dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
740
share rss forum feed

ptbarnett

join:2002-09-30
Lewisville, TX

1 recommendation

It's their right.

Comcast and NBC are a private company. They have the right to choose what they broadcast.

However, one should remember their actions when viewing their purported "neutral" coverage of related issues.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by ptbarnett:

Comcast and NBC are a private company. They have the right to choose what they broadcast.

And in fact, live under tighter restrictions (FCC, FTC, etc.) on what they may publicly display then any individual, and most other businesses.
They are constantly admonished for failing to be MORE diligent in their restriction in the broadcast of actual events like nipple slips and violent crime scenes and should be at least as strict in ads and dramatic content over which they have full control.

ptbarnett

join:2002-09-30
Lewisville, TX

1 recommendation

said by tshirt:

They are constantly admonished for failing to be MORE diligent in their restriction in the broadcast of actual events like nipple slips and violent crime scenes and should be at least as strict in ads and dramatic content over which they have full control.

I not aware of the FTC or FCC asking NBC/Comcast to not broadcast commercials for firearms or sellers of firearms.... at least not yet. This is NBC's decision, and the responsibility is solely theirs.

But, one has to wonder why they aren't applying their standard for advertising to the dramatic content they control -- either directly or indirectly.

[Yes, that's a rhetorical question]


jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI
reply to ptbarnett
said by ptbarnett:

Comcast and NBC are a private company. They have the right to choose what they broadcast.

This is entirely true.

Likewise I have the right to chose with whom I'll do business. For my Internet connectivity I have little choice, but, where video content is concerned: I have lots of choice. I have no subscription TV, but, were I to consider it, Comcast has removed themselves utterly and completely from any possible future consideration, with this move.

said by ptbarnett:

However, one should remember their actions when viewing their purported "neutral" coverage of related issues.

NBC is best-known, by some of us, as the media giant that makes stuff up. They did it years ago with the exploding truck fiasco. They did it more recently, but I don't recall the incident atm. (ISTR it involved some "artful" editing of some video footage, resulting in the segment appearing to be something completely other than what it really was.)

Comcast says they're doing this because it was NBC's policy. But it was Comcast acquired NBC, not the other way around. So Comcast's explanation is a bit disingenuous, in my view. Given NBC's past: It looks like they and Comcast will get along swimmingly.

Either way: Yes, both NBC (the initials of which many of us feel stands for Nothing But Crap) and Comcast (to whom many refer as "Comcrap" - coincidence?) have made it clear they are most definitely not to be trusted as fair, balanced or impartial media sources.

In short: Neither has any credibility, in my view.

Jim


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

1 recommendation

reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:

And in fact, live under tighter restrictions (FCC, FTC, etc.) on what they may publicly display then any individual, and most other businesses.

But they are also using airwaves granted by the federal government for ultimate use by the people. The FCC already requires licensees to not discriminate in signing advertising content contracts, particularly to prevent requirements such as "no urban" or "no spanish" requirements.

Comcast and NBC are private companies. And I'm generally in favor of government staying out of telling businesses how to operate. However the government (both federal and local) have granted them a defacto monopoly or at least oligopoly both for the cable system as well as NBC. With that might come some responsibility for airing of commercials that they don't agree with, but are for legal and legitimate businesses.


michieru
Premium
join:2009-07-25
Miami, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
Don't let the government touch anything else. We can't even trust them to do a task that a couple of 4th graders could do better. As far as advertisement goes they will just lose money and piss off a few customers and lose even more money.

The way they tell people to go screw themselves is by buying the company that allowed such advertisements and because it fits the political agenda it will slide right through.

Then when you decide to cancel your service the company will cry and complain that they will need to lay off a couple of employees due to bad sales and the government hands them a check with money that they pulled from your income for a bailout or to save jobs and it would look good on them and so will the company.

Since companies now are considered as people they can be on welfare too!


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to ptbarnett
said by ptbarnett:

I not aware of the FTC or FCC asking NBC/Comcast to not broadcast commercials for firearms or sellers of firearms...

