On this thread yesterday, KBells asked abut the FCC selecting Columbia for its test area for the monitor program..
The Sixth Congressional District of South Carolina consists of the mostly rural area of southeastern South Carolina. It also contains Richland County in which Columbia is located.. The Representative from the Sixth District is James Clyburn.
I learned yesterday that the head of the FCC is the daughter of James Clyburn.
😯
I’m speculating here, but it’s logical to assume that there’s a reason for the selection of Columbia if your daddy is the representative from there.
Clyburn is a black man. If you oppose any of his liberal stances, you can be accused of racism.
As I said, I’m speculating here, but the logic of the facts falls into place now.
Misplaced Rave: The program has been put on hold for now.
We have the Wall Street Journal and FoxNews to thank for the demise of the FCC’s monitor program. I don’t know of anyone else payijng attention to this.
A negligant oor compliant press is all it takes to descend into dictatorship.
Possible correction” After examining the map again, I can’t tell if Columbia is on the edge of the sixth or second district. It’s on the edge. And any news from the Columbia media would affect the sixth, in any case.
I wonder if the other news organizations didn’t like it either but decided to sit back and let FOX and the Wall Street Journal take the heat. I can’t recall any of them defending it either.
Every Southern boy should be given a tour of the Shenandoah Valley to climb mountains, play golf, eat chicken and walk the battlefields where Stonewall Jackson worked miracles 152 years ago.
In the last couple of years mainstream parties on the left and right have been struggling on how to regulate the media. In the past the media could be counted on to stay within a narrow band of opinion but that is no longer the case. In Canada, the Conservative gov’t instituted a code of ethnics and values on the public broadcaster which the opposition parties interpreted as a pledge of allegiance to the current gov’t. In the US, it appears something similar is being discussed. In both cases, I would argue bureaucrats aligned with political aides are trying to solve a “problem” (a more diverse and critical media) with heavy handed regulations. In both cases the chances of success are negligible.
An article in the Washington Times tells about how freedom of press has slid under Obama.
“The U.S. under President Obama, who once promised to run the “most transparent” administration in the country’s history, fell from 32nd to 46th in the 2014 World Press Freedom Index, a drop of 13 slots. The index, compiled by the press advocacy group Reporters Without Borders, analyzes 180 countries on criteria such as official abuse, media independence and infrastructure to determine how free journalists are to report.”
It’s true that all administrations have tried to influence the press to their advantage. This is the first in my memory where they have used executive power to shut it down.
The “Fairness Doctrine” effectively did that until Reagan disposed it.
A study recently came out claiming that dog people tended to be Republicans and cat people Democrats. This may be true but I believe that cats and dogs themselves are opposite. So here are my top seven reasons dogs are Democrats and cats are Republicans.
7. Cats clean up after themselves. Dogs are messy. Be honest, did not some of those Occupy camps remind you of your yard after a dog got in your trash can?
6. Dogs bring you your own stuff in worse shape and expect you to to be grateful. “Here’s the ball/taxes you just threw out there. Aren’t you grateful for the chewed-up, slobber-covered/entitlements I ‘m giving you?” Cats are generous on their own terms with the fruits of their own labor. Has a dog ever given you a dead mouse for no reason?
5. Cats are more self sufficient than dogs. I can change the litter box, open a bag cat food and the toilet seat and leave my cat for days. She hardly notices I was gone. The dog can’t poop without my help. This makes me think a cat would own a small business and a dog would have a government job.
4. Dogs need constant affirmation. Asking the question, “Who’s a good doggie?” will get you a 15 minute conniption of joy. Cats don’t care what you think of them. Asking the question, “Who’s a good kitty?” might get you a half second tail twitch. A cat would never sue you for telling an anti-cat joke. They would just make fun of you on their blog.
