-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Odrion said:
Yes. It's elimination probably paved the way for Rush and his $400 million payday.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that, as of now, I really haven't seen this issue come up except from conservative news sites. Due purely to apathy until somebody sheds some more light on it, I'm inclined to believe that the implications are being blown out of proportion.Odrion said:
That is, until I get some objective analysis on it. Are there any links to Papa Bear discussing it in the No-Spin Zone?
pxleyes said:
Ok, but the way to fight that is not to regulate it and impose some sort of restrictive government standard on what is ok and what is not ok, the way you deal with it is providing new and different formats for your information, for example the reason the "old media" ABC, CBS, and NBC are dying, as well to a slightly lesser extent cable news (ignoring mostly entirely the print media) is because the internet can give you more information that you want faster.
And if you're STILL not happy you 1) don't have to watch that channel 2) don't have to have cable in the first place.
speculawyer
Member
The whole free speech area is difficult. And the way things are right now, I think it is kinda broken. I wouldn't want to bring back 'the fairness doctrine' but I do think the media has far too much power to outright lie and distort facts.
I think that there needs to be some kind of change to reduce the amount of disinformation floating around. Perhaps the standards for a public figure to file a libel/slander lawsuit should be reduced. News is extremely important to a democracy . . . but if the news is completely filled with lies and disinformation, there is no way that people can make intelligent voting decisions.
Basically, I think that intentionally false and misleading information spread about a public figure should be actionable. Thus if you say things like "McCain has a black baby" or "Obama is a Muslim", you should be liable. There is no excuse for such crap.
I think that there needs to be some kind of change to reduce the amount of disinformation floating around. Perhaps the standards for a public figure to file a libel/slander lawsuit should be reduced. News is extremely important to a democracy . . . but if the news is completely filled with lies and disinformation, there is no way that people can make intelligent voting decisions.
Basically, I think that intentionally false and misleading information spread about a public figure should be actionable. Thus if you say things like "McCain has a black baby" or "Obama is a Muslim", you should be liable. There is no excuse for such crap.
speculawyer said:
I dunno, the thing is, the Falwell v. Hustler case really kind of raised the bar for celebrities. Very few reasonable people could rationally believe that Obama is a secret Muslim for example, it just doesn't fit him (heck, his biggest controversy so far was with his CHRISTIAN PASTOR). It's pretty hard to believe that's defamatory when a relatively few kooks advocate it.
I will say though if that type of change came into effect it should be restricted to the original source of such a "rumor"/lie. I could see some sort of class action lawsuit against anyone who repeated a false claim and I'd say there are a lot of risks inherent with doing that.
maximum360
Member
Just one more hit job on Obama. Today, folks on Hardball saying Obama contradicting himself regarding troop withdrawal in Iraq. I heard the press conference and I read and heard the position he stated back early last year and I don't see it. Just because Obama said he wasn't an idiot and would talk to generals on the ground regarding month to month troop withdrawals with respect to looking at what's happening on the ground seems the responsible thing to do (though he did reiterate again the plan is still 16 months for full withdrawal).
The media pisses me off to no end. For once, be objective and call stuff when it needs to be done. Stop with the fabrications. This doesn't surprise me coming from Politico but it seems the Tribune has also jumped on board with this nonsense.
The media pisses me off to no end. For once, be objective and call stuff when it needs to be done. Stop with the fabrications. This doesn't surprise me coming from Politico but it seems the Tribune has also jumped on board with this nonsense.
siamesedreamer
Banned
siamesedreamer said:
I was going to preempt you on this as this is just media misreporting Obama's statements. He has not changed his Iraq stance at all.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/news_orgs_already_getting_it_w.php
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/07/obama_says_mccain_camp_mistate.php
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Mercury Fred said:
I agree with this post. I hate Hannity and Limbaugh but they have the right to dominant the air waves.
Elfforkusu
Member
Personally, I avoid network news because it's so awful. The dumbest internet boards on earth are every bit as informed and intelligent as most of what you see on CNN, for instance.
