Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Could Cnn Not Air Any Aspect Of The Us Administration?

Media Politics Economics Human rights Government

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 30 January 2017 - 05:32 PM

Between now and 2020, would CNN be able to not cover any aspect of Trump's presidency - i.e. never reference the day to day, week to week and month to month events of the administration?



#2 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts

Posted 30 January 2017 - 06:13 PM

They would lose ratings, and advertising revenue, and they may go out of business if they tried.



#3 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 30 January 2017 - 06:30 PM

They would lose ratings, and advertising revenue, and they may go out of business if they tried.

I think they should do so, especially given the fact that Trump, his administration and right-wing politics in general deserve no air time.


Edited by Mariel33, 30 January 2017 - 06:32 PM.


#4 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts

Posted 30 January 2017 - 06:53 PM

I think they should do so, especially given the fact that Trump, his administration and right-wing politics in general deserve no air time.

If one is to be in the business of selling news, the audience ultimately decides what is worthy of coverage by tuning in.  I believe Trump's success was largely due to the fact that outrage by mostly liberal viewers drove the ratings that caused the media to give him more free press coverage.  Being a fiscal conservative, somewhat socially liberal with a libertarian bent, I didn't think much of Trump at all, and was somewhat bewildered by the amount of coverage he received so early in the election.  I blame NBC for giving him those  horrible "Apprentice" and "Celebrity Apprentice" programs that starting it all, and the celebrities that only now express their concerns when it is too late..  Now that he is the president, his actions are news, like it or not, and coverage is unavoidable in all reality.

 

We also should give air time to right wing and left wing politics regardless of our personal beliefs, and the issues should be discussed ( as calmly as possible).  We cannot defeat bad ideas by pretending that they don't exist.  We can also not win debates, or win over those who might disagree by hurling insults or fists, or by dismissing their concerns.  We cannot rise up by holding others down.



#5 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 30 January 2017 - 07:01 PM

If one is to be in the business of selling news, the audience ultimately decides what is worthy of coverage by tuning in.  I believe Trump's success was largely due to the fact that outrage by mostly liberal viewers drove the ratings that caused the media to give him more free press coverage.  Being a fiscal conservative, somewhat socially liberal with a libertarian bent, I didn't think much of Trump at all, and was somewhat bewildered by the amount of coverage he received so early in the election.  I blame NBC for giving him those  horrible "Apprentice" and "Celebrity Apprentice" programs that starting it all, and the celebrities that only now express their concerns when it is too late..  Now that he is the president, his actions are news, like it or not, and coverage is unavoidable in all reality.

 

We also should give air time to right wing and left wing politics regardless of our personal beliefs, and the issues should be discussed ( as calmly as possible).  We cannot defeat bad ideas by pretending that they don't exist.  We can also not win debates, or win over those who might disagree by hurling insults or fists, or by dismissing their concerns.  We cannot rise up by holding others down.

Some of what you say there is rational; it's just a shame that Trump and right-wing politics in general doesn't seem to be about the kind of tolerance and level-headedness you reference.

 

I suppose it is a self-defeating argument, inasmuch that news media being expected to not air right-wing politics is hypocritical due to news media being created by right-wing politics.


Edited by Mariel33, 30 January 2017 - 07:30 PM.


#6 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 08:10 AM

Some of what you say there is rational; it's just a shame that Trump and right-wing politics in general doesn't seem to be about the kind of tolerance and level-headedness you reference.

 

I suppose it is a self-defeating argument, inasmuch that news media being expected to not air right-wing politics is hypocritical due to news media being created by right-wing politics.

Intolerance does not cancel intolerance.  You cannot overcome intolerance by not reporting it.  Humanity needs to be aware of all of it's nature if it is to improve the condition of humanity



#7 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 09:34 AM

Intolerance does not cancel intolerance.  You cannot overcome intolerance by not reporting it.  Humanity needs to be aware of all of it's nature if it is to improve the condition of humanity

 

But isn't progress not having to report it in the first place, because it doesn't exist to be reported? If intolerance, violence and greed are being reported then that means humanity has already failed; people worldwide should live so that no acts of intolerance, violence and inequality need to be reported. Of course, this state can only be accomplished if nations and money don't exist.


Edited by Mariel33, 01 February 2017 - 09:34 AM.


#8 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 10:08 AM

But isn't progress not having to report it in the first place, because it doesn't exist to be reported? If intolerance, violence and greed are being reported then that means humanity has already failed; people worldwide should live so that no acts of intolerance, violence and inequality need to be reported. Of course, this state can only be accomplished if nations and money don't exist.

 

 

Consider human society to be an organism.   Growth and activity of organisms sometimes causes pain, and organisms have to overcome various obstacles to survive and thrive, so it has to learn from interactions with the environment, and it has to learn to maintain situational awareness of itself and it's surroundings.  That is why so many organisms develop senses. The sensory nervous system gives input to the brain so it can know what is going on.