3. Dogs are always in your business. You just look at a dog and they’re in your face wanting to know what you’re doing. Cats don’t like you in their business. Get in a cat’s face and you might need a band aid. Plus if a dog will work for the TSA (and some do), I’m betting they would work for the NSA.
2. Dogs use emotional manipulation. They will stare pitifully at you until you feel guilty and give them what they want. They might also run a political campaign about an imaginary “war on puppies”. Cats use logic. You finally figure if you give her what she wants she will get off your keyboard and you can finish what you were doing. Filibusters work.
1. But the number one reason cats are Republicans and dogs are Democrats. Cats are discriminating about what they eat. Dogs will swallow anything.
Chas …. check which countries are consistently on the top of the press freedom index; the Nordic social democratic countries. Perhaps Obama needs to move further to the left so you can enjoy the same press freedom.
The “judge” who brought perverted marriage to Virginia literally did not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
I miss the days of the evening news at 5:30 and the local news at 6pm. In an hour you learned all you really needed to know and if you wanted someone’s opionion you read the Op Ed in the paper. I don’t want the newscasters inserting their opinion and trying to manipulate what I think of it. I want them to once again tell me what happened and let me make up my own mind.
Kim, I have been a Reaganite since I was nine (my parents voted for LBJ and later converted). After much study, I determined that ABC was the least liberal of the three networks and would watch the ABC Evening News each day at 5:30. I read National Review twice a month at the school library and saw Bill Buckley’s firing line on PBS.
So, HRW, are you saying that in one of these Nordic social democratic countries a journalist would be free to suggest that same-sex marriage was bad or that Immigration from Islamic countries should be limited or that Christians should be free to believe that non-Christians are going to hell or that abortion is murder?
Congratulations to Russia for hosting and winning the Olympic Games! There was good competition without obscenity and perversion. Here is one of their popular singers. Note that she performs fully clothed and sings songs with actual tunes.
yes. Political parties express these opinions in all of the Nordic countries and other high rated countries such as the Netherlands. From my reading, the Free Press Index seems to measure the ability of journalist to report events, government transparency, infrastructure, as well as expressing differing opinions. At a minimum in order to report on social conservative parties, reporters will mention these ideas you list. Moreover many of the right wing populist party leaders began their career as journalist before moving into politics.
By raising these specific questions, you are calling into the question the whole survey. In which case, the US rating may also be invalid.
The survey is blind to our MSM. (Yes, MSM, that gives you my prejudices.) Our media is so free that it doesn’t even have to cover news if it wants. It is free to cover or not to cover.
Examples? Compare the coverage by the MSM of two different events, Benghazi and Bridgegate. Both can take down a viable candidate for President in 2016.
The MSM (including FOX) are corporate entities and they report what makes their corporations happy, advertisers happy and draws the highest ratings. In both politics and media, local sells.
Benghazi was over “there” and once the event was done, it remained only interesting to families and some Republican strategist who saw an opportunity. However, like other embassy attacks in the past there’s nothing there. And there’s nothing interesting to the vast majority of Americans hence it doesn’t sell except to those who don’t like Clinton and there FOX plays to their audience.
I had to think a minute what you meant by Bridgegate. Unlike Benghazi, it had no significance in Canada as the story was local and hence its staying power in the US. To compound the problem for Christie, the local in question was the New York City urban area which is also the media capital area of the US. And as local (and national) journalist may have been personal affected by the resulting traffic problems, the story had even more legs. The only bias here is the masses preference for local news and journalists who don’t like friends, families, and themselves stuck in traffic.
However, the free press index is not about what is or isn’t published but what is allowed to printed. The fact the American media fails to report stories has more to do with the pursuit of ratings — so blame capitalism if you must.
HRW, It is interesting that Fox does so much better in prime time than NBC. I think this is for the following reasons:
1. Liberals don’t have to go to MSNBC. They also have CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and NPR.
2. More conservatives than liberals watch the news.
3. Fox is better run than MSNBC. Maddow is smart. The other MSNBC hosts are third-rate.
There is indeed “something there” in that the request for securitty were ignored in the face of requests for protection (they hired local jihadists), and did not respond to requests for assistance. And after it happened, they repeatedly lied about the cause.
