From the President who promised greater transparency

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

And Obama has not said that access to news and access to bills is a bad thing. What Obama is referring to when he expresses concerns with respect to "crazy claims" are things like "death panels" and the idea that Obama is somehow a Kenyan-born illegal immigrant.-Sun_Tzu-

OK. And its the same medium that allowed for his campaign website, "http://www.fightthesmears.com/," sites for his campaign contributors, vocal supporters, etc. Again, it sounds like a guy whining about speech they don't personally like.

Which is of course entirely subjective when it comes to "misinformation."

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Has he called for banning these smears? I don't think so. It is perfectly within his rights to dislike smears and lies targeted at him by political opponents. Does any politician not complain when something untrue is said about them?

SgtKevali

I'm sorry, but that could be deemed "a distraction" from the truth. Especially if I access it from my smartphone or goodness forbid an "iPad or XBOX." But if it comes from CNN, ABC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, or NPR, then all's cool.

Has he called for banning it? Disagreement isn't exactly new.

You sure like to change up the topic as you go along, don't you?

I completely agree with what he said. Basically that loony conspiracy theories are given more credibility thanks to the widespread audience of the internet.chrisrooR

Damn the First Amendment. You mean people might actually have to do their own research? Oh the humanity.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

I'm sorry, but that could be deemed "a distraction" from the truth. Especially if I access it from my smartphone or goodness forbid an "iPad or XBOX." But if it comes from CNN, ABC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, or NPR, then all's cool.

QuistisTrepe_

Has he called for banning it? Disagreement isn't exactly new.

You sure like to change up the topic as you go along, don't you?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

So we should listen to the controlled media instead, right? Obama doesn't like people thinking on their own.

blackngold29

I believe the major media should have regulations forcing them to cite sources, and also making them refrain from blowing things out of proportion. The media alone can cause mass panic over nothing (swine flu) and cause economic fluxuations. They hold a great power and don't seem to be able to use it properly.

And their earning money causes mass panic, incidents, death, and others to lose money.

They should be forced by law to either keep things in proportion or put out a disclaimer stating that everything may not be factual.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

I'm sorry, but that could be deemed "a distraction" from the truth. Especially if I access it from my smartphone or goodness forbid an "iPad or XBOX." But if it comes from CNN, ABC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, or NPR, then all's cool.

QuistisTrepe_

Has he called for banning it? Disagreement isn't exactly new.

You sure like to change up the topic as you go along, don't you?

You keep dodging that question. Of course he can criticize those that lie about him, that makes perfect sense. It's his right to do so. Now, has he tried to ban that speech? He does not have that right.

[QUOTE="blackngold29"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

I missed the part where I made that claim.

QuistisTrepe_

Uh, go back and read what I posted.:?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

OK. And its the same medium that allowed for his campaign website, "http://www.fightthesmears.com/," sites for his campaign contributors, vocal supporters, etc. Again, it sounds like a guy whining about speech they don't personally like.

QuistisTrepe_

Which is of course entirely subjective when it comes to "misinformation."

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

OK. And its the same medium that allowed for his campaign website, "http://www.fightthesmears.com/," sites for his campaign contributors, vocal supporters, etc. Again, it sounds like a guy whining about speech they don't personally like.

QuistisTrepe_

Which is of course entirely subjective when it comes to "misinformation."

Oh, the American Free Press. I'm sure we got the most trustworthy news outta there.

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]I completely agree with what he said. Basically that loony conspiracy theories are given more credibility thanks to the widespread audience of the internet.QuistisTrepe_

Damn the First Amendment. You mean people might actually have to do their own research? Oh the humanity.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

So we should listen to the controlled media instead, right? Obama doesn't like people thinking on their own.

coolbeans90

I believe the major media should have regulations forcing them to cite sources, and also making them refrain from blowing things out of proportion. The media alone can cause mass panic over nothing (swine flu) and cause economic fluxuations. They hold a great power and don't seem to be able to use it properly.

Erm, there was plenty of medical citations for Swine Flu. Government bureaus advocated vaccination. Not that I think the issue wasn't overblown, (it certainly was) there was basis for the entire story.

Honestly, I am not sure that government would do a good job regulating media. Fortunately, Obama is not advocating this idea.

