dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Bogus Neutrality Story Highlights Very Broken U.S. Press
Verizon talking point travels the world, nobody bothers to fact check
by Karl Bode 08:40AM Tuesday Nov 09 2010
As we mentioned the other day, Scott Cleland, a paid PR representative for major ISPs including AT&T and Verizon, began spreading a talking point claiming that network neutrality was the reason so many people lost recent elections. Cleland's "evidence" was that every politician that signed a recent pledge to network neutrality by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) lost their race. The talking point quickly circulated around countless major news outlets as truth, despite the fact that if you actually looked at voting results and other "pledges," it was perfectly clear that neutrality had little to nothing to do with election losses.

Most Americans were headed to the polls with employment and the economy in mind, and very few of them likely even know what network neutrality is, even after half a decade of increasingly-absurd debate. Still, Cleland's claim continued to circulate in the press last week, bouncing from outlet to outlet with hardly any reporters identifying him as a paid Verizon public relations and policy employee. This week the "meme" that network neutrality support was some kind of political kryptonite continued to spread courtesy of reporter Chris Lefkow, of AFP. Proclaims Lefkow:
quote:
"There's essentially no prospect of a net neutrality bill passing anytime soon," said Richard Bennett, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Bennett, in a blog post at Hightechforum.org, noted that all 95 Democratic members of the House and Senate who had signed a public pledge to protect an "open Internet" had lost their seats in the Republican tidal wave. "This election puts net neutrality on the back burner, and raises the importance of spectrum, intellectual property protection, and Internet privacy," Bennett said.
Like Cleland, Bennett is now by proxy a paid spokesperson for the nation's biggest carriers working for the ISP-funded ITIF. We're not the only people to notice that in addition to completely failing to disclose "expert" ties to funding sources, the AFP is only one of several outlets that simply took a Verizon talking point and ran with it as gospel truth. While Bennett and Cleland may be right that neutrality is dead (we acknowledged as much in September), it wasn't voters who killed it. Any chance for strong network neutrality protections was already dead, even with a Democrat controlled House, Senate and White House.

Like most telecom consumer protections, network neutrality protections were killed by an ocean of paid logic magicians like Cleland and Bennett, timid regulators, a well-lobbied Congress, and a very clearly broken U.S. press. At the center of this multi-ring circus is of course bottomless-pocketed companies like Cisco, Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, the last of that group having spent more on campaign contributions than any U.S. company since 1990. Whatever your thoughts on whether neutrality protections are needed, it is an undeniable fact that carrier money killed network neutrality protections, not voters.

view:
topics flat nest 

footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

Deflection

The major media are pretty much all in the tank for one side or the other in politics. Those that support democrats refuse to admit it was the policies and execution of such over the last two years that led to their smackdown last week so they're desperately searching for some other reason behind the election results.

They're looking in the wrong place on this one, though. Did neutrality even come up during the election?
--
Dresden - I work in Accounts Payable.
Random Bad Guy - In what capacity?
Dresden - I make sure everyone gets what's coming to them.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: Deflection

said by footballdude:

Did neutrality even come up during the election?
No, because only a small minority of our population cares, or even knows about, net neutrality. And even fewer actually understand what it is.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by footballdude:

The major media are pretty much all in the tank for one side or the other in politics. Those that support democrats refuse to admit it was the policies and execution of such over the last two years that led to their smackdown last week so they're desperately searching for some other reason behind the election results.

They're looking in the wrong place on this one, though. Did neutrality even come up during the election?
The election fiasco the Dems suffered hinged on healthcare, the economy(exploding deficit & national debt), & the cap & trade EPA nonsense. Net neutrality wasn't even on the radar screen for most voters.

Of course, the "We must have net neutrality laws" advocates are just as clueless as those claiming net neutrality swung the election. PEOPLE DON'T CARE about net neutrality and don't believe that net neutrality is needed for a healthy internet.

mob
On the next level..
Premium
join:2000-10-07
Reviews:
·SureWest Internet

1 recommendation

Re: Deflection

said by FFH:

said by footballdude:

The major media are pretty much all in the tank for one side or the other in politics. Those that support democrats refuse to admit it was the policies and execution of such over the last two years that led to their smackdown last week so they're desperately searching for some other reason behind the election results.

They're looking in the wrong place on this one, though. Did neutrality even come up during the election?
The election fiasco the Dems suffered hinged on healthcare, the economy(exploding deficit & national debt), & the cap & trade EPA nonsense. Net neutrality wasn't even on the radar screen for most voters.

