Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-07-2014, 09:02 PM
 
Location: Seattle
555 posts, read 799,620 times
Reputation: 520

Advertisements

Tulemutt:
I would argue that the press in the United States is probably more controlled than in Russia---if not by the State, then by vested interests. Our media has largely ceased to be anything but a parody of what a free press once was. We wouldn't have to follow Putin's policy to the letter. But doing things like reinstating the Fairness Doctrine; the Anti-Propaganda Act; setting limits on how much special interests can control the mass media---that would go a long way to curbing media irresponsibility and sensationalism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-07-2014, 10:50 PM
 
Location: On the water.
21,596 posts, read 16,091,646 times
Reputation: 19631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawk4440 View Post
Tulemutt:
I would argue that the press in the United States is probably more controlled than in Russia---if not by the State, then by vested interests. Our media has largely ceased to be anything but a parody of what a free press once was. We wouldn't have to follow Putin's policy to the letter. But doing things like reinstating the Fairness Doctrine; the Anti-Propaganda Act; setting limits on how much special interests can control the mass media---that would go a long way to curbing media irresponsibility and sensationalism.
If you refer to "the press" as the mainstream profit press - yeah pretty parody like these days. Vested interest is money, almost entirely. But this goes for all kinds of goofy splinter press now like FOX.

However, there is a LOT of new press these days since the internet. And some of it is really quite good. Sorting out who's who takes some doing, but it is certainly not controlled. Yet.

And then there are the few stalwart remaining old-school sources. Like NPR and PBS. There are also still several outstanding profit news corporations like the NY Times. Some may have liberal editorial bias on their Opinion pages, but subscribe to and enforce the classic rules of journalism which report news factually -- and editorial separately.

I do absolutely agree that special interest media needs to be alternatively labeled. Kind of like "Organic Food" has to meet specific guidelines to be labeled as such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2014, 02:06 PM
 
6,675 posts, read 4,236,644 times
Reputation: 8441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawk4440 View Post
Mike930:
Here in Seattle we had a mass-shooting earlier this week. The shooter confessed that he wanted to shoot up a school for the publicity.

Maybe instead of restricting gun ownership we should start restricting media sensationalism, which giving more than a little inspiration to these crazies.

And BTW, that policy has been proven to work. After the Beslan School Massacre in Russia, President Putin introduced a law into the Russian Parliament (which passed) putting restrictions on media sensationalism, which in the Beslan Case, was what the attackers desired as well. As a result, these types of attacks have decreased radically in Russia.
Thanks for posting an opposing view without resorting to name calling. Yes, I think the media does have something to do with it. You get the copy cat crimes. However, I still think you have to restrict some of the assault weapons.

What gets me is that by saying we need to restrict some, it's read by some as "ban all!" I never said that and don't believe it. However, most of the more "passionate" gun owners think they need enough fire power to invade a small country.

I haven't searched threads, but I m curious what the gun people think of the NRA coming out against the tools that started bringing all their guns to businesses. That had to be a shock for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2014, 02:20 PM
 
Location: On the water.
21,596 posts, read 16,091,646 times
Reputation: 19631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike930 View Post
I haven't searched threads, but I m curious what the gun people think of the NRA coming out against the tools that started bringing all their guns to businesses. That had to be a shock for them.
The NRA retracted the statement attributed to them. They blamed it on a "rogue NRA staff member" issuing personal opinion.
Wait, Wait, the NRA Didn't Mean to Call Rifle-Toting Members 'Weird' After All - Businessweek
Quote:
Under fire from even more absolutist pro-gun activists in Texas, the NRA’s top lobbyist rushed to YouTube (GOOG) to apologize for the “weird” comment, which he attributed to a rogue NRA staff member. “That was a mistake,” said a contrite Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA-Institute of Legislative Affairs. “It shouldn’t have happened.” The NRA does support “open carry” of handguns and rifles, wherever the practice is legal, Cox added.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2014, 08:10 PM
 
6,675 posts, read 4,236,644 times
Reputation: 8441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
The NRA retracted the statement attributed to them. They blamed it on a "rogue NRA staff member" issuing personal opinion.
Wait, Wait, the NRA Didn't Mean to Call Rifle-Toting Members 'Weird' After All - Businessweek
LOL. It figures. I bet the NRA heads went ballistic when someone in their organization actually used some common sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2014, 12:28 PM
 
Location: So Ca
26,592 posts, read 26,472,892 times
Reputation: 24536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike930 View Post
Hopefully this bill will pass. Geez, you gun "advocates" will never be satisfied until you can have tactical nuclear weapons at your disposal. There is a limit and we've reached it.
Agreed.

"State Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) has been pushing a bill, SB 53, that would require a background check and license to buy ammunition. What's scandalous,' De Leon says, 'is that it's harder to buy allergy medicine, spray paint, cigarettes and a six-pack of beer than it is to purchase a bullet that can maim or kill.' "
http://www.latimes.com/local/politic...12-column.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2014, 07:01 PM
 
6,675 posts, read 4,236,644 times
Reputation: 8441
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now View Post
Agreed.

"State Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) has been pushing a bill, SB 53, that would require a background check and license to buy ammunition. What's scandalous,' De Leon says, 'is that it's harder to buy allergy medicine, spray paint, cigarettes and a six-pack of beer than it is to purchase a bullet that can maim or kill.' "
http://www.latimes.com/local/politic...12-column.html
Hopefully this will pass. I think there's enough outrage over all the shootings that real gun control has a chance.

This is a start.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2014, 10:44 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,771,686 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike930 View Post
Hopefully this will pass. I think there's enough outrage over all the shootings that real gun control has a chance.

This is a start.
I think you should learn about all the current gun regulations we have in this state before you push for a bill that allows someone to make unsupported claims which completely depraves someone of their civil rights without due process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2014, 10:48 PM
 
Location: On the water.
21,596 posts, read 16,091,646 times
Reputation: 19631
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
I think you should learn about all the current gun regulations we have in this state before you push for a bill that allows someone to make unsupported claims which completely depraves someone of their civil rights without due process.
How does requiring a license to buy guns and ammo "deprive people of their civil rights without due process"? Real question. Not a counterpoint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2014, 10:56 PM
 
Location: Corona the I.E.
10,137 posts, read 17,399,125 times
Reputation: 9138
Want change fund real mental health care change. Honestly since we have a police state why not use it for something worthwhile. WTF can't NSA monitor for suicide/rampage videos and send the cops to detain this guy in the behavioral ward. What will come of this is no more yelling fire in a theatre. You make threats you will be locked up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top