I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is quite the solution to the problem of the media's emphasis on entertainment/theater/controversy of news as opposed to the actual news, but I do think the evidence during its existance compared to how things have become without it argues rather strongly that it's better than nothing. Another thing to keep in mind is that the "5 o'clock news" is a remnant of the Fairness Doctrine -- there's nothing stopping that from disappearing or becoming a self-mockery in the next decade as well. In so far is that news is a public service, some outside intervention seems necessary. You wouldn't want a fire department in the business purely for the money, after all.
So there's the question of how you intervene, and whether or not the government should be involved. But I think to some extent government has to be, because who else has the authority to do the job? That doesn't mean you turn the news into parrots for some agenda (would that really be any worse than what we have?), but some set of rules established, and some sort of committee to enforce them... and hopefully something to make sure the committee stays in line as well. :lol
I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is quite the solution to the problem of the media's emphasis on entertainment/theater/controversy of news as opposed to the actual news, but I do think the evidence during its existance compared to how things have become without it argues rather strongly that it's better than nothing. Another thing to keep in mind is that the "5 o'clock news" is a remnant of the Fairness Doctrine -- there's nothing stopping that from disappearing or becoming a self-mockery in the next decade as well. In so far is that news is a public service, some outside intervention seems necessary. You wouldn't want a fire department in the business purely for the money, after all.
So there's the question of how you intervene, and whether or not the government should be involved. But I think to some extent government has to be, because who else has the authority to do the job? That doesn't mean you turn the news into parrots for some agenda (would that really be any worse than what we have?), but some set of rules established, and some sort of committee to enforce them... and hopefully something to make sure the committee stays in line as well. :lol
And while we're at it:syllogism said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxXxgpuNNPM
That's been his position since early 2007. Try to keep up, SD.
siamesedreamer
Banned
TPM and Axelrod?
Wow...y'all are hurting. Just look at his record the last couple weeks. He's flipped on just about everything. Iraq will be no different. Today was just a taste. Better to start getting it out there. Today was the perfect time with the long 4th weekend when nobody will be paying attention.
Wow...y'all are hurting. Just look at his record the last couple weeks. He's flipped on just about everything. Iraq will be no different. Today was just a taste. Better to start getting it out there. Today was the perfect time with the long 4th weekend when nobody will be paying attention.
siamesedreamer
Banned
maximum360
Member
Rachel and Joe: Fight!
Race for the Whitehouse is all kinds of pathetic today. The fact that Scarbs is taking top spot today assures pure right wing mind rot.
Race for the Whitehouse is all kinds of pathetic today. The fact that Scarbs is taking top spot today assures pure right wing mind rot.
siamesedreamer
Banned
thegreyfox
Member
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
My Position On FISA
Barack talks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html
Barack talks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html
Karma Kramer
Banned
Obama has got to start getting on the offensive soon otherwise I see this snowball turning into an avalanche.
speculawyer
Member
Well, Falwell v. Hustler basically said you can't get through intentional infliciton of emotion distress what you can't get from libel/slander. And that case was a clear parody . . . it even said "PARODY" at the bottom of the page.Gaborn said:
It is the landmark NY Times v. Sullivan case that I think may need to be scaled back a bit.
I think a lot of people really do believe he is a Muslim. And even if you don't believe, spreading something WITH THE INTENT of trying to get people to believe that when you know it is not true seems like it should be actionable to me. It is just ridiculous to have campaigns where everyone is allowed to lie like crazy. Perhaps this could be an exception for politicians running for office but you can still make up crazy shit about Hollywood people?
thegreyfox
Member
err server mess up. Sorry.
to finish up.
He did change a bit on Iraq. He just did it awhile ago. And it's funny to see everyone jump on Obama now.
to finish up.
He did change a bit on Iraq. He just did it awhile ago. And it's funny to see everyone jump on Obama now.
