A serious conflict of interest.

Okay. So I was on my way home yesterday and heard on the news in my truck that our dear leader is considering another bailout. "WHAT?" I say to myself. And then I hear what our dear leader intends to bail out: News organizations. Even the most ardent Obama supporter should have some very large red flags coming up over this.
I searched the net and found this article among others:Government Has No Business Bailing Out Newspapers the People Don't Want - US News and World Report

The quote that reflects my thoughts closest is this:

Quote:

---

Second, direct government funding of newspapers would create a massive daily conflict of interest. "Today's news about the federal government is brought to you by our sponsor . . . the federal government." To many Americans, government-funded newspapers sound like a domestic echo of old Soviet state newspapers like Pravda.

---

For all of you who have supported Obama with all his hope filled and flowery speeches I have one question: Do you now regret it?
I could care less about what you think of Bushes leadership qualities so dont even consider bringing that into this discussion. The answer to the question should follow like this: "Yes" and the reason why or "no" and the reason why, and remember, Bush is no longer our President. No need to go down that route.
I will start a simple yes or no poll if you wish not to reveal yourself and I request that only those who voted for Obama vote but anyone is welcome to reply.

There are 2 aspects to this.

First: state sponsored media. Don't diss it just because of the soviets. Many western European countries have them, and they are fairly accurate and honest. It's the coexistence of state sponsored media and private news media that keeps them all honest, since they are not above a hatchet job if it is warranted. I am not saying the US -should- follow our example, just that the principal existence of state sponsored media is not inherently bad. They keep each other honest.

Second: the bail out. Not a good idea. For cultural reasons, bailing out news media in the US would be a bad idea, since they would 'owe' the government. There would be conflict of interest. Government news media only works if they are are just salaried workers in a company paid by the government, independent of of whatever political parties happen to make up the government. The only way I could see this workign is if they would buy the news company lock stock and barrel, and make sure it is then funded without regard for political orientation of the government. Then it would not be a bailout but an acquisition. But in the cultural context of the US it would be a hard thing to sell even then. Not because they idea itself is bad, but because of the cultural differences.

Did you vote Bruno ?

I love the conservative mindset. I'm not 100 percent pleased with everything that has transpired. But he inherited a big ole pile of poopy. I am very sure, however that his performance has and will outshine anything McCain and (I almost can't say her name with out laughing out loud) Palin. So... so far, given the bag of dog shite set of fire and put on the door step by the previous junta in power (see I didn't mention his name like you asked) I'm ok with his performance and don't regret voting for him.

:OTI like this sigline by the way Bruno!!

Quote:

---

There is plenty of room for all God's creatures.
Right next to the mashed potatoes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joscobo

I love the conservative mindset. I'm not 100 percent pleased with everything that has transpired. But he inherited a big ole pile of poopy. I am very sure, however that his performance has and will outshine anything McCain and (I almost can't say her name with out laughing out loud) Palin. So... so far, given the bag of dog shite set of fire and put on the door step by the previous junta in power (see I didn't mention his name like you asked) I'm ok with his performance and don't regret voting for him.

---

Maybe you are right and maybe not but doesn't the idea of the government putting news organizations in a position of owing them something chill you to the bone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Did you vote Bruno ?

---

Yes. I took the liberty of adding the poll option 'I didn't vote but I want to see the results'.

Otherwise, people who didn't vote will skew the results of those who did, since we would have to choose 'not certain'

Thanks for the addition to the poll Bruno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Maybe you are right and maybe not but doesn't the idea of the government putting news organizations in a position of owing them something chill you to the bone?

---

I agree that this situation is not ideal for democracy in the sense that the government could then misuse its power over said news organisations. Look at Berlusconi in Italy.

On the other hand: in my country we have an official television channel that is often rather critical of our government. Inasfar as I know there's little or no interference from the govt in the issues brought up by this channel.

So I do understand why you worry about this. But, tell me, why are you not concerned then with the influence of someone like Rupert Murdoch ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by decraew

I agree that this situation is not ideal for democracy in the sense that the government could then misuse its power over said news organisations. Look at Berlusconi in Italy.