Of course, the "We must have net neutrality laws" advocates are just as clueless as those claiming net neutrality swung the election. PEOPLE DON'T CARE about net neutrality and don't believe that net neutrality is needed for a healthy internet.
No, the losses stemmed from the fact that the majority of Americans are stupid, and forgot which party ran the country straight into the shitter. And since it's a largely symbolic win (oooooooh the lower house, you tigers!) all it will really lead to is...an even more deadlocked government with blowhard old people murdering historical fact in the name of political theater.

Go back to another one of your shell accounts, or at least change your name every 3 seconds..
--
If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure - J. Danforth Quayle
Ich habe kein Mitleid - Me
An intolerant liberal is the same as an intolerant conservative...think about that for a minute, noob.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Deflection

said by mob:

No, the losses stemmed from the fact that the majority of Americans are stupid, and forgot which party ran the country straight into the shitter.
Or they remember when that party was in charge, people worked.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

Re: Deflection

Oh, and teh republican and democrat chearleaders gonna fight it out now?
Ghostmaker

join:2003-01-20
Brunswick, OH
May I suggest you get Bushes book and read up on the housing collapse and his effort to put a stop to it in 2002. That the Democrats opposed.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

Re: Deflection

said by Ghostmaker:

May I suggest you get Bushes book and read up on the housing collapse and his effort to put a stop to it in 2002. That the Democrats opposed.
Chuckle.

The Republican party held majorities in both the House and Senate from Jan. 1995 to Jan. 2007 -- with a brief switch of the Senate to Democrat control during only part of the 107th Congress 2001-2003.

How convenient for President Bush to use that brief switch as the reason for doing nothing from 2003 to 2007.

This is really the problem with our political system. It's so polarized that we can never objectively assess what is wrong, or went wrong.

Regarding Republican attempts to blame Democrats for real-estate excess:

quote:
In 2001 [a year before President Bush's election], HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime loans.

"Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern," an agency report said.

But by 2004 [two years into the Bush Presidency], when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.

That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and "must do more."

For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still, their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.

"That was a huge, huge mistake," said Patricia McCoy, who teaches securities law at the University of Connecticut. "That just pumped more capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a disaster."

In 2003, [fannie/freddie] bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more heavily on the securities to meet goals.

-- »www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···6_2.html

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
said by FFH:

The election fiasco the Dems suffered hinged on healthcare, the economy (exploding deficit & national debt), & the cap & trade EPA nonsense.
The largest reason was President Obama being a middle-of-the-road compromiser, which chilled the democratic base that was energized 2-3 years ago.

You'll say all the things you mentioned prove he wasn't moderate. But, he wasn't as far to the left as the right wanted to portray either.

The right wanted Obama to be another President Clinton, resulting in another "Republic Revolution" ("Contract with America"). Obama responded to that by trying to prove he wasn't "out there" (even though he had been elected on "out there" goals). He compromised (such as requiring individuals have insurance, but willing to sacrifice the "public option" which he ran on.).

I don't think that's a bad thing. The polarized politics (especially when both parties are largely the same) is tiring. It just serves to create a simple, explainable, label-based world for those who need it.

Anyway: Rs will do the same thing. There's already talk among traditional Rs about how the "tea party" freshmen will have to learn to sit in the back of the room and be nice.

That's basically what happened in 1994-1997. After 2-3 years, Rs didn't want to mention the "Contract." They were no longer the change agents they portrayed themselves as. Their far-right supporters became disillusioned. From what I'm reading, that's happening already. It's not going to take 2-3 years.

I think that's what happened with Ds last week. They had an excited, motivated base. Unicorns, glitter-filled clouds, world peace. Lots of *principle-based* rhetoric. After Obama was elected, principles took a back seat. The democratic base lost interested.

I think that will be the case very quickly for the far-right. The Rs won't govern the House radically. Just like they gave up on that agenda after 2 years in 1995-1997.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: Deflection

I think you're missing another, more pertinent, point. A great deal of the progressive base was expecting Obama to fix the foundation of US government that is literally rotting to the core.

But where was the campaign finance reform? The filibuster reform? The electoral/jerrymandering reform? The lobbyist reform? He didn't even attempt anything like that. He squandered the vast energies of a frustrated left and moderate American base.

S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
said by amigo_boy:

said by FFH:

The election fiasco the Dems suffered hinged on healthcare, the economy (exploding deficit & national debt), & the cap & trade EPA nonsense.
The largest reason was President Obama being a middle-of-the-road compromiser, which chilled the democratic base that was energized 2-3 years ago.

