Categories
Politics

fox news not real news?

Real or just faked opinion?

Should Fox news be allowed to give out bad opinions, allegedly? 

Because a lot of people want to know and soon, perhaps real soon after beck leaves Fox might not be as happy as they are now.
So what do you think, are they real or are they fake should they be shut down by the White-house?

Entertainment or hard news?

Ask your self this question the next time you see the camera pointing up the skirt of the girl on the set, which by the way is likely offensive to at least half the audience, in different ways.

Opinion or Trash?

You have to wonder sometimes, is it really all about the news or is it all about the personal opinions of

Is fox news not really the news at all? or is fox news deceptive entertainment?

Would Fox news be required to post conspicuous and obvious warnings that some of the news stories they generate may be considered deceptive by the new definitions that the FTC propose to initiate for the internet. The idea that only reporting a part of the facts surrounding a news story is quickly becoming an alleged issue for many news companies.

Is this not deceptive? When a news story breaks and only part of the facts are shown is this not deceptive to the consumer. Amazing, stuff is the news really been reduced to this kind of trash? Certainty, you can see this reflected in the other networks, like NBC, CBS, ABC, most of those are really really biased, (allegedly)    

 

Categories
Politics

Sarah Palin Emails

Does the tail wag the dog?

Where are all the liberals now?

 

Seems like all the news coverage did nothing and went no where.

When will be begin to see the liberals emails, that would produce a lot of scandals, or is that not of interest to the media?

Why should it matter about the Sarah Palin emails, and who really cares anyway?

This issue brings to light a lot of questions about the designs of a potentially biased and out of control liberal agenda that allegedly some people are very concerned with. One of the problems we face is that in many instances the media is taking only one side in the political structure of this country.

This creates a disparity and it creates a false sense of fact.

This is a problem for many reasons, the most important of which is that the media is in some cases deceiving the American public into believing a certain thing, when facts may not support that way of thinking.

It is disturbing because of the way the FTC is beginning to define commercials and what is consumed by the public, in some cases it might be viewed as a crime in the future, if an alleged biased media company publishes an opinion or if that news company engages in what could be considered deceptive speech then we might have a condition where censorship might be preferable to the obvious bias that has become a large part of what Americans have come to expect from the news.

When you consider the implications, that are present here you have to think seriously about what it means when a news organization takes an interest in only one party in this case the alleged biased media have show an interest in former Governor Sarah Palin’s emails, considering the issues of privacy attached here, when will see democrat emails being scrutinized, as seriously as Sarah Palin is now.

So, this really opens up the subject of how long it will be before all politicians are subject to having their emails read long after they are out of office and for what purpose would it be?

Why would it make a news story?

Unless there is some equal disclosure of democratic governors or other candidates that are running or might run for office, notice how there seems to be a lack of jurisdiction here.

Sarah Palin is no longer the Governor of Alaska, she is not running for any office, she is a private citizen.

So on what terms did this mass exposure of private material occur?

Could you be next, might you have at some point in your past had a private email discussion, did you have the right to expect you would have privacy?

Should we start to allow full disclosure of all public officials emails?

If not why not?

Because I am sure that the emails of democratic elected officials would be equally interesting to the media.

Should we not have access to all these emails of every elected official?

If not then why not and if why not then why Sarah Palin?

What makes her emails subject to the freedom of information act?

If Sarah Palin had no reasonable expectation of privacy then how can anyone have any expectation of privacy, should we now begin to stop using the internet, because it has been subjected to a double standard of jurisprudence prudence?

(yes, it is totally subjective and that is the object of this article)

I find it interesting here that we can disclose emails when its Sarah Palin but other public officials that perhaps are allegedly biased along with the media are not subject to those same standards.

I find it very interesting that the media thinks that so many people out there are not smart enough to figure this out, perhaps they will begin to take notice when the election of 2012 does not come out the way they think it will or more precisely the way they have hoped to influence the outcome of the election.

One thing remains clear, no one is being fooled.

Categories
Politics

FTC fairness doctrine for the internet?

Over the past three years, we have seen the constitution trampled on by every liberal in DC yet the media barely covers these miscreants, in their ivory towers. When will the media begin to report on these issues that effect all of the world…

Are we looking at yet another attempt to censor the free speech of the internet?

Is this yet another fairness doctrine attempt, this time in the name of protecting consumers online?

When we have blatantly deceptive commercial advertising on network TV Cable and Radio, that are deceptive yet are not enforced, what should the consuming public think of this?

What will happen in the future?

So what is the Fairness doctrine?

source wikipedia.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission’s view, honest, equitable and balanced. The 1949 Commission Report served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine since it had previously established two more forms of regulation onto broadcasters. These two duties were to provide adequate coverage to public issues and that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views.[1] The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates. The Fairness Doctrine imposed two rules for broadcasters: First it required broadcasters to provide controversial news and public affairs, and it required broadcasters to provide reasonable opportunities for the presentation of contrasting view points. The second rule required contingent access obligations on broadcasters to provide reply time to issue oriented citizens and editorialized on public issues. Broadcasters could trigger fairness Doctrine complaints without editorializing. Spectrum scarcity was the doctrines reason for being made. Because more people wanted to broadcast than available frequencies could accommodate, broadcasters’ public trustee obligations required regulatory clarification, the FCC reasoned. The commission required neither of the Fairness Doctrine’s obligations before 1949. Until then broadcasters had to satisfy only general “public interest” standards of the Communications Act.[2]

 

When will we learn as a people as a race of people that there are things in this world that are not fair.