On the other hand: in my country we have an official television channel that is often rather critical of our government. Inasfar as I know there's little or no interference from the govt in the issues brought up by this channel.

So I do understand why you worry about this. But, tell me, why are you not concerned then with the influence of someone like Rupert Murdoch ??

---

Rupert Murdoch does not wield the power of the US government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Rupert Murdoch does not wield the power of the US government.

---

No, true, but he owns a big share of US media and therefore he has a lot of power in shaping public opinion. AND he actually pushes his personal vision.

edit: I'm naturally distrustful of ANYONE or ANY ORGANISATION that wields too much power. Be it powerful individuals, governments, churches ... Can't help it really, something in my genetic make-up I guess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by decraew

No, true, but he owns a big share of US media and therefore he has a lot of power in shaping public opinion. AND he actually pushes his personal vision.

edit: I'm naturally distrustful of ANYONE or ANY ORGANISATION that wields too much power. Be it powerful individuals, governments, churches ... Can't help it really, something in my genetic make-up I guess

---

In that case you should be a US citizen!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Maybe you are right and maybe not but doesn't the idea of the government putting news organizations in a position of owing them something chill you to the bone?

---

I'm not sure given the all out blitz of coordinated conservative media outlets that all tow the same talking points that it's any different.

I think there is a larger danger of conservative media becoming the only source of coverage given it's naked slant toward to it's own confirmation bias. So in that respect, keeping other sources of news coverage afloat, be it government subsidy or not, is better than having too few voices in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joscobo

I'm not sure given the all out blitz of coordinated conservative media outlets that all tow the same talking points that it's any different.

I think there is a larger danger of conservative media becoming the only source of coverage given it's naked slant toward to it's own confirmation bias. So in that respect, keeping other sources of news coverage afloat, be it government subsidy or not, is better than having too few voices in the game.

---

With radio talk shows this is true but they do not recognize themselves as News outlets, only opinion outlets. Its the news outlets that are extremely biased that you have to watch out for. The Government on the other hand has the power to regulate these shows out of business while supporting their own brand of news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

In that case you should be a US citizen!

---

Hm, seems to me that although in the US there is a healthy mistrust of US government, there is NO such mistrust where it concerns the (organised) churches & media (unless of the so-called leftist media - which if we put in European context would be centre or centre-right).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

With radio talk shows this is true but they do not recognize themselves as News outlets, only opinion outlets. Its the news outlets that are extremely biased that you have to watch out for. The Government on the other hand has the power to regulate these shows out of business while supporting their own brand of news.

---

I don't see an ideal solution to the problem of our press become less than free. Radio talk shows certainly do set them selves as legitimate news sources. Fox News certainly espouses their legitimacy, while delivering nothing more than tabloid tactics and it's brand of the truth.

But CNN, Fox, the government loaning money to news papers in the hope of buying them time to make a new model for delivering content, all of these are symptoms of a bigger issue in this nation today. Namely Republican and Democrat are just too corrupt and the system is starting to sag under the weight of their transgressions.

I think if George Washington somehow came back to life and got educated on the state of politics in the government today, he would walk into the white house and the capitol building and start throwing over desks and ripping apart the place like jesus did the merchants in the temple.

I polled that I didnt vote, but want to see the results.

I agree with Bruno and JMS about the bail out. I do think theres a conflict of interest there.

But in terms of state sponsored papers, the Mirror here in the UK used to be a total Pravda sheet for the Labour Party, though it isnt any more.

And there are a fair few people on both sides of the political spectrum who believe that the BBC are under the governments thumb, on some stories anyway!

You're always going to get political control over the news, as the people who run the newscasters will be schmoozed by the politicians or will use their paper or whatever to publish their own political opinion.

But a great thread that raises some important issues about political control and conflict of interest!

Serious conflict of interest? Nahh. I mean, look at Italy. The main man, Silvio, runs the state media AND owns the private media. He has it all! I'm told it gets him a lot of young ladies.

Seriously though, a bailout of any industry could be seen as potential conflict of interest, no? I presume bailouts are reserved for industries of national importance to economic stability -- any organisation falling into that category would therefore be 'useful' if it owes its continuing existence to the state then.

