60 Minutes Interview

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 49
Topic's author
#1
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,722
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Here's Trump on the latest 60 Minutes episode:

"They should lose their license! Hopefully, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as headed by its Highly Respected Chairman, Brendan Carr, will impose the maximum fines and punishment, which is substantial, for their unlawful and illegal behavior. CBS is out of control, at levels never seen before, and they should pay a big price for this"

I can't wait till all those MAGA enthusiasts who've been screaming about the first amendment being under assault for all these years find out about this.
#2
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,912
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
It isn’t hypocrisy to call out a network which might not be adhering to the rules it has agreed to operate under:

“The FCC prohibits broadcasters from intentionally distorting news reports and requires them to operate in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. This means broadcasters must provide programming that addresses the needs and problems of their local community. Additionally, broadcasters must adhere to specific rules regarding political programming, including providing equal opportunities to all legally qualified candidates for public office. 

Key FCC Requirements for News Broadcasts: 
  • Prohibition on News Distortion:
    It is illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort factual news reports, and the FCC may take action on complaints with documented evidence of such behavior. 

  • Public Interest Obligation:
    Broadcasters are required to operate in the public interest, convenience, and necessity, which includes presenting programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of their local community. 

  • Political Programming Rules:
    Stations must provide equal opportunities to all legally qualified candidates for public office, including reasonable access to airtime and lowest unit charges for advertising. 

  • Public Inspection Files:
    Stations must maintain a public inspection file containing information about their programming and interactions with the FCC. 
  • …
  • News Distortion:
    The FCC has had a policy against "news distortion" in over-the-air broadcast news for over 50 years. Cable news networks, newspapers, and other non-broadcast news platforms are outside of the FCC's jurisdiction with respect to news distortion.”

#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,622
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
well said.
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,622
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
I can't wait for you to call for the banning of the FCC.
#5
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,684
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal resident protected from deportation by a 2019 court order who has lived in the U.S. since 2011, can legally sue the US government for being illegally deported. He could sue the agency or the individual officers that wrongfully deported him in federal court civil claim based on 4th amendment and due process violations, in addition to seeking monetary damages under the federal tort claims act, if applicable. He would need a trial attorney admitted to a federal court that understands immigration litigation to help him pursue a claim.
#6
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,519
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@cristo71
Just to make sure we all understand the law, this is in regards to licenses to transmit in frequency bands (of EM radiation) in the US and its territorial waters.

There is rivalry in consumption of EM bandwidth enforced by the laws of nature, so the courts (barely) tolerated the assertion that use of this communication medium be tethered to the public interest.

In practice (predictably) there has been no serious attempt to enforce honesty or balance of opinions.

In epistemological theory there is no such thing as "balance" between ideas, balance exists in power blocs military and political. Rush Limbaugh broadcast every day on a hundred different AM stations and let me tell you nobody ever managed to balance him out. The only fact checking he was ever subject to was of Bo Snerdley (who I think did a good job by comparison to CBS).


The idea that the FCC could in any way censor or punish content delivered by a means of communication not regulated by the FCC (and more fundamentally which has no practical rivalry in consumption) is open war against the 1st amendment.

Those who think government sending lists of claims to censor to facebook and twitter wasn't a (constitutional) problem, have no room to complain; but I, being both honest and rational, do.
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,622
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
You are not getting your El Salvadorian gang member back into your basement. Find another gangbanger to shelter.
#8
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,684
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

You are not getting your Slovenian sex worker back into your basement. Find another sex worker to shelter
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,622
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Mohsen Mahdawi is also getting deported. You better hurry.
#10
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,828
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Is the first amendment important or not. We have to decide this because right now theleft thinks it doesn't matter when they have power. So they can't really use it to argue against anything Trump does, because in their mind might makes right and they through away the first amendment when they had power.

Also another question is what does it mean to lose an FCC license? Is it just the government not giving 60 minutes free shit or does it really prevent them from having a TV show? 

A good way to prevent all this could be the media going back to being unbiased like they were prior to the fairness doctrine being revoked another way is to focus on telling facts and not cherry picking them and then both sides kind of can feel like you are the referees holding both sides to the fire. 

What happens though is that the media and this started in the 80's but randomly got really disgusting after 2016 have become just propaganda wings for the establishment and every study on media bias that comes out has confirmed an establishment bias, which means that neocons and the Clinton Obama types have just used the media as a type of propaganda tool. 

You would never tune in and get a left wing or right wing opinion it was always an establishment bias and painting narratives. 

It needs to go back to being completely fact base and any trace of bias eradicated entirely.
Topic's author
#11
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,722
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
It isn’t hypocrisy to call out a network which might not be adhering to the rules it has agreed to operate under
No, but it absolutely is hypocrisy to portray yourself as believing in free speech and then excuse away the president of the United States sending a clear message to his subordinates to punish a news outlet for reporting on things he does not like.
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,622
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
So ban the FCC. Problem solved.
#13
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,912
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
No
Agreed! This is progress.

the president of the United States sending a clear message to his subordinates
Who are his subordinates here? Trump is talking about the FCC.

punish a news outlet for reporting on things he does not like.
The article you linked is about Trump complaining that the Harris interview was substantively edited, not that there was a Harris interview in the first place.
#14
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,519
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Sounds like a plan.
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,622
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Scratch a liberal, get a libertarian.
Topic's author
#16
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,722
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Is the first amendment important or not. We have to decide this
No, you need to decide this for yourself and then use that values based determination to decide how you feel about what's going on in this country and around the world. That's how intellectual honesty works.

right now theleft thinks it doesn't matter when they have power.
BS. The left recognizes the difference between having power via holding positions that make sense and are therefore held through much of mainstream society vs using the power of the state to violate people's rights.