That life is not fair, that sometimes, the lives of soldiers are required to insure the freedom of people.

Sometimes we see the things in this world and we want to do something to make it fair, but the fact is there is no fairness to life, there is not a guarantee, that people will be treated the same way the same time every time.

When a man tried to equalize the world what happens is that eventually the scale balance’s itself.

The fairness doctrine was a failure, back in 1949 and it was a failure in the 60s when they tried it, and it was a failure in the 1970s when they once again tried, it.

The fact is that the fairness doctrine will not work and it will not work for this case either.

The only way to be fair is to require it of everyone, if you require disclosure of one group you must require it of all groups.

 

It is time for politicians to tend to their own business and let us deal with ours.

Categories
Politics

FTC politics

Is the FTC making a political statement by trying to regulate the internet and hold internet advertisers to a different standard than broadcast television and cable providers.

We must apply equal protection under the law, it is after all the law or is that just an in-convenient truth that no one wants to talk about it appears that this administration has no real understanding of how our legal system works because they apparently have to be constantly reminded in court.

We have seen states rights challenged, and defeated.

They tried it in Arizona, they failed.

They are trying it in Wisconsin, and they will fail…

It is time to stop this unfair use of government to attempt to control every aspect of the lives of all Americans.

If you apply one set of rules to the internet and a separate, set of rules for broadcast television then you create unequal application of the law, which means that eventually you will end up in court attempting to argue, against the constitution.

Is this an attempt to institute the fairness doctrine all over again?

It failed back when they tried it in the past.

It has failed on every occasion, yet, they still try to push it out of the way, yet failure is the only future for this type of ignorance.

Make a statement about why using the FTC to engage in politics is wrong and it is not constitutional.

Tell the FTC to stay out of politics and focus on doing its job which is something that anyone can see is allegedly not happening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Politics

FTC in the wrong?

Is the FTC biting off more than it can chew in trying to regulate the internet,

Broadcast, TV, Cable TV, Subscriber lines, Radio, what will be next, free speech?

will you one day wake up to find that you can no longer express an opinion?

When good men do not stand up to the oppressive idea of ignorant fools how will we ever be free?

The same consumer protection laws that apply to commercial activities in other media apply online. The FTC Acts prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices encompasses Internet advertising, marketing and sales. In addition, many Commission rules and guides are not limited to any particular medium used to disseminate claims or advertising, and therefore, apply to online activi- ties.

Is the above statement accurate?

Seriously is the above statement really accurate, do the same consumer protection laws equally apply to commercial activities in other media online.

The day that broadcast commercials apply the same disclosure statements, that the FTC proposes for internet advertisements will be the day that they have got it right…

The problem is that there are two sets of rules, one for broadcast television commercials and a second one that they allegedly wish to oppress the internet with.

Will this end up being a method to create the “fairness doctrine for the internet”

Do yourself a favor, read and comment on the disclosure proposals for online advertising.

will we find the truth or will we end up loosing our freedom to speak out loud.

from dot com disclosures.

Disclosures that are required to prevent an ad from being misleading

The problem here is this, until the same protection is applied to broadcast television then this is not constitutional.

So, when will be see equal protection for broadcast Television?

To make a disclosure clear and conspicuous, advertisers should:

  • Place disclosures near, and when possible, on the same screen as the trigger-ing claim.
  • Use text or visual cues to encourage consumers to scroll down a Web page when it is necessary to view a disclosure.

When using hyperlinks to lead to disclosures,

?    make the link obvious;

?    label the hyperlink appropriately to convey the importance, nature and
relevance of the information it leads to;

?    use hyperlink styles consistently so that consumers know when a link is
available;

 

Categories
Politics

progressive politics

Well apparently the idea of unequal protection, is not a problem in Washington as the FTC mulls the idea of creating guides that only would allegedly be enforced on the internet creating an unequal burden on advertisers who advertise online as opposed to broadcast advertising.

This would create a chilling effect on the NASDAQ and the internet for many small business owners who have just now begun to advertise online.

Stop playing politics with the lives of Americans.

Stop playing politics with small business.

Stop playing politics with policies that are not equally protective of
all consumers.

Un Equal protection, under the law is that the way that Washington prefers to do things these days?

You just have to scratch your head and wonder about all the strange goings on in the minds of those odd people.

Source Cnet

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday detailed plans for its so-called “third way” to reclassify broadband service as a telecommunications service, which would help the agency reassert its authority for regulating the Internet, after it lost an important legal battle last month.

The purpose of the statement is to put the agency on stronger legal footing after a federal appeals court ruled last year

that the FCC had no legal authority to punish Comcast for slowing down BitTorrent traffic on its network. The FCC officially censured Comcast for violating its Net neutrality principles.

The court decision has called into question the FCC’s authority for any regulation of the Internet, especially new regulation the agency is forming to deal with Net neutrality–the broad question of whether rules are needed to prevent lopsided treatment for certain Web sites or types of Internet traffic. The chairman’s statement, which asks for input from the public and the industry in determining how traffic should be reclassified, is a step toward making the FCC’s legal status in regulating broadband services more certain.

 

There are a lot of other things that could be much more important than trying to take control over the internet one has to question the intent of that issue.

So what is going on with this new attempt to apply a different set of rules for online advertisers than they do for off line advertisers?