They lied regardless of the facts that were obvious at the time.
They could have gotten away with it except for the lies.
Neither Obama nor Hillary take the Muslim threat seriously.
Nor did Bush for that matter. But that doesn’t excuse those in power.
They should have learned something by now.
But that doesn’t have anything to do with the next election, does it?
Ricky
There can be several reasons for MSNBC’s low ratings;
1. Most liberals like to think their ideas are fact based and would rather not pay attention to what they see as a shallow imitation of FOX.
2. Most hosts are indeed third rate — many thinking they need to simply provide a left wing imitation of right wing hosts they have no respect for don’t prepare ahead of time. Maddow is the exception, she’s prepared and knows her stuff.
3. FOX’s audience is older and older people watch TV whereas liberals are younger and they don’t watch “normal” television preferring to get their news on the net.
4. Old people watch news, young people don’t.
Chas and kbells — Corporate media looked at the ratings and decided Benghazi didn’t sell and instead reported on the Khardasians’ wedding. Have no idea about Perry’s rock or what that means, but a bridge and traffic jam due to political interference has a greater connection with people. Its local and its something that hits home with little thought.
Not a short memory; for the most part, I get my news from the CBC and the Globe and Mail and neither would care much for a Texas governor’s rock. After reading it here I did google it and found it was a three day story…not really the same thing as Benghazi, Edwards marriage, …. the media likes to jump on a simple story like this not much work, very little thought and instant ratings. Racist governors or cheating governors …. they both sell papers and boost ratings.
“Corporate media looked at the ratings and decided Benghazi didn’t sell ”
It didn’t sell to their left-wing audience and they seem strangely content to let FOX have all of the right wing audience.
HRW, There are many facts in the Edwards story that confirm he was a “Cheating Governor”. Can you name a single fact in the rock story that would support your claim that Perry is a “Racist Governor”?
kbells
FOX corned the market so why fight it. Its like fighting Microsoft; there’s no point.
ricky
not talking about the truth here just what appeals to the market place. In a world where media and news is determined by the marketplace and not truth, importance or any other criteria, than cheating or racist governor will be reported. Blame capitalism for the state of news.
btw — I didn’t say he was a racist; really couldn’t care less about a rock I’m just talking about the media and choice of stories
Wandering Views 
On this thread yesterday, KBells asked abut the FCC selecting Columbia for its test area for the monitor program..
The Sixth Congressional District of South Carolina consists of the mostly rural area of southeastern South Carolina. It also contains Richland County in which Columbia is located.. The Representative from the Sixth District is James Clyburn.
I learned yesterday that the head of the FCC is the daughter of James Clyburn.
😯
I’m speculating here, but it’s logical to assume that there’s a reason for the selection of Columbia if your daddy is the representative from there.
Clyburn is a black man. If you oppose any of his liberal stances, you can be accused of racism.
As I said, I’m speculating here, but the logic of the facts falls into place now.
Misplaced Rave: The program has been put on hold for now.
LikeLike
We have the Wall Street Journal and FoxNews to thank for the demise of the FCC’s monitor program. I don’t know of anyone else payijng attention to this.
A negligant oor compliant press is all it takes to descend into dictatorship.
LikeLike
Possible correction” After examining the map again, I can’t tell if Columbia is on the edge of the sixth or second district. It’s on the edge. And any news from the Columbia media would affect the sixth, in any case.
LikeLike
I wonder if the other news organizations didn’t like it either but decided to sit back and let FOX and the Wall Street Journal take the heat. I can’t recall any of them defending it either.