 

The media acts as part of the sensory nervous system for society.  To further this analogy, imagine your knees hurt.  At first it's just a minor aching sensation, so you are aware that knees hurt, but you can still get about, and you ignore it.  As time goes by, your knees hurt more and more, and eventually the pain becomes severe.  At this point you decide you just want the pain to stop, so you turn to drugs to censor the pain signals being sent to you by your media.  Now you feel great!  You can move about unencumbered by any agonizing pain.  You feel free!  

 

Then one day the ligaments in your knees tear completely and you can no longer walk.



#9 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 11:48 AM

Consider human society to be an organism.   Growth and activity of organisms sometimes causes pain, and organisms have to overcome various obstacles to survive and thrive, so it has to learn from interactions with the environment, and it has to learn to maintain situational awareness of itself and it's surroundings.  That is why so many organisms develop senses. The sensory nervous system gives input to the brain so it can know what is going on.

 

The media acts as part of the sensory nervous system for society.  To further this analogy, imagine your knees hurt.  At first it's just a minor aching sensation, so you are aware that knees hurt, but you can still get about, and you ignore it.  As time goes by, your knees hurt more and more, and eventually the pain becomes severe.  At this point you decide you just want the pain to stop, so you turn to drugs to censor the pain signals being sent to you by your media.  Now you feel great!  You can move about unencumbered by any agonizing pain.  You feel free!  

 

Then one day the ligaments in your knees tear completely and you can no longer walk.

 

I respect how you've explained that. And yes, there is an innate logic to progress needing struggle.

However, how I look at the issue is the logic of uniformity: namely, if person A has to experience pain, then so must person B and C. In essence, what I believe is that any type of uniformity that needs to exist must be experienced by all. So if skyscrapers need to be built, all must build skyscrapers (something which of course wouldn't happen - which is precisely the immorality I'm concerned with).

If people have to live working manual labour, all must work the same manual labour, because of the rule of uniformity.

 

Of course, the task for intelligence is to determine what is the right type of uniformity. Because not all people can be millionaires for example, money has to cease. And because not all people can be refugees or soldiers, refugees and soldiers mustn't exist either.

 

What is an identity that all people can be?


Edited by Mariel33, 01 February 2017 - 11:51 AM.


#10 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15456 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 12:28 PM

I respect how you've explained that. And yes, there is an innate logic to progress needing struggle.
However, how I look at the issue is the logic of uniformity: namely, if person A has to experience pain, then so must person B and C. In essence, what I believe is that any type of uniformity that needs to exist must be experienced by all. So if skyscrapers need to be built, all must build skyscrapers (something which of course wouldn't happen - which is precisely the immorality I'm concerned with).
If people have to live working manual labour, all must work the same manual labour, because of the rule of uniformity.
 
Of course, the task for intelligence is to determine what is the right type of uniformity. Because not all people can be millionaires for example, money has to cease. And because not all people can be refugees or soldiers, refugees and soldiers mustn't exist either.
 
What is an identity that all people can be?


Our greatest human identity is in our individual uniqueness, not in our group uniformity.

As to the OP, not covering the presidency at all is a no starter. However, I think it would be keen if the Sunday morning political shows stopped inviting Kellyanne Conway and other Trumpzi minions to interviews. Boy would that stick in their craw! :rant: :lol:

Edited by Turtle, 01 February 2017 - 12:34 PM.


#11 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 02:37 PM

Our greatest human identity is in our individual uniqueness, not in our group uniformity.

As to the OP, not covering the presidency at all is a no starter. However, I think it would be keen if the Sunday morning political shows stopped inviting Kellyanne Conway and other Trumpzi minions to interviews. Boy would that stick in their craw! :rant: :lol:

 

Individual uniqueness sounds fair. That still leaves the fact of "multiple people" being soldiers and refugees, despite each of those people being unique.



#12 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 02:43 PM

I respect how you've explained that. And yes, there is an innate logic to progress needing struggle.

However, how I look at the issue is the logic of uniformity: namely, if person A has to experience pain, then so must person B and C. In essence, what I believe is that any type of uniformity that needs to exist must be experienced by all. So if skyscrapers need to be built, all must build skyscrapers (something which of course wouldn't happen - which is precisely the immorality I'm concerned with).

If people have to live working manual labour, all must work the same manual labour, because of the rule of uniformity.

 

Of course, the task for intelligence is to determine what is the right type of uniformity. Because not all people can be millionaires for example, money has to cease. And because not all people can be refugees or soldiers, refugees and soldiers mustn't exist either.

 

What is an identity that all people can be?

I hear something somewhat similar to that in my conversations with hard core Trumper's. "Yeah everything is screwed up, but at least he is changing things" We're not getting what we always got with him". Maybe that's true, but that doesn't mean that change is always for the good. The pilots who flew planes on 9/11 changed things too, but I think we can agree that didn't go too well.

 

What bothered me about the immigration lock-out was not that he did it, he said he was going to. What bothered me was, he could have said this plan will be implemented starting next month, next week, in a couple days anything but that very day. You had families who have just escaped the horrific war in Syria and turning them away because they didn't know it was coming. I believe the children in those family's have been through enough and America could have survived one more day of our usual immigration policy without ruining the country.