If anything, it just shows how eager the MSM is to pounce on him. A reiteration of his stance on Iraq gets turned into a flip-flop, when he's repeating what he's said for a year. His win in November will be all the more remarkable because this is the hill he has to climb.Karma Kramer said:
Karma Kramer
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
I agree with you, but that still doesn't change the fact that the past two weeks has molded Barack into being wishy washy and a typical politician.
Its getting bad.
Kitschkraft
Member
I agree with Karma on this, I'm getting very worried about this. I'm feeling as though the enthusiasm is dying a bit.
Damn, after all of the moaning I did...I'm now starting to believe it when Hillary supporters said she was helping Obama by staying in the race. Prolonging it may have wasted money and slightly divided the party for a moment, but the shit kept Obama looking fresh and new in the media.
It's probably just doom and gloom but whatever, I just feel that the McCain camp has the media in it's hands and it's like Obama isn't really doing anything to stop it. Maybe his primary team isn't what he needs at this point, I'm thinking that some general election changes might need to be made before all is said and done.
Damn, after all of the moaning I did...I'm now starting to believe it when Hillary supporters said she was helping Obama by staying in the race. Prolonging it may have wasted money and slightly divided the party for a moment, but the shit kept Obama looking fresh and new in the media.
It's probably just doom and gloom but whatever, I just feel that the McCain camp has the media in it's hands and it's like Obama isn't really doing anything to stop it. Maybe his primary team isn't what he needs at this point, I'm thinking that some general election changes might need to be made before all is said and done.
maximum360
Member
Karma Kramer said:
Agreed. I've been saying this for weeks. The McCain camps has been using the press to their advantage by directing the conversation for the last several weeks. So they end up playing offense while Obama is constantly on defense (and the press is all so eager to repeat republican talking points, falsities and all).
For instance, now McCain is pushing the Obama isn't trustworthy talking point. Obama should push back hard on McCain's hypocrisy and direct the narrative. (They did it once and it was a great for days for them and then it's been defense ever since.)
I think the problem is that he's not running a negative campaign, but not running it to a fault. Only responding to attacks instead of attacking. Until the numbers fall, there's no real reason to change.
Plus, the MSM has been playing to McCain's tune and sometimes there's not much you can do about that.
Plus, the MSM has been playing to McCain's tune and sometimes there's not much you can do about that.
User 10639
Member
So, I've been reading up on the FISA bill, and apparently it's a whole hell of a lot worse than I thought it was - less a compromise and more like "oh, let's give Bush what he wants so we don't look soft on violating the 4th amendment terror before the elections."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article659439.ece
Charlie Crist trying to rocket up the Veep boards! Getting married finally.
To a girlfriend of ..... nine months......surely this couldn't be a marriage of convenience?:lol
Charlie Crist trying to rocket up the Veep boards! Getting married finally.
To a girlfriend of ..... nine months......surely this couldn't be a marriage of convenience?:lol
Karma Kramer
Banned
Who does everyone think will be Obama's and McCain's VP choices?
Personally I think
Obama = Webb
McCain = Romney
Personally I think
Obama = Webb
McCain = Romney
Karma Kramer
Banned
I have a few things to ask of NeoGAF for the sake of a debate I am having with my mother.
What are the policies that McCain has flip-flopped on from 2000 to 2008?
And I need some article that sums up why offshore drilling is just a gimmick and will not lower gas prices. It needs to be from an un-biased source.
If anyone here could help that would be fantastic.
What are the policies that McCain has flip-flopped on from 2000 to 2008?
And I need some article that sums up why offshore drilling is just a gimmick and will not lower gas prices. It needs to be from an un-biased source.
If anyone here could help that would be fantastic.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Is there any evidence that he's gay, outside of transparent rumors and shit?
maximum360
Member
Webb seems more and more likely nowadays (but let's home his early comments on women in the military don't come back to bite him). Evan Bayh might also be a good pick (though I'm not too sure about his foreign policy credentials though he might bring his state along with him). Webb seems like he might have more of an appeal to the all too important "working class whites". This could be big in VA, PA, MI, OH and others.
- Status