Put it this way. Was it a potential conflict of interest to bail out the banks?

Hell yeah!

Conflict of Interest? For sure, But you won't see me going into shock over this. After all NBC news is owned by GE, the same company that makes lightbulbs and missiles and other war toys. Do you think that's a conflict of interest? Well if it is, and it does, Then maybe it will inspire (at least a dozen would be great) Americans to begin to "critically think" and obtain their news elsewhere. I don't regret Voting For Obama at all. When Conservative/Republican people slander, berate, and turn into Joseph McCarthy,for anything Obama does or doesn't do, I then love my decision even more.

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with voting for Obama? It's an opinion article written without any real evidence of legislation and Obama's name/administration is never mentioned. The closest thing I can find is this:

Quote:

---

A proposal in Pennsylvania to have the state bail out the Philadelphia Inquirer raised the obvious question: Once Gov. Ed Rendell rides like a knight to its rescue, who in the state would ever rely on the Inquirer again for tough scrutiny of Rendell?

---

If anything happens, it will probably be done at the state level at which point you should ask if you regret voting for your state's representatives. I'm very much against giving money to failing companies and the print industry needs to realize that times are changing. There are several suggestions about tax breaks, which I would probably support under the right arrangement. There is a paragraph explaining that somebody proposed letting newspapers operate as non-profits, which I disagree with.

I voted no.

EDIT: Johnny, NBC was actually just sold by GE to Comcast, which is even more scary and a completely different thread altogether.

EDIT2: Obama has only said that he'd be happy to look at any proposals. That's kind of his job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by commiecat

Johnny, NBC was actually just sold by GE to Comcast, which is even more scary and a completely different thread altogether.

---

Thanks for letting me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by decraew

But, tell me, why are you not concerned then with the influence of someone like Rupert Murdoch ??

---

Murdoch does not have a police force. Not even an unarmed one!

I didn’t vote for the present administration and I think most politicians are bad and all are liars. Last fall I heard how we were pulling troops out, now we are sending more in. Was this a lie or lack of knowledge of the situation? I don’t know.
I feel the president is given information each morning in his briefing that we as Americans are not capable of dealing with. I think he then has to make decisions based on this information. After that he has to justify this to the American people without giving any information that could cause panic. I do not envy anyone in this position. I respect him for having to do this.
As for the news media bail out and the auto makers, and health care, ect. This country was built on industry and failure. If you aren’t tough enough to run wit the pack, get out of the way, don’t stand there with you hand out. If it doesn’t kill you it will make you tougher.
When the present news media goes bankrupt, if there is a need, someone will fill the void. Just as when the auto makers have gone down over the years someone was there to fill the void.
I wish just once a political leader would stand up and say “America this is going to hurt. We are in bad shape. Everyone is going to have to nut up and get things back on track. No more free rides.”

Do not know if it's a last step to deep communism and marxism to have a goverment sponsored media in the USA. You guys should read all the media with certain criticism and not just take anything you see and hear as a truth or lie depended of the political color of the news company.

In most European countries there are goverment sponsored news media. They do not usually sing the goverment songs; they are just an alternative (and usually more reliable) than the media already linked to some political party or company.
I haven't seen any red flags here, but i can see the logos of those companies every day, party flags of various colors only before elections.

At the beginning of this thread I posted the following:

"Be careful what you say or someone may accuse you of spreading anti-Obama Rhetoric."

That was pretty much my entire post and yet someone felt that I was stating that if you say something anti-anyone that you may be censored, and then decided to removed my post because they do not understand a sarcastic American statement. I have never implied censorship before, nor did I at that time, and I don't think I'll be making that comment in the future either.

So in honor of free speech everywhere I'm posting my comment again:

Be careful what you say or someone may accuse you of spreading anti-Obama Rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DistortedPenguin

So in honor of free speech everywhere I'm posting my comment again:

Be careful what you say or someone may accuse you of spreading anti-Obama Rhetoric.

---

Free speech does not apply here and I asked you not to do that.
We try to be as fair as possible when moderating this place, and try not to look at what is said but how it is said.

Also that was not what you said. You said 'Be careful around here or you'll get accused of "Spamming a shave forum with an anti-Obama rhetoric". Because as we know there can be no dissent.