Swine flu was basically cited by the media to be the next aids epidemic that would kill your family. People, trusting the media, freaked out. The government, having to listen to the people, had to respond to a mass panic. Even though swine flu was barely any more lethal than your common flu.

This happens often. Something happens, it isn't a huge deal, the media says it will kill you and your family and gets experts telling you you're all going to die. People freak out and bad things happen due to it.

[QUOTE="blackngold29"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I believe the major media should have regulations forcing them to cite sources, and also making them refrain from blowing things out of proportion. The media alone can cause mass panic over nothing (swine flu) and cause economic fluxuations. They hold a great power and don't seem to be able to use it properly.

Pixel-Pirate

And their earning money causes mass panic, incidents, death, and others to lose money.

They should be forced by law to either keep things in proportion or put out a disclaimer stating that everything may not be factual.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I don't really see what's so outrageous about what he said. QuistisTrepe_

Me either.

Conservatives try to pick out atleast one line from everything ever said by Obama and turn it against him.

Who's the conservative that did that here?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

So we should listen to the controlled media instead, right? Obama doesn't like people thinking on their own.

testfactor888

I believe the major media should have regulations forcing them to cite sources, and also making them refrain from blowing things out of proportion. The media alone can cause mass panic over nothing (swine flu) and cause economic fluxuations. They hold a great power and don't seem to be able to use it properly.

So is restraining tobaccoo companies from placing cigarette billboards outside of schools.

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]I completely agree with what he said. Basically that loony conspiracy theories are given more credibility thanks to the widespread audience of the internet.QuistisTrepe_

Damn the First Amendment. You mean people might actually have to do their own research? Oh the humanity.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="blackngold29"] They make their money off of blowing things out of proportion. As much as I agree with you, they aren't going to stop. Unfortunately it's up to the individual to check their sources.blackngold29

And their earning money causes mass panic, incidents, death, and others to lose money.

They should be forced by law to either keep things in proportion or put out a disclaimer stating that everything may not be factual.

To be fair, in that situation no one would believe them anyways because it's Fox.

I'm not talking so much about politics here. I'm talking about "Swine flu detected in one person in a rural town" being translated by the media to "OH MY GOD IT'S AN EPIDEMIC! YOU'RE GOING TO DIE! WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST!"

Why can't it simply be reported as what actually happened instead of as something that didn't happen? Why should an organization that has a huge influence in economy and other sectors, get to out right lie and ruin people and buisnesses?

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]I completely agree with what he said. Basically that loony conspiracy theories are given more credibility thanks to the widespread audience of the internet.PannicAtack

Damn the First Amendment. You mean people might actually have to do their own research? Oh the humanity.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Damn the First Amendment. You mean people might actually have to do their own research? Oh the humanity.

blackngold29

Did Obama say anything about controlling what's on the internet?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I believe the major media should have regulations forcing them to cite sources, and also making them refrain from blowing things out of proportion. The media alone can cause mass panic over nothing (swine flu) and cause economic fluxuations. They hold a great power and don't seem to be able to use it properly.

Pixel-Pirate

Erm, there was plenty of medical citations for Swine Flu. Government bureaus advocated vaccination. Not that I think the issue wasn't overblown, (it certainly was) there was basis for the entire story.

Honestly, I am not sure that government would do a good job regulating media. Fortunately, Obama is not advocating this idea.

Swine flu was basically cited by the media to be the next aids epidemic that would kill your family. People, trusting the media, freaked out. The government, having to listen to the people, had to respond to a mass panic. Even though swine flu was barely any more lethal than your common flu.

This happens often. Something happens, it isn't a huge deal, the media says it will kill you and your family and gets experts telling you you're all going to die. People freak out and bad things happen due to it.

Which explains the FDA and tons of educated doctors developing vaccines for it, and reccomended that everyone take it, as opposed to simply making it availible. :roll:

[QUOTE="blackngold29"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

And their earning money causes mass panic, incidents, death, and others to lose money.

They should be forced by law to either keep things in proportion or put out a disclaimer stating that everything may not be factual.

Pixel-Pirate

To be fair, in that situation no one would believe them anyways because it's Fox.