LikeLike
Every Southern boy should be given a tour of the Shenandoah Valley to climb mountains, play golf, eat chicken and walk the battlefields where Stonewall Jackson worked miracles 152 years ago.
http://youtu.be/0k_Zq14pTio
LikeLike
In the last couple of years mainstream parties on the left and right have been struggling on how to regulate the media. In the past the media could be counted on to stay within a narrow band of opinion but that is no longer the case. In Canada, the Conservative gov’t instituted a code of ethnics and values on the public broadcaster which the opposition parties interpreted as a pledge of allegiance to the current gov’t. In the US, it appears something similar is being discussed. In both cases, I would argue bureaucrats aligned with political aides are trying to solve a “problem” (a more diverse and critical media) with heavy handed regulations. In both cases the chances of success are negligible.
LikeLike
And are the antithesis of freedom. We were wondering why the Washington Post wasn’t on this story until we remembered it’s now owned by Amazon.
The door is closing . . .
In other news, consider stalking up on canned goods. There will be few vegetables from California this year, and what will come will be expensive. 😦
LikeLike
An article in the Washington Times tells about how freedom of press has slid under Obama.
“The U.S. under President Obama, who once promised to run the “most transparent” administration in the country’s history, fell from 32nd to 46th in the 2014 World Press Freedom Index, a drop of 13 slots. The index, compiled by the press advocacy group Reporters Without Borders, analyzes 180 countries on criteria such as official abuse, media independence and infrastructure to determine how free journalists are to report.”
: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/11/press-freedom-suffers-under-obama-global-survey-fi/#ixzz2u4R9dYSS
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
It’s true that all administrations have tried to influence the press to their advantage. This is the first in my memory where they have used executive power to shut it down.
The “Fairness Doctrine” effectively did that until Reagan disposed it.
LikeLike
Make that stocking up . . . Apple spell check rides again!
LikeLike
Even in perverted England a man is not yet allowed to be the Queen. Putin probably had a hand in such a prohibition.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10654305/Men-banned-from-becoming-Queen-as-700-years-of-law-redrafted-ahead-of-gay-marriage.html
LikeLike
A study recently came out claiming that dog people tended to be Republicans and cat people Democrats. This may be true but I believe that cats and dogs themselves are opposite. So here are my top seven reasons dogs are Democrats and cats are Republicans.
7. Cats clean up after themselves. Dogs are messy. Be honest, did not some of those Occupy camps remind you of your yard after a dog got in your trash can?
6. Dogs bring you your own stuff in worse shape and expect you to to be grateful. “Here’s the ball/taxes you just threw out there. Aren’t you grateful for the chewed-up, slobber-covered/entitlements I ‘m giving you?” Cats are generous on their own terms with the fruits of their own labor. Has a dog ever given you a dead mouse for no reason?
5. Cats are more self sufficient than dogs. I can change the litter box, open a bag cat food and the toilet seat and leave my cat for days. She hardly notices I was gone. The dog can’t poop without my help. This makes me think a cat would own a small business and a dog would have a government job.
4. Dogs need constant affirmation. Asking the question, “Who’s a good doggie?” will get you a 15 minute conniption of joy. Cats don’t care what you think of them. Asking the question, “Who’s a good kitty?” might get you a half second tail twitch. A cat would never sue you for telling an anti-cat joke. They would just make fun of you on their blog.
3. Dogs are always in your business. You just look at a dog and they’re in your face wanting to know what you’re doing. Cats don’t like you in their business. Get in a cat’s face and you might need a band aid. Plus if a dog will work for the TSA (and some do), I’m betting they would work for the NSA.
2. Dogs use emotional manipulation. They will stare pitifully at you until you feel guilty and give them what they want. They might also run a political campaign about an imaginary “war on puppies”. Cats use logic. You finally figure if you give her what she wants she will get off your keyboard and you can finish what you were doing. Filibusters work.
1. But the number one reason cats are Republicans and dogs are Democrats. Cats are discriminating about what they eat. Dogs will swallow anything.
