You are apparently unaware of the salient line from Book One of A Song of Ice and Fire.
5 Likes
I disagree. Though, in reality, journalism always carries a certain amount of bias, it is imperative that journalism honor impartiality so as to maintain credibility as a check to the powers of the state, private enterprise, religious intstitutions, etc. outright censorship of duly-appointed party representatives (however repugnant their ideas and manner), erodes the foundation of trust imperative to a functional free press.
Think of the immediate consequences: both sides are having their forgone conclusions validated; one side believing that their candidate is the only truthful one while the other that the press is set against their candidate and unscrupulous in their reporting.
I fully agree that Lauer tanked, but not because he is a representative of the press at large. He blew it because he didn’t call Trump on his bald-faced lies when given ample opportunity. I like some of the previous commentors ideas about having a fact-check ticker running that pulls relevant and substantiated facts up in real-time and grades them a la WaPo’s Fact Checker. Maybe as a companion app to the broadcast like MLB or NFL’s real-time stat trackers.
There is a reason that opinion pieces are consigned to the editorial section.
If a network were inclined to do this (and it is a really stupid, bad, dangerous idea as has been pointed out by nearly every commenter here), why would they need a 10 minute delay. First of all, we already know most of the lies Trump is going to throw out there. He keeps repeating them over and over and over. They’ve been fact checked to death already. Second, on the off chance that he tells a new one, it will almost certainly be so outrageous that it will take all of 2 minutes at most to fact check. Third, we also know what lies Clinton is likely to say (although hers will be lies of spin, exaggeration, and obfuscation rather than the pants on fire variety), because she also keeps repeating them over, and over, and over. Maybe, if she tells a new one, it might take 10 minutes to fact check, but I doubt it. Her record and career have been documented to death. (full disclosure: I’m one of those who actually enthusiastically supports Clinton)
Ernestocracy.
ETA:
Jim Varney, the guy who played Ernest, died young (age 51 in 2000). That I knew. What I didn’t know was how handsome a gent he was:
Bonus trivia: he was the voice of Toy Story’s Slinky the Dog.
10 Likes
“Democracy” will never “give” anyone anything. It is the people’s (demos) power or will (kratia) that appoints their leaders. You may as well say “fuck the people”. At times like this I have to admit a bitter resentment to the fungible sensibilities of the electorate, but there really is no other option. Democracy is the only system that allows for the evolution of humankind, expressed in their written laws. It is an American tradition that far predates America itself.
1 Like
This is so stupid it defies belief. Let’s skip past freedom of speech which apparently Docotrow feels only appliesto left wing people.
I’m a pimp (headhunter) , I find smart people, let me share that no one is even vaguely smart enough to do this.
To operate in any useful timesecale, they must have everything that Trump and Clinton have ever said or done in their heads with 100% precision. Or maybe you think they should google it or look it up on Wikipedia ?
They must be so smart that they know what someone meant, the context in which they meant it and whether they really said it. They must understand whether someone was in error or lying.
How do you tell when someone makes a mistake or is lying ?
Both candidates have said and done many things over 50 active years each reckon you can learn all that ?
If so, you’re waaay smarter than me. Or any other human.
Here’s a tip Captain Spock and Lt. Data are not real so non-humans ain’t much help.
This superhuman Brainiac (also not a real person), must be able to parse with 100% accuracy satements like:
“I was against the war”
“I was against wars like this”
“we were against the war”
“I cam to realise that the war was wrong”
What if (heaven forbid) the candidate says …“that war…”.
There has been more than one war (trust me on this or check on Wikipedia) and “that” can be horribly ambiguous.
The example shows the shallowness of thinking.
For instance I personally have been for things,spoken for them, then changed my mind.
According to Doctoow if I said “I was against X” I am a liar, rather than a normal person who updates his world view when given new facts. Maybe Trump changed his mind, maybe he’s lying, maybe he was against it then but lied because a lot of people were against the war but supported it to keep in with the right people.
So you don’t know he lied, maybe he did.
Surely I don’t have to explain the idea of saying you support something you don’t to a left wing writer ?
What if the fact checker make a mistake ?
What if like the writers of this bogus article, they are so biased than they only look for lies from one side.
note how the picture for this shows Trup as a liar, when Clinton’s relationship with the truth is as frosty as with her philandering husband.
I had no idea
3 Likes
I think you’re getting the alternatives confused; we have a turd sandwich and a giant douche.
2 Likes
I must admit, I am curious to how the debates will go, as Hillary is one of the most thorough preparers out there, and Don has well, issues when it comes to women. I have a feeling he’s going to get all soft and cowardly when face to face, and she is going to get in his headspace early on.
2 Likes
We just had an Ernest love vest (that was a typo at first but I decided to leave it) a few weeks ago.
Not only was he a talented entertainer, but a great guy.
1 Like
Even if every voter had the time and resources to do so, most people are nowhere near as good at fact-checking as they think they are.
5 Likes
[CITATION-NEEDED]
8 Likes
Just take the Joe Isuzu approach…
3 Likes
The idea itself is sound. The problem is, as you put forward, what gets decided as truth is basically whoever is housing the platform that gets to time delay… which is anything but fair unbiased or impartial currently.
Personally I think Keith Olbermann has the right idea. Just list all the outrageous things Trump has said or done during the election campaign. You’ll need to set aside about 20 minutes to hear the whole thing.
4 Likes
Is this idea really censorship? really? They routinely declined to cover Bernie Sanders’ campaign, and no one important seemed to care.
Hell, it wouldn’t have to be a major broadcaster doing it, I would totally watch the youtube channel that did this after the fact, tape delay be damned. Anything to make this shitshow more watchable than it is now.
2 Likes
I could get behind that.
1 Like
Completely pointless. Do doubt Drumpf supporters will see this as verification that the media is out to get Trump.
Anyone who cares that Trump is lying again is already voting for somebody else or staying home.
The only people voting for Trump are those who don’t care about his lying because it makes them feel good, and those who don’t care because they’ll support anyone and anything so long as the “right” team wins.
5 Likes