I did not say that.
I said they are expected to edit/avoid imagery that conflicts with social/religious/morality stances that our leadership claims are important.
(an unnaturally high percentage of religious, and political leaders seem to get caught violating these same issues as compared to the general population)

Gun control happens to be the current hot button issue, hence the broadcasters new standards (something like the emperors new clothes )

IMHO
Any gun advocate who doesn't see a problem with the current lack of EFFECTIVE gun control, or who continues to bluster ahead as the NRA does, is doing responsibly gun owners a disservice which will likely lead to even greater (and possibly less sensible) regulations.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
reply to michieru
You really think Comcast/NBC is going to lose a lot of money over this??? The gov't may have granted NBC use of the airwaves but once it is on a private system, that is different. But also, since Comcast/NBC owns the network broadcasting those ads, they are free to choose who they allow and who they don't.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
reply to jseymour
Comcast did acquire NBC but for the most part they still are pretty much separate companies.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to cdru
Free speech allows YOU to say "I LIKE GUNS", it does not guarantee that XYZ co. can sat" WE WANT TO SELL GUNS" in all venues.
This is a restriction of a product type regardless of the sellers age, gender, sexual identity, race or other protected class.
It would be a violation to say, only straight white males may advertise guns.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to ptbarnett
said by ptbarnett:

Comcast and NBC are a private company.

Also no longer even an "information provider", much less an "Internet Service Provider". They are now just a "media outlet", a part of the Hollywood Entertainment Conglomerate.

When I was looking for an alternative to "at&t Yahoo! HSI", I gave Comcast serious consideration. Had I chosen Comcast in April, 2011, I'd be shopping again; I'd even reconsider my concerns regarding AT&T.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


michieru
Premium
join:2009-07-25
Miami, FL
reply to TBBroadband
What is a lot of money to you?

Yes, they are free to choose I was never against that. What I don't want is the government to get involved in the matter because the result would be much worse than a few blocked gun ads.


mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV
reply to tshirt
what about the right to life ads I occasionally see on tv? Shouldn't those be banned too? What about the beer ads and the ads for the smokeless cigarettes?


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

2 edits
said by mikedz4:

what about the right to life ads I occasionally see on tv? Shouldn't those be banned too? What about the beer ads and the ads for the smokeless cigarettes?

Be ok with me but...
what specific group is harmed by those? A how would banning those ads prevent specific harm?
that is the gov't can't just choose to block anything on a whim, the cigarettes ban came after specific evidence showed the Tabaco companies depended on those ads to show minors "smoking is cool", and that NO general benefit came from cigarettes and it took many years to push that through congress.
they would like to ban smokeless cigs, but it could be seen as a cessation tool, and a couple beers aren't harmful to most people (In fact, both relaxation and a small amount of alcohol per day are good for most adults health)

But this isn't a gov't ban it's comcast sensing a shift in public opinion about guns, and they are right... there are few reasons to NEED assault style semi-auto rifles with large15-45 round magazines, not for home defense, not for skilled hunting, not for target practice.. nothing that taking a second or 2, every 9 seconds can explain other than that empowered "I can take you all out" feeling that, that sort of weapon gives people, that all to often comes out in anger and occasionally leads to the killing fields.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by tshirt:

(In fact, both relaxation and a small amount of alcohol per day are good for most adults health)

And there is nothing like a few hours of plinking, or target shooting, with the aroma of gunsmoke in the background, to relax a guy, or gal!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
you can practice changing magazines too.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by tshirt:

you can practice changing magazines too.

I mostly use clips; both the Springfield variety, and the Garand type.

M1903A3 Springfield clip.

M1 Garand clip.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


Thereisnospo

@comcast.net
reply to tshirt
The last time I checked the threat of tyranny is no less today than it was in 1900, 1800, or 1700.


nonamesleft

join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:

said by mikedz4:

what about the right to life ads I occasionally see on tv? Shouldn't those be banned too? What about the beer ads and the ads for the smokeless cigarettes?

Be ok with me but...
what specific group is harmed by those? A how would banning those ads prevent specific harm?
that is the gov't can't just choose to block anything on a whim, the cigarettes ban came after specific evidence showed the Tabaco companies depended on those ads to show minors "smoking is cool", and that NO general benefit came from cigarettes and it took many years to push that through congress.
they would like to ban smokeless cigs, but it could be seen as a cessation tool, and a couple beers aren't harmful to most people (In fact, both relaxation and a small amount of alcohol per day are good for most adults health)

But this isn't a gov't ban it's comcast sensing a shift in public opinion about guns, and they are right... there are few reasons to NEED assault style semi-auto rifles with large15-45 round magazines, not for home defense, not for skilled hunting, not for target practice.. nothing that taking a second or 2, every 9 seconds can explain other than that empowered "I can take you all out" feeling that, that sort of weapon gives people, that all to often comes out in anger and occasionally leads to the killing fields.