So they can't really use it to argue against anything Trump does
Trump's actions are either in line with or against your values, whatever position "the left" held in prior examples is irrelevant to that.

Also another question is what does it mean to lose an FCC license? Is it just the government not giving 60 minutes free shit or does it really prevent them from having a TV show? 
It means they granted the right to use the airwaves to broadcast their content. Certainly not the big deal it used to be but still matters.

The rest of your questions there are irrelevant, they're just an excuse to minimize an obvious abuse of power. The bottom line is that the president of the United States is trying to use state power to punish dissenting voices. Are you ok with that?
Topic's author
#17
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,722
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
the president of the United States sending a clear message to his subordinates
Who are his subordinates here? Trump is talking about the FCC.
... which ultimately reports to the president.

punish a news outlet for reporting on things he does not like.
The article you linked is about Trump complaining that the Harris interview was substantively edited, not that there was a Harris interview in the first place.
The article link was provided only as a way to fend off disingenuous dismissals of "fake news". The story is the fact that the president of the United States is calling for his own FCC to punish news outlets for reporting he doesn't like. Are you ok with that or not?
Topic's author
#18
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,722
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Those who think government sending lists of claims to censor to facebook and twitter wasn't a (constitutional) problem, have no room to complain; but I, being both honest and rational, do.
False equivalences are not rational. Twitter and Facebook had aligned views on the danger of allowing false claims to be amplified via their platforms and worked with those agencies to prevent that. That is not remotely the same thing as what Trump is calling for, especially given how little Trump has shown himself to care about traditional limits every other president respected when it came to abusing the power of his office to fire anyone he wants for any reason he wants and how little disregard he has for the law.
#19
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,519
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Twitter and Facebook had aligned views on the danger of allowing false claims to be amplified via their platforms and worked with those agencies to prevent that.
CBS would also be aligned after they fired everyone that didn't align with the government :)

#20
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,912
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
The story is the fact that the president of the United States is calling for his own FCC to punish news outlets for reporting he doesn't like.
That “fact” was not established in your OP. My initial response to your OP is a response to what was established— that CBS might be in violation of FCC rules for what qualifies as an accredited news broadcast.

#21
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,828
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
No, you need to decide this for yourself and then use that values based determination to decide how you feel about what's going on in this country and around the world. That's how intellectual honesty works.
It's weird that when you guys are in power it's okay to go after political opponents for prison, end free speech and end freedom but when you are out of power then freedom matters. Hmmmmm

You were on here silent on the Twitter files were you not?

You supported going after Trump for being a Republican and now going after people is wrong?

I have been intellectually honest and said that it's wrong no matter what to do evil things. You need to look inside yourself and ask yourself if you are willing to be honest and say that when you ignored attacks on free speech and cheered on the covid lockdowns or arresting politicians you disagree with 

I somehow doubt you have confronted your own evil though since you have ignored the arrests of people for memes in England the arrest of anti establishment politicians like LePen or the conservatives in the Philippines or Romania.

It's real simple. Taking away free shit for companies is not an attack on freedom, however arresting and locking up people who disagree with you are, so I look forward to the threads you are about to form to complain about LePen being banned from running for presidency because she is a conservative
#22
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,376
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
To bad it will just fall on deaf indoctrinated ears.
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,622
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@sadolite
It would be nice for Democrats to start dismantling corrupt systems of power, but that would also make them popular with the working class. 


Topic's author
#24
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,722
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
You were on here silent on the Twitter files were you not?
Mostly yes, because what right wingers allege the Twitter files to show is complete and total BS.

You supported going after Trump for being a Republican
No genius, I supported going after someone for committing serious and obvious crimes, and I've broken down why he did in fact commit serious and obvious crimes many times over on this site. Your brain does not work. For you to after all these months and years to still be holding onto this ridiculous characterization of my position demonstrates that.

Trump incited a mob to attack the US capitol that lead to Congress having to evacuate for their safety. That is a serious and obvious crime. Anyone who does that should go to jail.

Trump knowingly stashed cases full of classified documents in his beach club next to the toilet and on his stage, then lied to the FBI about having possession of them and ordered all evidence of their whereabouts destroyed. That is a serious and obvious crime. Anyone who does that should go to jail.

If you can not at the very least agree that the two examples above are serious and obvious crimes to which Donald Trump should be prosecuted then you can go back to your little corner and keep repeating whatever feels good to you.

I have been intellectually honest and said that it's wrong no matter what to do evil things
And yet you voted for Donald Trump and support him enthusiastically, so nothing you say there matters.

