Yes, Trump can sink even lower than denying the death toll in Puerto Rico

Guno צְבִי

Guno צְבִי

We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
And his white trash, uneducated, dead end, loser base thinks he is great



The most recent example? His completely made-up claim that the nearly 3,000 deaths in Puerto Rico caused by Hurricane Maria were, in essence, "fake news." First, President Trump tweeted on Thursday that, "3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico."
Trump then added moments later, in part two of this tweet, "This was done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible.


Well, as fact checkers swiftly noted, Trump was lying. Democrats didn't come up with the death toll. The estimate that 2,975 died as a result of Hurricane Maria was based on a study commissioned by the government of Puerto Rico and conducted by researchers at The George Washington University.
But the fact that this study was methodically conducted by a neutral party didn't stop Trump from again taking to Twitter on Friday night to declare the death toll wrong, without presenting even one shred of evidence to support his contention. Perhaps Trump believes that if the death toll is that high it will hurt him politically, so he will lie, deflect and do anything else he needs to do to undermine the findings of the nonpartisan study.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/opinions/trump-sinks-lower-puerto-rico-obeidallah/index.html
 
Don makes it difficult for the aristocracy to maintain the illusion of "democratic representation" and that capitalism is societally beneficial for all. America was designed to be ruled by the propertied slaver class. Any democratic space ever opened up in this society was achieved through the blood of the oppressed.
 
evince said:
fox "news" needs to die


fox lies to these low information voters
Click to expand...

No, that will never be enough, your entire media/"informational" machine is entirely in corporate hands, it will never serve the people. And Clinton did that via deregulation of the FCC. The 50 some odd companies in that space back in the 1980s got monopolied into the hands of 6 multinational corporations. You will note they are all inevitably pro war and slaughter.
 
the fairness act

and yes the media is corporate

only idiots think corporations are automatically evil

keep wearing your idiot hat
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Don makes it difficult for the aristocracy to maintain the illusion of "democratic representation" and that capitalism is societally beneficial for all. America was designed to be ruled by the propertied slaver class. Any democratic space ever opened up in this society was achieved through the blood of the oppressed.
Click to expand...

how did people aquire land back when the founders designed the nation?

by taking it and working it


that is why it was land owners only vote


they were trying to encourage people to increase the lands value


if people were allowed to just inhabit land to be a land owner now what would it be like?
 
there is NO successful nation on this earth that does not employ capitalism to some extent

proper fettering makes capitalism the best system man ever invented


it repays hard work

it hold on high the power of a better idea


it keeps the money from clustering in too few hands


when you trash capitalism Putin giggles like an anime school girl
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine


The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
The fairness doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.
 
1949?


why then did America decide to hold its news stations to certain standards?

WWII

they saw what Hilters propaganda did to the german people


then why did the fairness dictorine end?
 
evince said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine


The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
The fairness doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.
Click to expand...

These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevi...n-americas-news-media-companies/#36038708660a

Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...trol-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
 
Revocation[edit]
Basic doctrine[edit]
In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In 1986, the 99th Congress directed the FCC to examine alternatives to the Fairness Doctrine and to submit a report to Congress on the subject.[16]
In August 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the Court stated in their decision that they made "that determination without reaching the constitutional issue."[17] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:
“
The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.
”
At the 4-0 vote, Chairman Patrick said,
“
We seek to extend to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print media have enjoyed since our country's inception.[18]
”
Sitting commissioners at the time of the vote were:[19][20]
Dennis R. Patrick, Chairman, Republican
(Named a FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1983)
Mimi Weyforth Dawson, Republican
(Named a FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1986)
Patricia Diaz Dennis, Democrat
(Named a FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1986)
James H. Quello, Democrat
(Named a FCC commissioner by Richard M. Nixon in 1974)
The FCC vote was opposed by members of Congress who said the FCC had tried to "flout the will of Congress" and the decision was "wrongheaded, misguided and illogical.".[21] The decision drew political fire and tangling, where cooperation with Congress was at issue.[22] In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine,[23] but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.[24]
Fowler said in February 2009 that his work toward revoking the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan Administration had been a matter of principle (his belief that the Doctrine impinged upon the First Amendment), not partisanship. Fowler described the White House staff raising concerns, at a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the Big Three television networks and PBS in political discourse, that repealing the policy would be politically unwise. He described the staff's position as saying to Reagan:
“
The only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks—every day they would savage Ronald Reagan—is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it![25]
”
Instead, Reagan supported the effort and later vetoed the Democratic-controlled Congress's effort to make the doctrine law.[citation needed]
 
Nixon and Ailes had this idea when they were in government


then they found a way to make it happen
 
evince said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine


The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
The fairness doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.
Click to expand...

1949?


why then did America decide to hold its news stations to certain standards?

WWII

they saw what Hilters propaganda did to the german people


then why did the fairness dictorine end?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top