What makes you think the Democratic base is actually THAT far to the left?
There are plenty of union households that were plenty ticked over a complete lack of foreign policy, the complete lack of concern over a border war on our southern border, the complete lack of concern over failed sanctions against Iran, a fed policy that is diluting the money we have, and social reforms that the majority of Americans weren't asking for. And to blame repubs for other stalled agendas is down right insulting to the intelligence when you have both houses under your control.
There was a real opportunity that was wasted here.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!

southpaw

@duanemorris.com

Re: Deflection

Rubbish. How can it be said that Dems had both houses "under their control" when all it takes to permanently stall a piece of legislation or a Presidential appointment is one GOP Senator placing a hold? That is what happened to damn near every attempt at reform.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

Re: Deflection

said by southpaw :

Rubbish. How can it be said that Dems had both houses "under their control" when all it takes to permanently stall a piece of legislation or a Presidential appointment is one GOP Senator placing a hold? That is what happened to damn near every attempt at reform.
I disagree. Ds could have forced Rs to play that card. Ds could have threatened the Nuclear Option the same way Rs threatened to use it.

The problem with blaming inaction on the possibility of a filibuster is that you don't have to do anything. It's just an excuse for doing nothing.

OTOH, I believe the public is more moderate than either party's demagogues. Both parties pander to the demogogues, and then look for ways to excuse their ensuing moderation.

That's what happened with Rs in the late 90s. It's what happened now with Obama's mid-term elections (and the D base who wasn't motivated). And, I believe that's what will happen after the so-called tea partiers helped Rs gain a majority. (Rs will go to moderation, blaming inactivity on the threat of filibuster, etc. So-called tea partiers will fade, just as they did in the late 90s.).

It's just theater.
WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
The Union guys I know vote Republican but want the Union to act like a far Left Democrat. Then they wonder why the Union is toothless when the Republicans and Big Biz are moving hand in hand.
To all Dems that did not get out and vote because you did not get world peace will you have no chance for you goals now. If you don't get your way get out and convince more people to vote your way. That is what the Repubs did. Now they have to do something. It is easy to just say that was stupid. It may get you elected but now you get judged on what you do win you win.

I want to see them cut the deficit and cut taxes. There are only four programs that cutting would get you close to a balanced budget. They are military, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Which one or of those groups do you want to make mad at you.
I want a balanced budget so no politician can promise more programs and cut taxes. Like all the state and muni governments are discovering as they do their budgets.

OldschoolDSL
Premium
join:2006-02-23
Indian Orchard, MA

As long as it doesn't happen

As long as they do not pass any Network Neutrality Bill ... I could care less who is in office in regards to The Internet.

The only Network Neutrality would do is further approve a monopoly in which many service providers seem to have in their markets & further this by restricting content and / or adding more fees for content.

nilso

@LIPS.Berkeley.EDU

Re: As long as it doesn't happen

OldSchoolDSL,
You are stating it EXACTLY backward. Network Neutrality is a principle stating that service providers CANNOT restrict content, with the goal of AVOIDING monopolies on network content. Surely you know this!

OldschoolDSL
Premium
join:2006-02-23
Indian Orchard, MA

Re: As long as it doesn't happen

I've heard so many debates about "for" and "not for" it that its made me almost "mute" to the subject.....

However.... I do recall a large group of individuals claiming how so many companies in the past wanted to work on this idea behind closed doors & how large companies like Verizon, Comcast, and others were being evil doing this (including Google 1x).

So you'll have to excuse me if I do not accept the idea of an "unknown" member claiming otherwise.
--
HP Pavilion a6750f (tweaked)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 * Mac OS Snow Leopard
»www.sociallyuncensored.com

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

"Public Option" Broadband

Or perhaps people saw what the recent government intrusion into the health insurance industry did to their health insurance premiums and overall policy availability, and decided that a similar route for broadband isn't a good idea.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

1 recommendation

Re: "Public Option" Broadband

it didn't change anything for me. I still can't afford it. And besides that, there is no value in handing my money over to someone that gives me absolutely nothing in return.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

2 recommendations

Re: "Public Option" Broadband

said by ArrayList:

And besides that, there is no value in handing my money over to someone that gives me absolutely nothing in return.
Don't worry, once you are forced to buy something that gives you nothing in return, this won't be an issue for you.

And quite honestly, I totally agree with you, why should you be forced to buy something, anything, that you do not think gives you a good value for your money?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

Lagz
Premium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock

Re: "Public Option" Broadband

said by pnh102:

said by ArrayList:

And besides that, there is no value in handing my money over to someone that gives me absolutely nothing in return.
Don't worry, once you are forced to buy something that gives you nothing in return, this won't be an issue for you.