LikeLike
Look at that sweel little kitten again.
He/she is about to pounce on something. You can tell.
LikeLike
RW, good banjo pickin’ on that song.
Kbells, you are right! Cats are Republicans. Bosley even put two paws up when she saw the sign for a Republican senator in our yard. 🙂
LikeLike
A Confederate soldier saved the Union by mistaking Jackson for the enemy..
LikeLike
I think she is about to pounce on a bit of nonsensical progressive “logic”.
LikeLike
It is time to prepare your gardens. Grow your own veggies!
LikeLike
Chas …. check which countries are consistently on the top of the press freedom index; the Nordic social democratic countries. Perhaps Obama needs to move further to the left so you can enjoy the same press freedom.
LikeLike
I still like the idea of stalking canned veggies in the grocery store.
Can you get arrested for that?
LikeLike
Chas, Jackson’s home in Lexington, Va. is worth the visit. It is one of the few places where a person can buy a copy of Christ in the Camps.
LikeLike
The “judge” who brought perverted marriage to Virginia literally did not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
http://www.infowars.com/federal-judge-confuses-declaration-of-independence-with-constitution-in-court-ruling/
At some point you just have to laugh. Idiocracy was a funny movie. The decline of the US has its humorous moments.
LikeLike
I miss the days of the evening news at 5:30 and the local news at 6pm. In an hour you learned all you really needed to know and if you wanted someone’s opionion you read the Op Ed in the paper. I don’t want the newscasters inserting their opinion and trying to manipulate what I think of it. I want them to once again tell me what happened and let me make up my own mind.
LikeLike
Kim, I have been a Reaganite since I was nine (my parents voted for LBJ and later converted). After much study, I determined that ABC was the least liberal of the three networks and would watch the ABC Evening News each day at 5:30. I read National Review twice a month at the school library and saw Bill Buckley’s firing line on PBS.
LikeLike
Lol, time to prepare our gardens? I currently cannot FIND my garden. It’s under a few feet of some strange, cold, white substance.
LikeLike
So, HRW, are you saying that in one of these Nordic social democratic countries a journalist would be free to suggest that same-sex marriage was bad or that Immigration from Islamic countries should be limited or that Christians should be free to believe that non-Christians are going to hell or that abortion is murder?
LikeLike
Congratulations to Russia for hosting and winning the Olympic Games! There was good competition without obscenity and perversion. Here is one of their popular singers. Note that she performs fully clothed and sings songs with actual tunes.
LikeLike
yes. Political parties express these opinions in all of the Nordic countries and other high rated countries such as the Netherlands. From my reading, the Free Press Index seems to measure the ability of journalist to report events, government transparency, infrastructure, as well as expressing differing opinions. At a minimum in order to report on social conservative parties, reporters will mention these ideas you list. Moreover many of the right wing populist party leaders began their career as journalist before moving into politics.
By raising these specific questions, you are calling into the question the whole survey. In which case, the US rating may also be invalid.
LikeLike
The survey is blind to our MSM. (Yes, MSM, that gives you my prejudices.) Our media is so free that it doesn’t even have to cover news if it wants. It is free to cover or not to cover.
Examples? Compare the coverage by the MSM of two different events, Benghazi and Bridgegate. Both can take down a viable candidate for President in 2016.
LikeLike
The MSM (including FOX) are corporate entities and they report what makes their corporations happy, advertisers happy and draws the highest ratings. In both politics and media, local sells.
Benghazi was over “there” and once the event was done, it remained only interesting to families and some Republican strategist who saw an opportunity. However, like other embassy attacks in the past there’s nothing there. And there’s nothing interesting to the vast majority of Americans hence it doesn’t sell except to those who don’t like Clinton and there FOX plays to their audience.
