What I love about HN, is that its geek news. Is it possible to keep the Political BS off of here? Seriously, we get enough in the normal outlets, this is one of the places that I, for one, don't want to see it. If I want to hear about the BS from either side, I will turn on the TV.
> What I love about HN, is that its geek news. Is it possible to keep the Political BS off of here?
Yes, you can flag and don't comment if you don't think it belongs and don't have anything productive to add to discussion of the topic. If you can't yet flag, then, no, there's nothing you can do.
> Since when is it the role of the U.S. Government to arbitrate and enforce precepts of “journalistic integrity”?
Cable is a regulated service and a raft of interacting concerns about content quality, standards, and viewpoint diversity have consistently played (shifting, as priorities and assessment of current state shift) roles in the regulation of that industry for decades. Assessing and understanding what is going on in terms of journalistic integrity fits well within that, and does not imply that the ultimate legislative outcome will be censorship. Greenwald is treating his speculations (that conveniently fit the one-note political narrative about the Democratic Party that has been his constant refrain for years) about what the legislative outcome of the investigation might be a if it were news of what is, which is the kind of thing he wouldn't be able to do if he still wrote for an outfit with an editor aimed at enforcing even the most basic norms of journalistic integrity, like distinguishing between facts and the reporters own fanciful inventions.
> the only conservative cable outlets: Fox, Newsmax and OANN.
Even if you restrict to news-branded outlets rather than conservative outlets that carry some news-branded content, that's not accurate. CBN, for instance, exists.
> does not imply that the ultimate legislative outcome will be censorship. Greenwald is treating his speculations
I think Greenwald is saying that these politicians are trying to intimidate and threaten the companies into doing the censorship. He cites an FCC commissioner, who says just that: "The greatest threat to free speech in America today is not any law passed by the government ... The threat comes in the form of legislating by letterhead. Politicians have realized that they can silence the speech of those with different political viewpoints by public bullying. ... They are singling out selected newsrooms for their coverage of political events and sending a clear message that these media outlets will pay a price if they do not align their viewpoints with Democrat orthodoxy. That is a chilling transgression of free speech and journalistic freedom."
> the one-note political narrative about the Democratic Party that has been his constant refrain for years
TV news is already a joke, I think it's probably healthy to make that more obvious. Removing any views that's aren't approved by the establishment will hopefully go a ways in that direction.
It's still a little tough to run your own news program without a network, but as time goes by the technical part just gets cheaper and easier. I expect we'll see something like substack for video news before long. And hopefully something decentralized before it gets too late.
5 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 25.7 ms ] threadYes, you can flag and don't comment if you don't think it belongs and don't have anything productive to add to discussion of the topic. If you can't yet flag, then, no, there's nothing you can do.
Cable is a regulated service and a raft of interacting concerns about content quality, standards, and viewpoint diversity have consistently played (shifting, as priorities and assessment of current state shift) roles in the regulation of that industry for decades. Assessing and understanding what is going on in terms of journalistic integrity fits well within that, and does not imply that the ultimate legislative outcome will be censorship. Greenwald is treating his speculations (that conveniently fit the one-note political narrative about the Democratic Party that has been his constant refrain for years) about what the legislative outcome of the investigation might be a if it were news of what is, which is the kind of thing he wouldn't be able to do if he still wrote for an outfit with an editor aimed at enforcing even the most basic norms of journalistic integrity, like distinguishing between facts and the reporters own fanciful inventions.
> the only conservative cable outlets: Fox, Newsmax and OANN.
Even if you restrict to news-branded outlets rather than conservative outlets that carry some news-branded content, that's not accurate. CBN, for instance, exists.
I think Greenwald is saying that these politicians are trying to intimidate and threaten the companies into doing the censorship. He cites an FCC commissioner, who says just that: "The greatest threat to free speech in America today is not any law passed by the government ... The threat comes in the form of legislating by letterhead. Politicians have realized that they can silence the speech of those with different political viewpoints by public bullying. ... They are singling out selected newsrooms for their coverage of political events and sending a clear message that these media outlets will pay a price if they do not align their viewpoints with Democrat orthodoxy. That is a chilling transgression of free speech and journalistic freedom."
> the one-note political narrative about the Democratic Party that has been his constant refrain for years
He may be one-note, but is he wrong?
It's still a little tough to run your own news program without a network, but as time goes by the technical part just gets cheaper and easier. I expect we'll see something like substack for video news before long. And hopefully something decentralized before it gets too late.