No! theres only a politically motivated shift opinion about guns, stop watching main stream media! They only are there to get propaganda out, not tell you the truth. What about those assault weapons the government ran to mexican drug cartels?


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Thereisnospo
said by Thereisnospo :

The last time I checked the threat of tyranny is no less today than it was in 1900, 1800, or 1700.

And having large stockpiles of weapons and ammo in the hands of individuals who believe THEY will know the right moment to strike out against the tyrannical gov't has done nothing to prevent that over the last 230+ years.
However more than a few of these /patriot/gun nuts and /or their children have struck out at SOMEONE in city halls and shopping malls and schools and theaters.
And thousands of innocents die every year.

Do you seriously believe that you and even several 100,000 like mind whackos will ever be organized enough, let alone well enough armed with semi-auto AR-15's to overwhelm the police, nation guard and US military to take over and prevent tyranny? (have you noticed the level of really sophisticated weaponry available to them as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan)
At what point do YOU think YOU might cross the line between well meaning patriot and domestic terrorist?


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to nonamesleft
said by nonamesleft:

No! theres only a politically motivated shift opinion about guns, stop watching main stream media! They only are there to get propaganda out, not tell you the truth.

See, you are exactly the delusional paranoid that is convincing the general population that you and people like you are the problem, not the solution.

said by nonamesleft:

What about those assault weapons the government ran to mexican drug cartels?

A really bad idea that quickly went from bad to worse, but in no way justifies making more, faster better weapons available and accessible to delusional people like Adam Lanza to use on the kindergarten children in Sandy Hook.
Your constitutional right does not excuse you from reasonable and responsible regulation


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
reply to NormanS
And each has less than 10 rounds, which should be plenty to handle any problem you are likely to encounter in this country, with out allowing the" just kept pulling the trigger" bloodbaths that seem so common now.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by tshirt:

And each has less than 10 rounds, which should be plenty to handle any problem you are likely to encounter in this country, with out allowing the" just kept pulling the trigger" bloodbaths that seem so common now.

And I can shoot with those Springfield clips at the rate of 10 - 11 rounds per minute until I am out of clips.

Both at Cleveland Elementary School, in Stocton, CA (Jan., 1989) and Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, CT (Jan., 2013), the shooters reloaded multiple times.

Oh! Hark! Look at the commonalities! Maybe we should ban January! But wait! Columbine didn't happen in January of any year; i happened in Jefferson County, CO!! So ban state names beginning with the letter, "C"!!!

Seriously, what the Australian and English experiences show us is that any U.S. Pol who promises not to take my firearms either isn't serious about replicating those experiences, or lying through their teeth. My money is on the latter.

And Comcast/NBC/Hollywood are simply being self-righteous hypocrites in this affair.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

2 edits
said by NormanS:

.. the rate of 10 - 11 rounds per minute...

10-12 per minute isn't 1 plus rounds per second with a 30-50 round banana clip and a reload (new 30-50 round clip) in 2 seconds.
This isn't precision shooting, giving the prey/victims a chance, it's pure spray and pray killing.
If these people with these gun only killed themselves, it wouldn't be the problem of the currently competitive "taking as many as I can with me" or trying for suicide by cop.
The one factor that ends most of the shooting sprees is he kills himself OR the guns heat up and jam and that pause allows someone to take the gunman down usually a physical tackle not shooting him with a personal weapon, so, so much for the protection theory.

No you can't go by the date or the location (though the CDC has a interesting interactive map showing were murder by gun happens, stay out of NOLA a few very unfriendly people ruin the whole bunch) but the one commanality of all those and more is semi-automatic assault style weapon and assault style fantasies driving that final push for fame, so removing the access to those weapons is one of logical methods to reduce the killing sprees.
Unless you are suggesting it is their right.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by tshirt:

said by NormanS:

.. the rate of 10 - 11 rounds per minute...

10-12 per minute isn't 1 plus rounds per second with a 30-50 round banana clip and a reload ...

It is sufficient for lethal work.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

No semi-automatic "assault" weapon there.