I had to think a minute what you meant by Bridgegate. Unlike Benghazi, it had no significance in Canada as the story was local and hence its staying power in the US. To compound the problem for Christie, the local in question was the New York City urban area which is also the media capital area of the US. And as local (and national) journalist may have been personal affected by the resulting traffic problems, the story had even more legs. The only bias here is the masses preference for local news and journalists who don’t like friends, families, and themselves stuck in traffic.
As for not reported news, there are various websites set up to point out this problem both right and left. One of the best is project censored. Here’s their list of unreported and under reported stories in 2012-13.
http://www.projectcensored.org/category/top-25-censored-stories-from-2012-2013/
However, the free press index is not about what is or isn’t published but what is allowed to printed. The fact the American media fails to report stories has more to do with the pursuit of ratings — so blame capitalism if you must.
LikeLike
HRW, It is interesting that Fox does so much better in prime time than NBC. I think this is for the following reasons:
1. Liberals don’t have to go to MSNBC. They also have CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and NPR.
2. More conservatives than liberals watch the news.
3. Fox is better run than MSNBC. Maddow is smart. The other MSNBC hosts are third-rate.
LikeLike
There is indeed “something there” in that the request for securitty were ignored in the face of requests for protection (they hired local jihadists), and did not respond to requests for assistance. And after it happened, they repeatedly lied about the cause.
They lied regardless of the facts that were obvious at the time.
They could have gotten away with it except for the lies.
Neither Obama nor Hillary take the Muslim threat seriously.
Nor did Bush for that matter. But that doesn’t excuse those in power.
They should have learned something by now.
But that doesn’t have anything to do with the next election, does it?
LikeLike
I’m betting some networks spent more time covering Perry’s rock and Romney’s dog than they did Benghazi.
LikeLike
Ricky
There can be several reasons for MSNBC’s low ratings;
1. Most liberals like to think their ideas are fact based and would rather not pay attention to what they see as a shallow imitation of FOX.
2. Most hosts are indeed third rate — many thinking they need to simply provide a left wing imitation of right wing hosts they have no respect for don’t prepare ahead of time. Maddow is the exception, she’s prepared and knows her stuff.
3. FOX’s audience is older and older people watch TV whereas liberals are younger and they don’t watch “normal” television preferring to get their news on the net.
4. Old people watch news, young people don’t.
LikeLike
Chas and kbells — Corporate media looked at the ratings and decided Benghazi didn’t sell and instead reported on the Khardasians’ wedding. Have no idea about Perry’s rock or what that means, but a bridge and traffic jam due to political interference has a greater connection with people. Its local and its something that hits home with little thought.
LikeLike
HRW, You have a short memory. Last election we spent a great deal of time hearing from the MSM about the rock:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/rick-perry-contests-story-on-propertys-name-bearing-racial-slur/
LikeLike
Not a short memory; for the most part, I get my news from the CBC and the Globe and Mail and neither would care much for a Texas governor’s rock. After reading it here I did google it and found it was a three day story…not really the same thing as Benghazi, Edwards marriage, …. the media likes to jump on a simple story like this not much work, very little thought and instant ratings. Racist governors or cheating governors …. they both sell papers and boost ratings.
LikeLike
“Corporate media looked at the ratings and decided Benghazi didn’t sell ”
It didn’t sell to their left-wing audience and they seem strangely content to let FOX have all of the right wing audience.
LikeLike
HRW, There are many facts in the Edwards story that confirm he was a “Cheating Governor”. Can you name a single fact in the rock story that would support your claim that Perry is a “Racist Governor”?
LikeLike
kbells
FOX corned the market so why fight it. Its like fighting Microsoft; there’s no point.
ricky
not talking about the truth here just what appeals to the market place. In a world where media and news is determined by the marketplace and not truth, importance or any other criteria, than cheating or racist governor will be reported. Blame capitalism for the state of news.
btw — I didn’t say he was a racist; really couldn’t care less about a rock I’m just talking about the media and choice of stories
LikeLike