I'm not talking so much about politics here. I'm talking about "Swine flu detected in one person in a rural town" being translated by the media to "OH MY GOD IT'S AN EPIDEMIC! YOU'RE GOING TO DIE! WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST!"

Why can't it simply be reported as what actually happened instead of as something that didn't happen? Why should an organization that has a huge influence in economy and other sectors, get to out right lie and ruin people and buisnesses?

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Damn the First Amendment. You mean people might actually have to do their own research? Oh the humanity.

blackngold29

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Erm, there was plenty of medical citations for Swine Flu. Government bureaus advocated vaccination. Not that I think the issue wasn't overblown, (it certainly was) there was basis for the entire story.

Honestly, I am not sure that government would do a good job regulating media. Fortunately, Obama is not advocating this idea.

coolbeans90

Swine flu was basically cited by the media to be the next aids epidemic that would kill your family. People, trusting the media, freaked out. The government, having to listen to the people, had to respond to a mass panic. Even though swine flu was barely any more lethal than your common flu.

This happens often. Something happens, it isn't a huge deal, the media says it will kill you and your family and gets experts telling you you're all going to die. People freak out and bad things happen due to it.

Which explains the FDA and tons of educated doctors developing vaccines for it, and reccomended that everyone take it, as opposed to simply making it availible. :roll:

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

And Obama has not said that access to news and access to bills is a bad thing. What Obama is referring to when he expresses concerns with respect to "crazy claims" are things like "death panels" and the idea that Obama is somehow a Kenyan-born illegal immigrant.-Sun_Tzu-

OK. And its the same medium that allowed for his campaign website, "http://www.fightthesmears.com/," sites for his campaign contributors, vocal supporters, etc. Again, it sounds like a guy whining about speech they don't personally like.

This exactly. He didn't say the internet was a bad thing, or that these technologies should be banned, or that we should only be listening to cable news, I think if anything part of what he's concerned about is cable news using these new technologies to grant people instantaneous access to whatever propaganda they feel like cooking up. His concnern was the nature of the medium and how we as a society adapt to utilize the medium more responsibly. Also, I think it's very ironic how he complains about news agencies making sensational claims, and then someone takes that quote and makes a sensational claim about it.

[QUOTE="blackngold29"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]How do you interpret "the internet has allowed the propagation of crackpot conspiracy theories" to be an attack on the First Amendment?SgtKevali

Did Obama say anything about controlling what's on the internet?

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Has he called for banning it? Disagreement isn't exactly new.

SgtKevali

You sure like to change up the topic as you go along, don't you?

You keep dodging that question. Of course he can criticize those that lie about him, that makes perfect sense. It's his right to do so. Now, has he tried to ban that speech? He does not have that right.

And you're putting words into my mouth. Where did I make such a claim? I made a point about a President that complains about, "You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments."

As if that were a bad thing. Which by the way is what helps the people to maintain the republic......not our democracy as the President put it. Yes, I agree with Obama, it does put pressures on our country, the way it was meant to be. I believe we call that accountability.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Erm, there was plenty of medical citations for Swine Flu. Government bureaus advocated vaccination. Not that I think the issue wasn't overblown, (it certainly was) there was basis for the entire story.

Honestly, I am not sure that government would do a good job regulating media. Fortunately, Obama is not advocating this idea.

coolbeans90

Swine flu was basically cited by the media to be the next aids epidemic that would kill your family. People, trusting the media, freaked out. The government, having to listen to the people, had to respond to a mass panic. Even though swine flu was barely any more lethal than your common flu.

This happens often. Something happens, it isn't a huge deal, the media says it will kill you and your family and gets experts telling you you're all going to die. People freak out and bad things happen due to it.

Which explains the FDA and tons of educated doctors developing vaccines for it, and reccomended that everyone take it, as opposed to simply making it availible. :roll:

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Swine flu was basically cited by the media to be the next aids epidemic that would kill your family. People, trusting the media, freaked out. The government, having to listen to the people, had to respond to a mass panic. Even though swine flu was barely any more lethal than your common flu.