 

The one and ONLY thing I agree with Trump on, is his abhorrence of the media. I think it has turned completely skewed and is essentially free speech gone mad. I don't think it matters who is in office, they will continue to lead the American people and the world whichever direction they choose to dangle the carrot. And I see no way to ever stop, under Democratic rule at least.



#13 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 02:49 PM

I hear something somewhat similar to that in my conversations with hard core Trumper's. "Yeah everything is screwed up, but at least he is changing things" We're not getting what we always got with him". Maybe that's true, but that doesn't mean that change is always for the good. The pilots who flew planes on 9/11 changed things too, but I think we can agree that didn't go too well.

 

What bothered me about the immigration lock-out was not that he did it, he said he was going to. What bothered me was, he could have said this plan will be implemented starting next month, next week, in a couple days anything but that very day. You had families who have just escaped the horrific war in Syria and turning them away because they didn't know it was coming. I believe the children in those family's have been through enough and America could have survived one more day of our usual immigration policy without ruining the country.

 

The one and ONLY thing I agree with Trump on, is his abhorrence of the media. I think it has turned completely skewed and is essentially free speech gone mad. I don't think it matters who is in office, they will continue to lead the American people and the world whichever direction they choose to dangle the carrot. And I see no way to ever stop, under Democratic rule at least.

 

Trump's disdain for media would be admirable if it were consistent; for years, Trump has been a guest on Fox News - likely the most corrupt, unfair and partisan news network in history - and yet somehow people are supposed to take his disdain for CNN seriously.

 

I think the solution is one of two choices: either Trump stops attacking CNN, or he renounces his history of affiliation with Fox News, because then at least there'd be some consistency.



#14 billvon

billvon

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 04:02 PM

I hear something somewhat similar to that in my conversations with hard core Trumper's. "Yeah everything is screwed up, but at least he is changing things" We're not getting what we always got with him". Maybe that's true, but that doesn't mean that change is always for the good.

Agreed.  The attitude of most Trump supporters seems to be "government sucks, let's break it."

The one and ONLY thing I agree with Trump on, is his abhorrence of the media. I think it has turned completely skewed and is essentially free speech gone mad.

 

It is definitely "free speech gone mad" because anyone can now start a media outlet.  But that's good, not bad; we have more sources of information to choose from.  Sure, there are more skewed sources, both right wing and left wing, out there.  But there is also more good reporting going on, if you are willing to look for it.  Unfortunately, most people are not willing.


Edited by billvon, 01 February 2017 - 04:05 PM.


#15 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 05:03 PM

Agreed.  The attitude of most Trump supporters seems to be "government sucks, let's break it."

It is definitely "free speech gone mad" because anyone can now start a media outlet.  But that's good, not bad; we have more sources of information to choose from.  Sure, there are more skewed sources, both right wing and left wing, out there.  But there is also more good reporting going on, if you are willing to look for it.  Unfortunately, most people are not willing.

I would add that there is a need to be aware of and guard against confirmation bias https://www.theguard...as-social-media  Get your news from a variety of sources, and be ready to listen or read opinions different from your own.

 

Interestingly enough I only personally know 2, maybe 3 actual Trump supporters, and probably a hundred or more Trump voters.  I doubt the Trump voters will vote for him a second time.



#16 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15456 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 07:21 PM

Our greatest human identity is in our individual uniqueness, not in our group uniformity.

Individual uniqueness sounds fair. That still leaves the fact of "multiple people" being soldiers and refugees, despite each of those people being unique.

There you go saying inane things again. You earlier said this, which also seems to have nothing to do with the topic of CCN and Trump.

...
However, how I look at the issue is the logic of uniformity: namely, if person A has to experience pain, then so must person B and C. In essence, what I believe is that any type of uniformity that needs to exist must be experienced by all. So if skyscrapers need to be built, all must build skyscrapers (something which of course wouldn't happen - which is precisely the immorality I'm concerned with).
If people have to live working manual labour, all must work the same manual labour, because of the rule of uniformity.

Of course, the task for intelligence is to determine what is the right type of uniformity. Because not all people can be millionaires for example, money has to cease. And because not all people can be refugees or soldiers, refugees and soldiers mustn't exist either.

What is an identity that all people can be?

There is no such thing as a 'rule of uniformity', except perhaps in your confused and willy-nilly blatherings. Pure word salad and completely off topic to boot.Stop with the bollacks; it is unwelcome. :nono:

#17 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15456 posts

Posted 06 February 2017 - 06:01 PM

...
As to the OP, not covering the presidency at all is a no starter. However, I think it would be keen if the Sunday morning political shows stopped inviting Kellyanne Conway and other Trumpzi minions to interviews. Boy would that stick in their craw! :rant: :lol:


Called it! :lol:

‘We passed — those are the facts’: CNN publicly calls out Kellyanne Conway’s new lies about show invite



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Media, Politics, Economics, Human rights, Government