guy arguing in favour of the BBC a few months ago? When did you change your mind?

I still like the BBC. The rest are one big sewer in need of a scrubbing though. Nothing you said about the MSM applies to any British newspaper. The Guardian and Times are slightly better than the rest but even they are biased and prone to editorialising to suit their own agenda.

Okay, being biased and prone to editorialising is not a condemnation. Are they presenting the facts, yes or no? It's not wrong to have an opinion, as long as you are presenting honest facts. Having people pay attention to your opinion is your reward for presenting useful facts.

Dukasaur wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:The mainstream media already does an adequate job of regulating itself. It needs no outside regulation.

If that's true then how come most Americans don't trust the media to tell them a true or full account of what is actually happening in the world?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx

It's like an intellectual version of Gresham's Law. Bad data drives out good.

People are bombarded with so much bullshit that they don't know the truth when they see it, and they don't know whom to trust.

Well, not really. Americans know who they can trust - they just know it's none of the American MSM:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-most-trusted-tv-news-brand-in-the-us-isnt-even-american-2018-07-31

Yeah, the BBC comes out on top with a 90% rating, but Fox's 87% and PBS' 86% aren't dramatically different. Four of the top five outlets are American. Not very good evidence for what you said.

It also says the only people who trust FOX and PBS are the people slurping those two sources down regularly, and cities the same poll I originally posted that shows most Americans don't trust the MSM.

I was looking for a different piece of research I've seen before that also found the BBC was the most trusted news source in the US, but settled for the one above because it came up first in Google and I couldn't be arsed to search any harder. The point being that Americans trust foreign media more than their own.

mrswdk wrote:

mrswdk wrote:All the stuff you said about the MSM is so far from true in the UK that it hurts,

Weren't you the guy arguing in favour of the BBC a few months ago? When did you change your mind?

I still like the BBC. The rest are one big sewer in need of a scrubbing though. Nothing you said about the MSM applies to any British newspaper. The Guardian and Times are slightly better than the rest but even they are biased and prone to editorialising to suit their own agenda.

Okay, being biased and prone to editorialising is not a condemnation. Are they presenting the facts, yes or no? It's not wrong to have an opinion, as long as you are presenting honest facts.

They are presenting some of the facts, omitting others, and twisting the ones they present in a way that suits their agenda. And then doing things like making up quotes etc for the lulz.

Having people pay attention to your opinion is your reward for presenting useful facts.

I think you know better than to say things like this.