LogFAQs > #941262385

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Why do show by Tucker Carlson, Chis Cuomo, Don Lemon, Chris Hayes exist?
ChocoboMog123 06/25/20 8:41:04 PM #48:	Antifar posted... Who judges what counts as a basic explanation? Viewers, realistically. As soon as someone starts making a white replacement rant, you should know to turn that shit off. As soon as someone starts whining about the other party not coming to the table when you rejected their bill from the minority, turn it off. Once you notice the news only covering what the other party is doing, and not covering what's going on around them, turn it off. I feel like there's probably some legal solution. There have been "news laws" in the past. Maybe just hold the news responsible for libel and slander holding their privileges hostage (access to the President, ignorance of certain executive actions, but not right to publish). Shouldn't be able to publish misinformation loudly then softly retract it. I know this wouldn't apply to "news opinions," but if there isn't significant separation between the two, then they shouldn't be able to skirt news laws. --- "You're sorely underestimating the power of nostalgia goggles." - adjl http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110218.gif <cite>ChocoboMog123 posted [p:941262385] in Why do sho... [t:78803196]...</cite> <quote>Antifar posted... </cite> <quote>Who judges what counts as a basic explanation?</quote>Viewers, realistically. As soon as someone starts making a white replacement rant, you should know to turn that shit off. As soon as someone starts whining about the other party not coming to the table when you rejected their bill from the minority, turn it off. Once you notice the news only covering what the other party is doing, and not covering what's going on around them, turn it off. I feel like there's probably some legal solution. There have been "news laws" in the past. Maybe just hold the news responsible for libel and slander holding their privileges hostage (access to the President, ignorance of certain executive actions, but not right to publish). Shouldn't be able to publish misinformation loudly then softly retract it. I know this wouldn't apply to "news opinions," but if there isn't significant separation between the two, then they shouldn't be able to skirt news laws. --- "You're sorely underestimating the power of nostalgia goggles." - adjl http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110218.gif</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1