• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

House Passes 1/6 Commission

Page 89 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Gearing up for yet another televised committee hearing to convince people of WHAT? That Donald Trump broke the law? To convince people how dangerous Trump is? Haven't we gone far beyond 9this "convincing" stage? How many times does a jury need convincing that a crook is a crook? I'm weary of televised hearings and endless lines of witnesses coming forward, I'm ready for action. I'm ready for accountability and justice and fuck this hearing after hearing after hearing nonsense. Hearings followed by no action gets old and boring and turns people off. I don't need weeks and months of hearings, the committee had me at "hello and welcome to our first hearing".
Either show me Trump in an orange jump suit, or fucking just forget it.
 
sportage said:
endless lines of witnesses coming forward, I'm ready for action.
I'm ready for accountability and justice and fuck this hearing after hearing after hearing nonsense.

Hearings followed by no action gets old and boring, and turns people off.
I don't need weeks and months of hearings, the committee had me at "hello and welcome to our first hearing".
Either show me Trump in an orange jump suit, or fucking just forget it.
Click to expand...
yeah, i was very engaged after watching one of the earlier Tues hearings live.
weeks later and still no action on charging the Orange idiot, i forgot to watch yesterday's prime time hearing on Trump's dereliction of his duty.
 
HomerJS said:
Shit, you are right. Seems SCOTUS has an antiquated definition of "broadcast" instead of the real IT definition.

If Congress can get that changed to broadcast being over the air and internet (networks) standards can be enforced.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with how things are now. The reason the FCC requires licenses for broadcast television is it's sent over communal airwaves - all operators are exposed to their transmissions no matter if they want to be or not. Cable is sent over private networks so you only deal with it if you want to and the FCC rightfully has very limited authority over private networks.

Fox News is a malign influence on our society but I think a regulatory answer is worse than the problem.
 
fskimospy said:
I actually agree with how things are now. The reason the FCC requires licenses for broadcast television is it's sent over communal airwaves - all operators are exposed to their transmissions no matter if they want to be or not. Cable is sent over private networks so you only deal with it if you want to and the FCC rightfully has very limited authority over private networks.

Fox News is a malign influence on our society but I think a regulatory answer is worse than the problem.
Click to expand...
So we just let propaganda and lies reign? Governments have made the same mistake in history. Haven't we learned from it?
 
HomerJS said:
So we just let propaganda and lies reign? Governments have made the same mistake in history. Haven't we learned from it?
Click to expand...

I don't like what they are saying, but govt interference here would infringe on 1A rights. More dangerous IMO.

It's a democracy, we all have that freedom, and the opposition needs to rely on winning ideological debates, not stifling them (esp because they feel like they are losing.)
 
HomerJS said:
So we just let propaganda and lies reign? Governments have made the same mistake in history. Haven't we learned from it?
Click to expand...

As others have said, there's a chance that wielding regulatory power to take down Fox News could be abused in the future to suppress the truth. As it stands, it'd be difficult to punish Fox for not covering something; you can't commit libel if you never discussed a story in the first place.

Right now, the best way to deal with Fox is to make its current approach unsustainable. Pressure advertisers for the worst offenders (Hannity et. al.) and push people to watch something else. I don't think we'll get to the point where providers are yanking the channel outright, as with OAN, but money talks — even Fox might change its tune if it's bleeding cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top