The reason I asked you not do post such things is that this is pretty much an accusation towards us that we will censor anti Obama sentiments, and this is patently not true.

Not only did you ignore my request not to post this, but you also twisted your words to appear the victim here.

Its my opinion that Obama, his administration and the elect are working in the shadows of the men behind the curtain.
Again, my opinion... "Meet the new boss... same as the old boss...", they are figureheads working for the world elite.

Call me crazy, but if you haven't heard of the Bilderberg Group, its worth doing a little research on. Basically the world's elite gets together to set agendas and discuss major events that are going to unfold in the coming year(s).
Naturally, the press doesn't cover any of it.

Remember when Obama and Hillary ditched the press and had that secret meeting prior to the DNC announcing the democratic candidate in 2008?
That was the same week that this was going on... its pretty simple math...

I have much to say about this, but that's as far as I think I'll go with my opinion of the current and past administrations for now, because it could spark a less than gentlemanly debate...

Anyway, I voted for Ron Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasBob

Murdoch does not have a police force. Not even an unarmed one!

---

People way underestimate the influence the news media has. You don't need a police force any more than you have to go into a bank with a gun to rob people. Many do it with a computer and a calculator.

many people have been utterly destroyed by exposees accussing them of all kinds of outrageous things splashed across the front pages and the writer hides behind freedom of the press and when the lies are revealed to be just that months later the paper prints a retraction on page 68 under the cell phone ad. Many people read their favorite paper and accept what the read as gospel.

As far as this post is concerned I have heard nothing about news media being bailed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

People way underestimate the influence the news media has.

---

And I am not one of them. It is BECAUSE of the influence the media has that it should not be a function of government.

That is why we have the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom from what you might ask -- Freedom from Government control is the answer. And why is this important? Because the government is permitted to back its actions with force, to the point of death.

I just want to say first off that I said no, just to get that out of the way.

That being said, I'm not at all pleased with the apparent lack of change. I realize that there is a lot on the plate and that change takes time, but I also know that were he to focus on any one issue he might have better luck. Things would have to get a lot worse for me to regret voting for him over McCain (whose son I went to high school with), but I do feel very let down.

Drew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasBob

And I am not one of them. It is BECAUSE of the influence the media has that it should not be a function of government.

---

I fully agree with this. I also fear that it may be too late.
Clear Channel has over 1000 radio stations throughout the US. That doesn't include print media or television.

If the conglomerate has any kind of special interest... such as, the CEO or someone on the board owns or has interest in something like... lets just say Eastern Airlines... are we to believe that these 1000 outlets are going to give unbiased reports on issues regarding Eastern?

Unwritten rules apply, but lead editors are not going to bite the hands that feed them... they would not run a story about shearing bolts or other faulty equipment that might hurt an interest of one of their top superiors. Thats just self-preservation.
And we know that publicly elected officials have private interests.

Here is an article about how Michael Powell (Gen. Colin Powell's son and appointed head of the FCC till 2005) worked out an unwritten deal with Clear Channel that benefitted both parties at the expense of the American public's access to independent, unbiased sources of news.

As long as that sort of corruption continues to happen, Americans will continue to sink further and further into a quagmire of ignorance and misinformation, the likes of which has 99% of American men shaving with overpriced plastic garbage razors. I realize that razors have little to do with government, but its a good example of why media is not to be trusted. Do you think any major news source would ever do an article on how great it is to shave with a DE or a straight razor?
Not as long as the threat of losing Gillette's advertising revenue looms over that prospect. But I digress.

The last line of defense for an informed nation is independent research.

In other words, we're screwed.

Uhm, why don't they just fold? If people aren't willing to pay money for the product they deliver I don't see why after the government owns them they'll all of a sudden have a huge influence. If their influence changes it will be because people like the new way the government runs them.

As far as whether the government should be giving them your and my money, well that's what the governments seem to have been doing for quite some time. And the vote for president doesn't do anything. The people who give away the money are the ones in the legislature. They tend to keep their jobs for way more than 4 or 8 years, so that tells me americans who vote actually like the way things are being done. Or like them enough not to bother looking for something else.