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.
When people refer to the establishment, they're talking about neoliberalism. It's an updated form of classical liberalism that basically says "profit first." Back in the day, liberals would break up monopolies and serve the public interest. Now they just say they do. To be clear, both Democrats and Republicans are filled with neoliberals. It's what has allowed lobbying to exist in the way that it has. It's profitable so it's right.
As for how this relates to the media, it's no different than any other monopoly. In 1983, 90% of the media was owned by 50 different companies; today, 6 companies control that same amount of broadcasting power. A guy like Teddy Roosevelt (a progressive Republican) would have broken that up. Neoliberals would not. Hillary Clinton would not. The first prominent neoliberal, Ronald Reagan (surprise!) would not. Regan himself saw to it that the Fairness Doctrine, which would effectively have forced CNN to not clearly endorse Hillary Clinton, was repealed because "freedom" or something. The Fairness Doctrine had the FCC make sure that broadcasters would serve the public interest (this is why we have 6 o'clock news; every broadcaster had to devote an hour of airtime to the news to serve the public interest), and this did allow for public comment. Without he Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters only have an obligation to serve their shareholders.
I get the many conservatives who are exhausted by the media's clear left leaning bias. I really do. I'm on the left and even I'm sick of (mostly because the person I supported got about the same treatment as many of the Republicans). But it's hard for me to take their critique seriously given that their idol, Reagan, is likely responsible for the state of the current media. I know conservatives think regulation is a bad thing, but maybe it has a place. As someone on the left, I recognize that their is such a thing as overregulation and this is why I think a party that is more likely to stop that from happening is important But if that party wants equal airtime, maybe they should allow for at least some regulation.
tl;dr: Reagan ****ed you guys over.
The idea that some government body should decide what is "fair" regarding political speech I find a bit frightening.
I there any form of infringement on the 1st Amendment that the left does not support?
God bless Ronald Reagan.
Neo-liberalism is simply a concept that supports free men, free markets and free trade. Higher profits is simply the end result when you let men enjoy liberty. it benefits us all.
Soros & Co. will continue to prop them up. They will be the Democrat's propaganda machine for some time to come until the party itself implodes. Probably from a WikiLeaks scandal.
The idea that some government body should decide what is "fair" regarding political speech I find a bit frightening.
I there any form of infringement on the 1st Amendment that the left does not support?
God bless Ronald Reagan.
Neo-liberalism is simply a concept that supports free men, free markets and free trade. Higher profits is simply the end result when you let men enjoy liberty. it benefits us all.
The Fairness did not regulate speech. It was not so much concerned with what was said, but if the voice was heard. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic components. The first part was that broadcasters, because airwaves were publicly owned, were required to devote a portion of their airtime to bringing up issues of public importance. So, the news. The other part was that on controversial issues, more than a single view must be presented. This last part is important because guess what, under the Fairness Doctrine, Donald Trump could probably sue CNN for biased news coverage and would have a very good chance of winning that case. You can argue that this is suppression of CNN's free speech, which is why Reagan repealed it actually, but in it's removal, does this not also suppress Trump and his supporter's (among which, I am not) free speech? For better or worse, democracy has spoken and Trump is the nominee. CNN should be obligated to give fair coverage, but they don't.
How poetic though that the free speech of the institution with more money was given precedence to the free speech of those with less. What better way to summarize the Reagan presidency?
So let me ask you, do you think CNN's (as well as other media outlets) coverage of the elections is fair? They clearly favor Hillary. In fairness, due to the unstoppable consumer culture in the US, the media also made Trump's presidency possible, but now that he's the nominee, he's getting tons of resistance. Is this good for democarcy, to have a population of people who are having a harder and harder time being accurately informed?
When people refer to the establishment, they're talking about neoliberalism. It's an updated form of classical liberalism that basically says "profit first." Back in the day, liberals would break up monopolies and serve the public interest. Now they just say they do. To be clear, both Democrats and Republicans are filled with neoliberals. It's what has allowed lobbying to exist in the way that it has. It's profitable so it's right.
