Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
This sounds like an exhausting way to live
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
I blame Rupert
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Rupert is simply serving his customer base. A lesson TWDC should learn to do.
I’m not even sure it’s possible anymore.
When a politician makes a factually wrong statement.
- It can be reported as-is with no context, giving it legitimacy as if it is truth.
- It can be reported, with context, pointing out that it is factually wrong.
- It can be ignored and not reported at all.
Today the first is often done as an attempt to show both sides. As if giving a lie legitimacy is a valid thing. The second is called biased. The third isn’t reporting at all. This has lead to more and more outlandish things given equal weight, as pointing at a lie is called biased.
In the past, the second would have been fine.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
The second is generally how it’s still done in the UK, where television news is regulated to ensure a significant degree of impartiality. Try watching a bit of Sky News on YouTube to see what I mean (unlike BBC News, it can be streamed anywhere).
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
We used to do it this way and present more than one side but Dutch the Gipper thought it was wrong to require it so no longer....
Fairness doctrine - Wikipedia
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I don’t really blame him. I know some people who regularly watch WWE wrestling. They know it’s fake and scripted but they enjoy it for what it is.…entertainment. I wouldn’t blame WWE if any of those people actually believed it was really a sport.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
That's a shame. Here are the regulations that are still in effect over in the UK:We used to do it this way and present more than one side but Dutch the Gipper thought it was wrong to require it so no longer....
Fairness doctrine - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Section five: Due impartiality and due accuracy
This section of the Broadcasting Code relates to the concept of
www.ofcom.org.uk
hopemax
Well-Known Member
Since he was mentioned... Just imagine what would have happened with today's producers if Walter Cronkite had done the same reporting on Vietnam today as he did in 1968. Some other program would have presumed they could get some mileage by framing the reporting as Un-American and an attack on the President. They would have staffers run around and find comments he had made to friends that were more critical than what aired. President Johnson called the networks after what he viewed as unfavorable reporting. That is a lever that modern cable outlets would have exploited. There would have been a rash of reporting about various things shared by unnamed White House sources. No matter what a person previously thought about Walter Cronkite, I don't think anyone's reputation can hold up when there is a deluge of targeted counter-programming. People use shortcuts, and one of the primary ones is "where there's smoke, there's fire." People say, he reported the facts, but news consumers can't even agree on the facts anymore, not even when there's evidence. When presented with their own misdeeds, it's not "you got me, I've lost." Johnson responded to the report by recognizing his position was weakened. Today, that just means dog whistles and attacks. If another network decided to attack Walter Cronkite, in the way that public people, including reporters are treated today, the outcome would be no different.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Getting back on topic, perhaps the lesson learned from this for DeSantis will be to stop the knee jerk reactions and jammed through bills passed in special sessions. Before dreaming up a 3rd attempt to “get the mouse” bring in some experts and other smart people, brainstorm ideas, come up with a better plan after doing some research, real analysis, tanking public comment and having an actual debate. In reality he should probably let it go and focus on actual real problems the people in FL face, but we know that’s unlikely. If he really plans to take another shot….think it through this time.
It’s not that. That may even have been a contributing problem.We used to do it this way and present more than one side but Dutch the Gipper thought it was wrong to require it so no longer....
Fairness doctrine - Wikipedia
If I say a Magic Kingdom single day park tickets cost $10,000. And you say they cost $109. Reporting both of those is not fair. They’re not balanced or both sides of a question. One of them is factually wrong.
Instead, I’ll just keep repeating over and over again that anyone who disagrees with the $10,000 statement is biased. You must all be in the pocket of big Disney and out to hide the truth. You can compromise (all your standards) by presenting both values and let your audience decide. You’re just following the fairness doctrine after all. Thereby giving my $10,000 figure equal reporting as the $109. See, now thats fair and both sides.
PS: In completely unrelated news, I’m happy to sell you one day tickets for $8,000. A $2,000 savings to you. Just tweet out your CC number, I’ll see it and get back to you.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
The Fairness Doctrine (I'm not a scholar of it) doesn't require presenting opposing viewpoints as I understand it but did require that all sides be reported. Lets you decide for yourself rather than a programming director deciding on what to show you on the "news"It’s not that. That may even have been a contributing problem.
If I say a Magic Kingdom single day park tickets cost $10,000. And you say they cost $109. Reporting both of those is not fair. They’re not balanced or both sides of a question. One of them is factually wrong.
Instead, I’ll just keep repeating over and over again that anyone who disagrees with the $10,000 statement is biased. You must all be in the pocket of big Disney and out to hide the truth. You can compromise (all your standards) by presenting both values and let your audience decide. You’re just following the fairness doctrine after all. Thereby giving my $10,000 figure equal reporting as the $109. See, now thats fair and both sides.
PS: In completely unrelated news, I’m happy to sell you one day tickets for $8,000. A $2,000 savings to you. Just tweet out your CC number, I’ll see it and get back to you.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Probably why BBC news is most trusted over here.....That's a shame. Here are the regulations that are still in effect over in the UK:
Section five: Due impartiality and due accuracy
This section of the Broadcasting Code relates to the concept of
Vacationeer
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Good reporting should include different viewpoints and reasoning.
Mr. Stay Puft
Well-Known Member
In reality, he shouldn't have retaliated against a private company for expressing an opinion and vowing to look out for the interests of their LGBTQ employees.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Reporting news is speech and Congress shall make no law…
Even if it were still around, the Fairness Doctrine applied to broadcast. Cable and the internet are not broadcast. It never applied to newspapers.
Even if it were still around, the Fairness Doctrine applied to broadcast. Cable and the internet are not broadcast. It never applied to newspapers.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Sad we didn't evolve
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Well yeah…..theres that too. I just meant once he decided to do all that it would have been smarter to think it though
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Restricting speech is not evolving. This whole mess existing because someone wants to restrict speech and is using state power to that end. You can’t be appalled at what Florida is doing and also want it to happen in other ways.
Is he really “serving” his base when he knowingly, deliberately, and continually lies to them for profit? Pandering, sure, but I don’t think that’s serving. I certainly wouldn’t want Disney to adopt that model.