And quite honestly, I totally agree with you, why should you be forced to buy something, anything, that you do not think gives you a good value for your money?
He will be paying whether he can afford it or not.
--
To talk much and arrive nowhere is the same as climbing a tree to catch a fish.

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
insurance will never give me value for my money, its fiscally impossible.

Lagz
Premium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock

Re: "Public Option" Broadband

said by ArrayList:

insurance will never give me value for my money, its fiscally impossible.
None of that will matter when you're forced to pay for obamacare. At least you had a choice. In a few years you won't.
--
To talk much and arrive nowhere is the same as climbing a tree to catch a fish.

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

Re: "Public Option" Broadband

you still have a choice. don't get any. you seriously think they will track down everyone who doesn't get healthcare? btw, i don't have to get it i'm a veteran. i already have healthcare.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: "Public Option" Broadband

said by ArrayList:

you still have a choice. don't get any. you seriously think they will track down everyone who doesn't get healthcare? btw, i don't have to get it i'm a veteran. i already have healthcare.
Actually after 2014, assuming the current healthcare bill is not repealed, everyone in the USA will be required to buy health insurance, whether they want to or not. People who do not buy health insurance will be fined by the IRS.

I am not sure how this impacts veterans though. I would imagine that like seniors who saw Medicare slashed as a result of this bill, they will be screwed as well.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast

Re: "Public Option" Broadband

no veterans healthcare actually has several billion dollars being added to it over the next decade and beyond.

The fine will be cheaper than actually having insurance. I doubt they will make it a jail-able offense anyways.

i'd rather be fined by the government and have my money get wasted there than pay some business for something I get nothing from. at least then I would know that some, maybe 1%, of my money would go towards something worthwhile.
TheGuvnor9

join:2006-06-23
Beverly Hills, CA
Whatever, premiums would go up an average of 10% with or without the plan year over year.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 recommendation

Or perhaps people saw what the recent government intrusion into the health insurance industry did to their health insurance premiums and overall policy availability, and decided that a similar route for broadband isn't a good idea.
People saw jack shit. Many can't even identify the UK on a map. People who do bother to vote often just vote with their gut with no real issue insight, and as a result elect even bigger idiots in both parties, in many states jettisoning the few people who actually had a grasp on technology (Boucher).

The chance of most people having even a foggy idea of net neutrality is unlikely. And of that tiny minority who had even heard of it, I'm betting most just followed the "all regulation is automatically evil" line of oh-so-nuanced thought...
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: "Public Option" Broadband

said by Karl Bode:

People who do bother to vote often just vote with their gut with no real issue insight, and as a result elect even bigger idiots in both parties
And until "we the people" care enough to put forward at least a minimal amount of effort into making our country better, we get what we deserve.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 recommendation

Re: "Public Option" Broadband

Well we get what we get. Not sure deserve has anything to do with it. We probably "deserve" even worse.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: "Public Option" Broadband

said by Karl Bode:

We probably "deserve" even worse.
Fair enough.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
said by Karl Bode:

... in many states jettisoning the few people who actually had a grasp on technology (Boucher).
What good is someone knowing about technology when that person wants to apply said knowledge in a bad way?

If I lived in that part of the country I too would be concerned that my soon-to-be former representative thinks that the government should meddle in the way a private company manages its privately-owned network.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: "Public Option" Broadband

said by pnh102:

said by Karl Bode:

... in many states jettisoning the few people who actually had a grasp on technology (Boucher).
What good is someone knowing about technology when that person wants to apply said knowledge in a bad way?

If I lived in that part of the country I too would be concerned that my soon-to-be former representative thinks that the government should meddle in the way a private company manages its privately-owned network.
Unless it's AT&T, your provider of choice.

Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
said by Karl Bode:

Or perhaps people saw what the recent government intrusion into the health insurance industry did to their health insurance premiums and overall policy availability, and decided that a similar route for broadband isn't a good idea.
People saw jack shit. Many can't even identify the UK on a map. People who do bother to vote often just vote with their gut with no real issue insight, and as a result elect even bigger idiots in both parties, in many states jettisoning the few people who actually had a grasp on technology (Boucher).

The chance of most people having even a foggy idea of net neutrality is unlikely. And of that tiny minority who had even heard of it, I'm betting most just followed the "all regulation is automatically evil" line of oh-so-nuanced thought...
I was shocked at how many "man on the street" interviews I saw where people said they had no idea what their candidate stood for, but were just voting Republican. It's idiots like these (on all sides) that got us into the trouble we're in now.
--
TKJunkMail aliases - MMH, ThrowDemsOut, Golf N Sun

Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA
"Or perhaps people saw what the recent government intrusion into the health insurance industry did to their health insurance premiums and overall policy availability, and decided that a similar route for broadband isn't a good idea."