As for how this relates to the media, it's no different than any other monopoly. In 1983, 90% of the media was owned by 50 different companies; today, 6 companies control that same amount of broadcasting power. A guy like Teddy Roosevelt (a progressive Republican) would have broken that up. Neoliberals would not. Hillary Clinton would not. The first prominent neoliberal, Ronald Reagan (surprise!) would not. Regan himself saw to it that the Fairness Doctrine, which would effectively have forced CNN to not clearly endorse Hillary Clinton, was repealed because "freedom" or something. The Fairness Doctrine had the FCC make sure that broadcasters would serve the public interest (this is why we have 6 o'clock news; every broadcaster had to devote an hour of airtime to the news to serve the public interest), and this did allow for public comment. Without he Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters only have an obligation to serve their shareholders.
I get the many conservatives who are exhausted by the media's clear left leaning bias. I really do. I'm on the left and even I'm sick of (mostly because the person I supported got about the same treatment as many of the Republicans). But it's hard for me to take their critique seriously given that their idol, Reagan, is likely responsible for the state of the current media. I know conservatives think regulation is a bad thing, but maybe it has a place. As someone on the left, I recognize that their is such a thing as overregulation and this is why I think a party that is more likely to stop that from happening is important But if that party wants equal airtime, maybe they should allow for at least some regulation.
tl;dr: Reagan ****ed you guys over.
I appreciate your candor and thoughtfulness! About the only comment I've got is it doesn't matter who did what when it comes to the time of Regan. The reason why I say that is that WE have allowed it to get as bad as it has clearly gotten. The media is clearly running this election, that much is abundantly clear and has probably run the last two.
That is on us as a nation, we've allowed our politicians to become so cozy with big money and the media, we've not held our media accountable for NOT doing their jobs by not buying their products, complaining loudly to advertisers that pay them and by not tossing out politicians who we KNOW are corrupt.
As an example, William Jefferson had $90,000 in cash in his SENATE OFFICE FREEZER which was tied to a bribe. Other Senators created such a ruckus about the search saying something along the lines of "his office is immune to search".
WE TOLERATE THIS CRAP so now we're seeing the results.
If we allow either of these two to be elected in a manipulated election then what happens afterward is nobodies fault but our own.
Absolutely correct. And the rest of your post is as well, but I wanted to highlight this portion for accuracy.
And yes, the media is owned by 6 major conglomerates, none of them "liberal". Many of their employees are, however, and they have a real desire to print the truth, and that's what they try and write about and report on. And this upsets conservative these days, who are used to hearing FAUX News and are repelled when someone reports something that does not fall into the ideological sphere of FAUX.
That's why conservatives are on a tirade against the media, none more so than Trump, who has attacked it mercilessly, and his supporters have, as everyone knew would happen, echoed his tirade.
So what your saying is, you refuse to accept reality and will continue to keep your head buried in the sand... Got it....
Or you can't. It all depends on the viewpoint, doesn't it?
The fact is that ever since June 16, 2015, Trump made very sure he dominated the news every night on TV and all the other media 24 hours a day.
Since he's been doing it all his life, but really learned how to command the TV cameras over 14 seasons of the Apprentice, He knows more and how to do it better than any politician ever has. He knows exactly what will gain him the most attention, always.
Whenever the interest in him began to flag, even a little bit, Trump did or said something that was so outrageous that the cameras swung back on to him. He did this over and over again, and is still at it today.
And he won't quit once the election is over. He will do his very best to keep folks like you, the believers who've followed him from the first, just as red-hot angry as possible, for as long as possible.
Just to feed his endless, bottomless need for attention. Once you are finally exhausted, he will find someone who isn't, replace you without a second thought, and use after them. And when they're spent, go find some more new guys for as long as he can. He doesn't want this roll to stop rolling.
Why did Sarah Palin drop Cruz to endorse him? Because she's a skunk of the same stripe, and saw she could learn a thing or two from him. She never counted on him dumping her like last week's trash as soon as she was of no further use.
That's the reality I see. If you differ, so be it. There are others who see it like you do, and there are others who see it like I do. It seems we have two parallel realities going on in this country right now. 91% of us see my reality, 7.8% of us see it your reality.
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.
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.
About the only comment I've got is it doesn't matter who did what when it comes to the time of Regan. The reason why I say that is that WE have allowed it to get as bad as it has clearly gotten. The media is clearly running this election, that much is abundantly clear and has probably run the last two.
