d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Dark Money
Prev123456Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 25,364
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 7,621.00
Oct 17 2018 03:58pm
Quote (ThatAlex @ Oct 17 2018 02:35pm)
I'm not overlooking it. In fact, I condemn it. And like I said, I'm also opposed to publicly-funded media in principle. I'm simply stating the results aren't surprising.


Publicly funded media isn't so bad if it tries to be objective when it comes to politics. I used to love PBS. I still think they have some amazing shows like Nature, Nova or some of the Brit dramas (i don't watch them but they are good quality imo). I got exposed to The Mclaughlin group on PBS and that show used to be top notch.

Same with BBC, I think BBC is globally recognized simply because it brought us such great documentaries like Planet Earth, Cosmos, Life et cetera. These types of shows really impacted my life for the positive and I don't have a problem with some pennies a year from my pay going to something like that. It's a net positive for the whole of society.

But I don't think a single person would argue here that this "Dark Money" documentary isn't biased. I think a publicly funded channel or radio should never try to interfere in politics. Instead, they should have an objective take on whatever is happening in the world, and this documentary blatantly casts one political party in a negative light, meanwhile, not discussing the same shit that's happening on the left. Goom is right, I watched Brooks and Shields before and although they make decent points and don't seem as biased as trash-tier platforms like CNN, but they are still leftish. That shouldn't be the case.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Oct 17 2018 04:00pm
Member
Posts: 45,867
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,189.49
Oct 17 2018 04:07pm
Well brooks and shields is particularly ridiculous since its between mark shields (neoliberal democrat) and david brooks (anti-trump neoconservative RINO)
even throughout the 2008-2016 span brooks was basically fellating Obama and then effectively endorsed Hillary.
He's a rather literal never-trumper, in that he actually wrote an op-ed entitled "No, Not Trump, Not Ever" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/no-not-trump-not-ever.html
That's their "conservative" voice. They're a great example of the media's absurdly disproportionate ideological representation. That whole thing where 95% of 'republicans' in the media are anti-Trump, but 95% of republicans in the country are pro-Trump.
Member
Posts: 12,379
Joined: Jul 14 2008
Gold: 2,620.00
Oct 17 2018 04:07pm
Quote (Goomshill @ 17 Oct 2018 16:50)
I'm just trying to imagine what it would look like if Trump funded a public entity that tasked itself with doxxing and publicizing the names and identities of Antifa, Black Lives Matter and other #Resist groups solely on their political affiliation and without due process of law and protocols of law enforcement. (No, mugshots ain't the same thing).


I mean, didn't he try to do something similar with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity? Doxxing someone is quite different than states having to publish their voting rolls to the federal government, but in principle it still involved tax payer-funded collection of personal private information. It's not surprising the commission was derailed by lawsuits.

Quote (ofthevoid @ 17 Oct 2018 16:58)
Publicly funded media isn't so bad if it tries to be objective when it comes to politics. I used to love PBS. I still think they have some amazing shows like Nature, Nova or some of the Brit dramas (i don't watch them but they are good quality imo). I got exposed to The Mclaughlin group on PBS and that show used to be top notch.

Same with BBC, I think BBC is globally recognized simply because it brought us such great documentaries like Planet Earth, Cosmos, Life et cetera. These types of shows really impacted my life for the positive and I don't have a problem with some pennies a year from my pay going to something like that. It's a net positive for the whole of society.

But I don't think a single person would argue here that this "Dark Money" documentary isn't biased. I think a publicly funded channel or radio should never try to interfere in politics. Instead, they should have an objective take on whatever is happening in the world, and this documentary blatantly casts one political party in a negative light, meanwhile, not discussing the same shit that's happening on the left. Goom is right, I watched Brooks and Shields before and although they make decent points and don't seem as biased as trash-tier platforms like CNN, but they are still leftish. That shouldn't be the case.


I also see the educational value in publicly funded media, but the catch is that it could always become too political. I think that's undoubtedly what we are observing happen with PBS over time, and I understand Conservatives' frustrations with it.
Member
Posts: 45,867
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,189.49
Oct 17 2018 04:11pm
Quote (ThatAlex @ Oct 17 2018 04:07pm)
I mean, didn't he try to do something similar with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity? Doxxing someone is quite different than states having to publish their voting rolls to the federal government, but in principle it still involved tax payer-funded collection of personal private information. It's not surprising the commission was derailed by lawsuits.


That's a stretch, considering voter registrations are actually public records, not private, and that information wasn't being publicized for doxxing anyone.
It came down to squabbling over the more detailed long forms with social security numbers that could actually be used to cross reference those databases with federal databases, and some silly scenarios where states were refusing to turn over to the federal government records that literally anyone could just apply to receive in their own capacity.
Member
Posts: 48,563
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 5,016.77
Oct 17 2018 04:14pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Oct 17 2018 03:00pm)
PBS isn't close to impartial like the BBC. Most of the time the just represent the polite neoliberal left. "


What is the neoliberal left? I see Trump supporters using that label all the time... and I don't know for sure what they mean by it.
Member
Posts: 48,563
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 5,016.77
Oct 17 2018 04:17pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Oct 17 2018 05:07pm)
That's their "conservative" voice. They're a great example of the media's absurdly disproportionate ideological representation. That whole thing where 95% of 'republicans' in the media are anti-Trump, but 95% of republicans in the country are pro-Trump.


Still better than CNN bringing on pro-Trump people who signed non-disparagement agreements. Lol.
Member
Posts: 45,867
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,189.49
Oct 17 2018 04:27pm
Quote (IceMage @ Oct 17 2018 04:14pm)
What is the neoliberal left? I see Trump supporters using that label all the time... and I don't know for sure what they mean by it.


neoliberalism, the third way democrats, the clintonistas, corporate democrats, etc. They are ideologically distinct from the progressive left;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
all political definitions are nebulous by nature, but neoliberals are generally defined by a social authoritarian streak, globalism and free trade, aggressive economic interventions by QE, bailouts, etc to exclusively use the carrot rather than stick against big banks and wall street, political pragmatism and so on so forth. Everything hurled at Hillary Clinton in the past 3 years gives a pretty good idea of what neoliberals are.
Member
Posts: 48,563
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 5,016.77
Oct 17 2018 05:03pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Oct 17 2018 05:27pm)
neoliberalism, the third way democrats, the clintonistas, corporate democrats, etc. They are ideologically distinct from the progressive left;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
all political definitions are nebulous by nature, but neoliberals are generally defined by a social authoritarian streak, globalism and free trade, aggressive economic interventions by QE, bailouts, etc to exclusively use the carrot rather than stick against big banks and wall street, political pragmatism and so on so forth. Everything hurled at Hillary Clinton in the past 3 years gives a pretty good idea of what neoliberals are.


I'll take the Bill Clinton third way over Trump and Pocahontas any day.
Member
Posts: 48,762
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 1.93
Oct 17 2018 05:05pm
Neoliberalism is garbage ideology, the right wing party ruining my country are neo liberals.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Oct 17 2018 05:25pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Oct 17 2018 04:49pm)
Was waiting for the false equivalence. A cell phone number of an already political candidate is a prank. Hundreds of names, addresses, and phone numbers with the express purpose of getting them fired is a completely different ball game.

Your posts have been pretty limp lately so I'm not the surprised.


Now your post ranking scale is phallic. You're too into those.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev123456Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll