Jump to content
WCSBoard

Final Election Predictions


Nevada Convert

Recommended Posts

On 10/30/2024 at 8:24 PM, TSpoke said:

So you are saying they weren't going to endorse her before the billionaire owner stopped it? 

No, I am not. But fear of losing their license isn't the reason why.  

Multiple publications have endorsed Harris, including the New York Times. Clearly, they weren't afraid.

The trend for print publications not endorsing is growing. 

Print media is dying and they are starting to move to the center in hopes of gaining readership and subscriptions.  They don't want to alienate anymore readers. 

The LA Times had staff resignations and canceled subscriptions over not endorsing. They didn't reverse the decision. They, and other outlets, are going to have to change to survive. 

Hundreds of smaller newspapers and magazines have shut down.  Social media and podcasts have hurt the printed news market.  The news papers have to broaden their base of support if they want to grow. They can't get any farther left than they already are. They have to move towards the center, they can't pick sides, they have to at least create the illusion that they are an objective news source.

Besides that, freedom of the press is sacred. A president doesn't have the power to shut down a newspaper.  It would be tough, if not impossible,  for a president to shutdown a TV network, even though they are federally regulated.

You may recall the backlash the Obama administration received after an attempt to prevent our overseas troops from seeing Fox News at their oversea bases.

That got shutdown quickly.  

You don't F with freedom of speech or freedom of the press. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2024 at 10:17 PM, BSUTOP25 said:

Yea, I’m such a lefty. Lol

Let’s see how many lefty checks you mark off

-Drives Subaru with 267 bumper stickers: check

-Moved to a non California state from a more liberal state: check

-Hates Trump: check

-Ostracizes everyone that doesn’t have your dogmatic definition of some ideology (Idaho fry sauce superiority): check

You are so lefty dude. 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2024 at 6:16 AM, Madmartigan said:

Let’s see how many lefty checks you mark off

-Drives Subaru with 267 bumper stickers: check

-Moved to a non California state from a more liberal state: check

-Hates Trump: check

-Ostracizes everyone that doesn’t have your dogmatic definition of some ideology (Idaho fry sauce superiority): check

You are so lefty dude. 

My Subaru came free and attached to a COEXIST bumper sticker I bought. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2024 at 9:54 PM, Aslowhiteguy said:

No, I am not. But fear of losing their license isn't the reason why.  

Multiple publications have endorsed Harris, including the New York Times. Clearly, they weren't afraid.

The trend for print publications not endorsing is growing. 

Print media is dying and they are starting to move to the center in hopes of gaining readership and subscriptions.  They don't want to alienate anymore readers. 

The LA Times had staff resignations and canceled subscriptions over not endorsing. They didn't reverse the decision. They, and other outlets, are going to have to change to survive. 

Hundreds of smaller newspapers and magazines have shut down.  Social media and podcasts have hurt the printed news market.  The news papers have to broaden their base of support if they want to grow. They can't get any farther left than they already are. They have to move towards the center, they can't pick sides, they have to at least create the illusion that they are an objective news source.

Besides that, freedom of the press is sacred. A president doesn't have the power to shut down a newspaper.  It would be tough, if not impossible,  for a president to shutdown a TV network, even though they are federally regulated.

You may recall the backlash the Obama administration received after an attempt to prevent our overseas troops from seeing Fox News at their oversea bases.

That got shutdown quickly.  

You don't F with freedom of speech or freedom of the press. 

 

 

You obviously chose not to read the reports about the Times and WaPo owners reversing their Editorial Boards decision to endorse Kamela.

Keep sniffing the Orange glue. It works better than the regular stuff 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://abalegalfactcheck.com/articles/broadcast-news.html

On Oct. 11, President Donald Trump suggested that NBC invited a challenge to its broadcast license because of its reporting on his administration. “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!” Trump tweeted. The idea was roundly criticized and dismissed by legal experts as neither plausible nor legal. But on what grounds can a broadcast license be successfully challenged?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates U.S. interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable and grants licenses to local broadcast and radio stations and not their national networks. The agency has revoked few licenses for violations over its 83 years, and when it does it chiefly acts on such grounds as broadcasting obscene or indecent speech or “character qualifications” of owners.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2024 at 6:57 AM, Spaztecs said:

You obviously chose not to read the reports about the Times and WaPo owners reversing their Editorial Boards decision to endorse Kamela.

Keep sniffing the Orange glue. It works better than the regular stuff 

What is the point of having an Editorial board if they have to say or not say whatever the owner wants?  That's antithetic to free speech and freedom of the press.  I'd quit too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2024 at 8:54 PM, Aslowhiteguy said:

No, I am not. But fear of losing their license isn't the reason why.  

Multiple publications have endorsed Harris, including the New York Times. Clearly, they weren't afraid.

The trend for print publications not endorsing is growing. 

Print media is dying and they are starting to move to the center in hopes of gaining readership and subscriptions.  They don't want to alienate anymore readers. 

The LA Times had staff resignations and canceled subscriptions over not endorsing. They didn't reverse the decision. They, and other outlets, are going to have to change to survive. 

Hundreds of smaller newspapers and magazines have shut down.  Social media and podcasts have hurt the printed news market.  The news papers have to broaden their base of support if they want to grow. They can't get any farther left than they already are. They have to move towards the center, they can't pick sides, they have to at least create the illusion that they are an objective news source.

Besides that, freedom of the press is sacred. A president doesn't have the power to shut down a newspaper.  It would be tough, if not impossible,  for a president to shutdown a TV network, even though they are federally regulated.

You may recall the backlash the Obama administration received after an attempt to prevent our overseas troops from seeing Fox News at their oversea bases.

That got shutdown quickly.  

You don't F with freedom of speech or freedom of the press. 

 

 

maybe the first time we've ever agreed

news should be presented as free from bias as possible

why did papers ever "endorse" anyone?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2024 at 10:38 AM, renoskier said:

and who put the board in place?

I'm guessing the owner of the paper

You seem to be arguing for owners of media being able to suppress the free speech of the press?

You probably need to re-think that position.  Unless you want Oligarch/State Owned Media.  This is why we have the FCC that you-know-how has already said he wants to end.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2024 at 10:45 AM, InnZoneU said:

You seem to be arguing for owners of media being able to suppress the free speech of the press?

You probably need to re-think that position.  Unless you want Oligarch/State Owned Media.

 

"free speech of the press" means our government can't interfere

you're really naive if you believe that the owner of a media outlet doesn't have the right to determine the nature/bias/slant of the news it reports

that's literally their right of free speech

 

you think William Randolph Hearst didn't determine what or how his media empire reported the news?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2024 at 10:50 AM, renoskier said:

"free speech of the press" means our government can't interfere

you're really naive if you believe that the owner of a media outlet doesn't have the right to determine the nature/bias/slant of the news it reports

that's literally their right of free speech

 

you think William Randolph Hearst didn't determine what or how his media empire reported the news?

Then it's no longer news.  It's opinion.  This is why Fox had to claim they were not a 'news' network and just an 'opinion network'.  There is also a fine line involved now when owners of media are side-by-side with politicians, donating millions and billions to politicians and political parties.  Well that, and also being threatened with jail if they don't report what (insert person here) doesn't want them to report.

But hey.  I guess I'm never going to break you out of being happy about Oligarch/State owned media.  Rock on bro.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2024 at 12:50 PM, renoskier said:

"free speech of the press" means our government can't interfere

you're really naive if you believe that the owner of a media outlet doesn't have the right to determine the nature/bias/slant of the news it reports

that's literally their right of free speech

 

Editorial boards have always been subject to the leanings of ownership.  It's why individual papers have tended to have a bias when it comes to endorsements.  This is especially noticeable in towns with multiple dailies.  That was the case in both places I've lived - the Chicago Tribune and FW Star Telegram usually went right, while the Chicago Sun-Times and Dallas Morning News trended left.

 

On 10/31/2024 at 12:50 PM, renoskier said:

 

 

you think William Randolph Hearst didn't determine what or how his media empire reported the news?

He was famous for it.  The inventor of yellow journalism.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...