"I think at some point it's going to require a combination of regulation and standards within industries to get us back to the point where we at least recognise a common set of facts before we start arguing about what we should do about those facts." https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54910344 Will Joe make efforts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?
Online conspiracy theories are a result of mainstream media infested with one ideology. Perhaps ABC's David Muir can throw in some positive stories about the current administration. 1000 straight days of negative coverage. yeah, that will ruffle some feathers. If trump wasn't a dick, perhaps he would have got 85% negative coverage instead of 100, still bad.
The most important truth that has to be acknowledged. The average IQ of an African American is 85. This IQ deficiency is caused by a collection of genetic traits that have accumulated in the African American gene pool over tens of thousands of years. The trait/s is genetic. No quick fix. Amazingly this deficiency is acknowledged by African Americans - DC museum criticized for saying 'delayed gratification' and 'decision-making' are aspects of 'whiteness' - https://www.foxnews.com/us/dc-museum-graphic-whiteness-race The average intellectual deficiency of African Americans is systemic. Pick any school system that is predominately African American - https://www.baltimoresun.com/educat...0190827-f7bmkyju3vbo3odiiddzbhh5w4-story.html "Roughly one in five Baltimore third- through eighth-graders passed the English PARCC, up about 2 percentage points from last year when 17.5% scored proficient. In 10th-grade English, scores increased: 16% passed, compared to 13.8% a year ago."
Yet it's whitey falling for fake news. I'm not a fan of regulating speech, especially because Trump 2.0 would have said power as well, but I do agree it's a problem. Hispanics were targeted pretty hard this election. Boomers who buy into anything written on the internet will eventually die off, but my and younger generations will remain suseptible to more sophisticated stuff like deep fakes
The average IQ of an African American is 85. This is the outcome of a group of genes that African Americans have acquired over tens of thousands of years. We were all originally from Africa. Some groups left Africa. Some stayed. The groups that left encountered different environments that selected for a certain set of genes. Those that stayed in Africa developed a different set of genes. Africa Americans are the only group who have consistently not been able to overcome challenges in their environment. Why? Genetic. No matter what has been done to assist African Americans they fail to take advantage of the opportunities. The only way that African Americans make any progress is through quotas. It is consistently said through out academia and industry that African Americans lack the abilities to advance. Have you ever heard anyone, anywhere, say - "I sure wish we could find some more African Americans. They really know how to get things done.' I am not blaming Africa Americans for their gene pool. Africa Americans do possess special skill sets via their genes. They need to acknowledge this and build on the skills that manifest via their genes.
Trump sank himself. All he had to do was be a little bit normal, a tad actually presidential after his victory.
Did you ever do an IQ test lady? If you were higher than 85 it would be a miricle. You will be killed by your nurse one day.
When half the world thinks a faked "consensus" that man is causing warming means that there is scientific proof man made co2 is causing warming... how can we can't reach consensus? When Obama calls that science... How can a thinking person agree to a set of facts with him? --- here is what we need... 1. First prove the world is warming using a consistent data set. Not one that uses proxies and then switches to thermometers . Don't absurdly tell us he proxies don't work any more. Prove it. 2. Then prove to us we are warming outside natural variation. 3. The prove to us man made CO2 is doing it and not something else. All of this should be in peer reviewed papers... Otherwise tell us its a theory you strongly suspect is correct. Now we can have a discussion.
Tuksi Gabbard sponsored this. Only a democrat controlled Senate has a chance of passing this. H.R. 4401: Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act of 2019 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4401 Should a 1940s-to-1980s rule mandating more balanced media be reinstituted? Context Beginning in the earliest years of television, from 1949 to 1987, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required American television and radio broadcasters to present both sides — or all sides — of any political or social issue. It came to be nicknamed the Fairness Doctrine. The Reagan-era FCC eliminated this rule, which was never reinstituted in subsequent decades under either party. Supporters of the rule’s elimination argued it helped the First Amendment and free speech, by eliminating forced speech or advocacy towards all sides — including sides a station’s ownership or management may have disagreed with. On top of this, a subsequent Trump-era 2017 FCC decision loosened ownership restrictions on stations. In combination, these two decisions not only allowed given stations to present only one view, but for many stations nationwide — now more easily owned by the same conglomerate, such as the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group — to present the same view. Opponents say that the Fairness Doctrine resulted in more balanced and impartial media outlets, and that eliminating it led to the rise of polarized media outlets which now have license to only broadcast one side if they choose — which in turn has led to a far more polarized country and electorate. Indeed, the most prominent conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh debuted his national radio show a year later in 1988, while the most prominent conservative television network Fox News began less than a decade later in 1996. What the bill does The Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act would once again mandate television and radio broadcasters present both sides when discussing political or social issues, reinstituting the rule in place from 1949 to 1987. It was introduced in the House on September 19 as bill number H.R. 4401, by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI2), who’s also a Democratic presidential candidate. What supporters say Curiously, Rep. Gabbard appears to have said nothing publicly about the bill, virtually unheard of for coming from a lead sponsor of congressional legislation. She appears to have issued no press release, mentioned nothing about it on social media or interviews, nor brought it up at any presidential debate. Supporters argue that the doctrine allowed for a more robust public debate, and affected positive political change as a result, rather than allowing only the loudest voices or deepest pockets to win. “Nobody tells radio and television what to broadcast” specifically, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) — now a U.S. senator, then a congressman — told the New York Times in 1987 when the doctrine was originally repealed. ‘’Unlike the print media, broadcasters have a license, something no one else can have,’’ former Rep. Mike Synar (D-OK2) told the Times in that same article. ‘’With that license comes responsibility.’’ “News judgment will increasingly reflect a business orientation,” a separate Times article at the time quoted advocate Ralph Nader as saying — noting that “women’s rights, the health effects of smoking, and the safety of nuclear power plants would have come to far less public prominence had the fairness doctrine not been in effect.” What opponents say While opponents are generally thought of as Republicans, grateful for the repeal of a rule which allowed for the rise of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, even some free-speech supporting Democrats are opposed. “I think you will find the current Commission to be a great partner in the effort to ensure a free press, primarily by not intervening in the area,” Democrat-appointed FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly said in a speech at 2017 Media Institute Luncheon. “You are all likely familiar with the past, thankfully failed, attempts to insert the Commission as a watchdog to make sure news is being covered appropriately,” O’Rielly continued. “Though it should not have to be said, let me make it clear that the Commission currently has no role in regulating news content, and I would be opposed to any effort to give it that authority, via a resurrected Fairness Doctrine or other, more seemingly innocuous efforts.” “Count me in as a staunch defender of the First Amendment despite any drawbacks it may present. So you can rest assured that news content is safe from any potential FCC filter in the name of the public interest.” Odds of passage The bill has not yet attracted any House cosponsors. It awaits a potential vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Even if it were to pass the Democratic-controlled House, passage in the Republican-controlled Senate would be unlikely.
A person who sold 5 radio stations to a big company and then retired... told me he thought the same thing. Allowing the concentration of ownership was bad for so many reasons.