As opposed to what was happening before the bill where premiers were sky-rocketing, availability was declining?

•••
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink

Mainstream Media Incompetent and Lazy!

When you hear the mainstream media quoting the Sludge Drudge Report all is lost. Scott Cleland's bologna is an example of media not checking the facts. Do not expect reporters to check the accuracy of the source and story, that takes to much work. The mainstream media serves as the Colon for crap news stories. Particularly Fox News.
mlbSAE

join:2000-08-01
Dayton, OH

I don't see where he claimed it was anti-net neutrality

He just said that the 95 signers who supported it are soon to be gone from office. That means that there is a large lack of support for a bill.
AndyDufresne
Premium
join:2010-10-30
Chanhassen, MN

Doesn't make a difference.

NN was going nowhere even if every member that signed pledge stayed in office. Not a pressing issue for anybody at this time.

Mike Wendy

@verizon.net

Net Neutrality dead 'cuz it's 19th century thinking

Net Neutrality - via regulations - is dead because it is a bad idea. it is 19th Century thinking for 21st Century networks. We have Net Neutrality now without regs - and it's more flexible than they could ever be.
Pv8man

join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN

1 recommendation

Re: Net Neutrality dead 'cuz it's 19th century thinking

Wrong, we have the telecommunications act of 1996.

But increasingly, ISP's are preparing to lobby against the idea of net neutrality when they can find a loophole around the telecom act of 96, and do all sorts of questionable things that violate users privacy and discriminate against websites, services and/or applications.

joebarnhart
Paxio evangelist

join:2005-12-15
Santa Clara, CA

1 recommendation

It does make me wonder...

Why do the progressive left take on the issue of "net neutrality" as their own? Are they planning to use net neutrality as a ruse to force TV and radio coverage to be "balanced" in their eyes (i.e. force distribution of their uber-liberal viewpoint).

I'm all for what I think of as "net neutrality" -- no blocking or interference with the services I use on the internet. But the progressive political wing is pushing net neutrality for some entirely different reason, and I'm not sure I'd approve of their view of "net neutrality."

(This is also why conservatives are dead-set against net neutrality. They only see George Soros-funded organizations supporting it and they recoil in horror.)

al

@spcsdns.net

Re: It does make me wonder...

yeah i wonder too - until now the left is only interested in imposing "fairness" in talk radio but the nation's newspapers(75%+ leftist) and TV networks(basically all leftist to some degree except FNC) don't draw any scrutiny at all. in fact the dems had hoped to subsidize newspapers and likely would have had Pelosi et al remained in power.
joebear29

join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL

did i miss something?

I missed it in the outrage that filled the news posting – where is a link to a major news organization saying the issue of network neutrality had anything to do with the election results?

The way I read it:

1) Some representatives support network neutrality
2) These representatives lost
3) Thus, network neutrality is unlikely to make progress

You can insert anything for “network neutrality” in the above. I haven’t read anything where network neutrality itself is held up as the reason for the elections itself, as opposed to an issue affected by the elections.

quote:
Bogus Neutrality Story Highlights Very Broken U.S. Press
Am I overlooking the obvious? I don't see where the press in anyplace said network neutrality was a reason for the election results. Can someone please point me in the right direction? And what was bogus about the stories in the press?
33358088
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2

US press LOL

YOU mean media controlled corporate propaganda wagon that only tries to spill what they get paid to.

Rupert Murdoch destroying humanity ONE article at a time.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: US press LOL

said by 33358088:

YOU mean media controlled corporate propaganda wagon that only tries to spill what they get paid to.

Rupert Murdoch destroying humanity ONE article at a time.
Oh please.

Murdoch has one significant network and one significant newspaper. He has no "control" over NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Bloomberg, AP, BBC, or PBS.

The real problem - which you probably don't want to acknowledge - is that the mainstream media doesn't hire real journalists. They hire journalism school graduates, who have been indoctrinated in group-think and political correctness, but are generally incapable of interrogation; contrary to their hippie creed, they DON'T "question authority", they just parrot press releases, never bothering to validate sources - and I don't mean just "citing" them.

We hear often about "critical thinking", but it so often "taught" by those already indoctrinated, that those who exercise it in the classroom find themselves ostracized, and quickly learn to submit.

Good Teachers and Good Journalists teach/write well enough that they give you the facts, not their opinion - and leave you completely unaware of their political leanings. We have very few of either today.