No you can't go by the date or the location (though the CDC has a interesting interactive map showing were murder by gun happens, stay out of NOLA a few very unfriendly people ruin the whole bunch) but the one commanality of all those and more is semi-automatic assault style weapon and assault style fantasies driving that final push for fame, so removing the access to those weapons is one of logical methods to reduce the killing sprees.

Removing that weapon type won't stop mass shootings, it will only stop mass shootings with that weapon type.

You might say that Japan got it right when Hideyoshi Toyotomi banned firearms from Japan at the beginning of the 17th Century. No other country has such a low firearms death rate; but no other country has such a restrictive ban on firearms.

Are you prepared to ban the manufacture and sale of firearms in the United States? Are you prepared to confiscate the 300 million firearms currently extant in the United States? If not, than you don't have your heart in making this a "safe" society.

Unless you are suggesting it is their right.

Logical fallacy: Argument reductio absurdum.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
you're comparing a trained marksman, (who actually recognized his own mental illness even as he proceeded to kill) to a series of very deranged "kids" with excessively capable semi-automatic weapons
said by NormanS:

No semi-automatic "assault" weapon there....
... Removing that weapon type won't stop mass shootings, it will only stop mass shootings with that weapon type.

A lot of people in Colorado and Connecticut and Arizona and Wisconsin, etc. would be happy to start with that.
Nobody expects to disarm any existing owner (barring threats, irrational behavior, or criminal activity), and most weapons would still be available with the hope of buybacks and voluntary turn-ins removing/reducing big clips and certain weapon and ammo types overtime (If you don't think your kids are responsible, you shouldn't will your weapons to them, or ebay them to persons unknown)

The idea that we shouldn't start the process with some particularly dangerous weapons, because some would still exist is silly Should we also sell fissionable material? just in case you feel really threatened , by the new neighbor or gang down the street
Expand your moderator at work


tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
kudos:40

1 edit
reply to tshirt

Re: It's their right.

said by tshirt:

so removing the access to those weapons is one of logical methods to reduce the killing sprees.
Unless you are suggesting it is their right.

So instead they'll use shotguns which can wipe out an entire classroom in 5 secs.
quote:
loads of 12 gauge, 00 buck are commonly available in 8 to 18 pellets in lengths from 2.75" to 3.5".
00 buck is .33 caliber vs .22 caliber for the AR15. A shotgun typically holds five rounds which puts 40-90 projectiles down range in less than half the time needed to empty a 30 round mag. Using smaller sized buckshot will of course put even more projectiles down range. A shotgun is far more deadly in the situations these cowardly mass murderers typically choose.
--
RIP my babies Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07, Beamer 7/24/08, & Bows 12/17/94-10/11/09

itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA
reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:

And each has less than 10 rounds, which should be plenty to handle any problem you are likely to encounter in this country, with out allowing the" just kept pulling the trigger" bloodbaths that seem so common now.

You do realize 2 things:

1. The average (non sniper/military) person will not hit their adversary on the first try. Adrenalin, movement, etc will make you much less accurate than shooting at a paper target that does not move.

2. Few will end up dead on the first shot. You miss and get them in the arm all you did is piss them off. This is especially true of someone breaking into your house in a drug induced rage.

3. Why is 10 OK but 11-16 bad? You do realize it is trivial to switch magazines right? And there is this thing called a shotgun that shots hundreds of projectiles each time you pull the trigger.

Limiting magazine sizes is not the answer. Limiting types of weapons is not the answer either. Some horrific things happened while the assault weapons ban was in place (Columbine and others) so that doesn't work either.


nonamesleft

join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:

said by nonamesleft:

No! theres only a politically motivated shift opinion about guns, stop watching main stream media! They only are there to get propaganda out, not tell you the truth.

See, you are exactly the delusional paranoid that is convincing the general population that you and people like you are the problem, not the solution.

said by nonamesleft:

What about those assault weapons the government ran to mexican drug cartels?

A really bad idea that quickly went from bad to worse, but in no way justifies making more, faster better weapons available and accessible to delusional people like Adam Lanza to use on the kindergarten children in Sandy Hook.
Your constitutional right does not excuse you from reasonable and responsible regulation

The 2nd amendment protects the 1st amendement without it, the 1st amendment goes bye bye, hence no more freedom of speech.