I somehow doubt you have confronted your own evil though since you have ignored the arrests of people for memes in England the arrest of anti establishment politicians like LePen or the conservatives in the Philippines or Romania.
I don't have the time or energy to focus on England's internal politics, we have enough problems here in the US with an aspiring dictator slowly consolidating all power within the federal government to himself as he destroys our economy and half the country seeing nothing wrong with it.

Taking away free shit for companies is not an attack on freedom
If you want to argue that universities shouldn't get federal funds that's a reasonable debate to have. But it does, so this talking point is nonsense. Not giving something and taking something away are two totally different things, especially when taking something away is the result of that entity ceding to your unconstitutional demands.

It's weird that when you guys are in power it's okay to go after political opponents for prison, end free speech and end freedom
This is the game you guys on the right love to play. You have no real arguments so all you do is mischaracterize your political opponents so that you can use your own mischaracterizations as an attack later, all to avoid having to reconcile why you are supporting something you purport to disagree with.

No, we  never supported attacks on free speech. No, we never supported weaponizing the justice system. No, we never supported attacks on freedom. That's just what you wrongly called the things you were observing, setting up your excuse for later.
#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,622
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Deep down, you don't just want Trump to be a criminal, you need him to be a criminal. That's dangerous. You should start slowly weening yourself off that addiction with support. 

Start by supporting the banning of the FCC and other institutions of evil.
#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,622
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Fishy Tishy James is about to go through the same institutional bullshit Trump went through with mortgage fraud violations. The left generally loves to ban weapons except when it comes to the weapons of institutional evil. Those weapons are somehow sacred. They are totally okay with the power of violence and evil in the hands of a few elites.
#27
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,366
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@sadolite
To bad it will just fall on deaf indoctrinated ears

1} MAGA > Trump > Musk > Putin > Kim Ung Poo { N. K }.

Initially deport dispossed,  --especially non-white--  then those who have least ability fend off attacks from authoritarian tyrannical rule.

Take your pick from long list of humans, that, do not support those in line one above.
Topic's author
#28
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,722
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
The story is the fact that the president of the United States is calling for his own FCC to punish news outlets for reporting he doesn't like.
That “fact” was not established in your OP.
You can say it is not established that 2+2=4 all you like, it still does.

Putting out a public statement where you declare the FCC chair (who works for you) "will impose the maximum fines and punishment" on CBS... Is by any reasonable definition, "going after" CBS.

CBS is also, very clearly, a news outlet Trump doesn't like.

2+2=4

The only thing you could try to argue is that Trump's intentions are pure and have nothing to do with the fact that he simply doesn't like CBS or their coverage, but that position cannot be maintained with a straight face.

Trump is the most transparent individual we've ever seen when it comes to how he feels and what motivates him. He attacks every news network that does not cover him favorably and he loves every network that does. He's never defended anyone for exercising their first amendment right to criticize him, ever. And he declared as a candidate that he was running a campaign of retribution. There is no way that any reasonable person cannot spot the pattern here. Trump's response to CBS is as predictable is the sun rising.

My initial response to your OP is a response to what was established— that CBS might be in violation of FCC rules for what qualifies as an accredited news broadcast.
Which is irrelevant because there is no reasonable case to be made that that is what this is about, nor would that be news worthy in the slightest. It is nothing more than an excuse to avoid the blatant violation of the constitution right in front of your face.
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,622
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
to avoid the blatant violation of the constitution right in front of your face.
I can get on board with the FCC being unconstitutional as delegating congressional power to an unelected agency.

The Constitution doesn’t say, “Congress can make laws, or let some bureaucrats make them instead when it’s inconvenient.” But that’s what we’ve allowed to happen...whole swaths of swampy rules, agencies, fines, and speech restrictions being written and enforced by people no one voted for with their own biased axes to grind, and who operate with near zero oversight.

Well said.
#30
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,912
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
Putting out a public statement where you declare the FCC chair (who works for you) "will impose the maximum fines and punishment" on CBS... Is by any reasonable definition, "going after" CBS.

CBS is also, very clearly, a news outlet Trump doesn't like.

2+2=4
The reasoning you demonstrate above is more like:

2+2=22

For example, there is a plaintiff who is filing a suit against a company for defrauding him.  Unsurprisingly, this plaintiff clearly dislikes this company. He wants the company to pay up big for defrauding him. You, however, would characterize the situation as this particular plaintiff is suing the company only because he personally doesn’t like the company. If that were actually the case, said company wouldn’t have much to worry about, would it? It would just be fist shaking.

Here’s a quote from the article you linked:

“The president has accused CBS of aiding his 2024 Democratic opponent through deceptive editing one month before he and Harris faced off in the presidential election. The saga began when Harris was widely mocked for a "word salad" answer she gave to "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker during a preview of the interview on "Face the Nation," and CBS then aired a different answer to the same question during a primetime special.”

Going back to my initial post to you, the FCC has rules regarding when a broadcast network can be accredited as a news outlet. CBS is one such network. One can sue the network for violating those rules, and it is well within the FCC’s purview to investigate such a claim.