This happens often. Something happens, it isn't a huge deal, the media says it will kill you and your family and gets experts telling you you're all going to die. People freak out and bad things happen due to it.

xbox360isgr8t

Which explains the FDA and tons of educated doctors developing vaccines for it, and reccomended that everyone take it, as opposed to simply making it availible. :roll:

I didn't get the vaccine either. But the fact remains that it was more than baseless fearmongering, even if an overreaction.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

You sure like to change up the topic as you go along, don't you?

QuistisTrepe_

You keep dodging that question. Of course he can criticize those that lie about him, that makes perfect sense. It's his right to do so. Now, has he tried to ban that speech? He does not have that right.

And you're putting words into my mouth. Where did I make such a claim? I made a point about a President that complains about, "You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments."

As if that were a bad thing. Which by the way is what helps the people to maintain the republic......not our democracy as the President put it. Yes, I agree with Obama, it does put pressures on our country, the way it was meant to be. I believe we call that accountability.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Guys, this entire discussion stems from a "news" source whose top article is PASTOR JOHN HAGEE: Is the Devil in Him?blackngold29

Who reports it can leave out other things he said, paraphrase him, or make up the quotes entirely. In addition, they can spin what he said. So yes, who reports it is very relevant.

[QUOTE="xbox360isgr8t"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Which explains the FDA and tons of educated doctors developing vaccines for it, and reccomended that everyone take it, as opposed to simply making it availible. :roll:

coolbeans90

I didn't get the vaccine either. But the fact remains that it was more than baseless fearmongering, even if an overreaction.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Swine flu was basically cited by the media to be the next aids epidemic that would kill your family. People, trusting the media, freaked out. The government, having to listen to the people, had to respond to a mass panic. Even though swine flu was barely any more lethal than your common flu.

This happens often. Something happens, it isn't a huge deal, the media says it will kill you and your family and gets experts telling you you're all going to die. People freak out and bad things happen due to it.

wstfld

Which explains the FDA and tons of educated doctors developing vaccines for it, and reccomended that everyone take it, as opposed to simply making it availible. :roll:

Which is clearly why government bureaus advocated people to take the vaccines. Those greedy bastards!!!

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Which explains the FDA and tons of educated doctors developing vaccines for it, and reccomended that everyone take it, as opposed to simply making it availible. :roll:

coolbeans90

Which is clearly why government bureaus advocated people to take the vaccines. Those greedy bastards!!!

[QUOTE="blackngold29"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Guys, this entire discussion stems from a "news" source whose top article is PASTOR JOHN HAGEE: Is the Devil in Him?Theokhoth

Who reports it can leave out other things he said, paraphrase him, or make up the quotes entirely. In addition, they can spin what he said. So yes, who reports it is very relevant.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="xbox360isgr8t"] i never got the vaccine. i pretty much dont trust anything this adminastration and government is doing. they dont care about the people. PannicAtack

I didn't get the vaccine either. But the fact remains that it was more than baseless fearmongering, even if an overreaction.

I also got the vaccine. Aside from that couple of tumors on my anus, nothing bad happened whatsoever.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="xbox360isgr8t"] i never got the vaccine. i pretty much dont trust anything this adminastration and government is doing. they dont care about the people. PannicAtack

I didn't get the vaccine either. But the fact remains that it was more than baseless fearmongering, even if an overreaction.

I never said anything negative about the vaccine. I just didn't feel compelled enough to go get one. I think that there was more than enough fear mongering with respect to swine flu itself, and the associated vaccine.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

You sure like to change up the topic as you go along, don't you?

QuistisTrepe_

You keep dodging that question. Of course he can criticize those that lie about him, that makes perfect sense. It's his right to do so. Now, has he tried to ban that speech? He does not have that right.

And you're putting words into my mouth. Where did I make such a claim? I made a point about a President that complains about, "You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments."

As if that were a bad thing. Which by the way is what helps the people to maintain the republic......not our democracy as the President put it. Yes, I agree with Obama, it does put pressures on our country, the way it was meant to be. I believe we call that accountability.

I don't see where he said that. There reason I ask you whether he has tried to ban it is because unless he does that he's not doing anything wrong. He can criticize the RW media who lie about him all day long, and it makes perfect sense. Criticizing those that lie about you is not something new.

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Which explains the FDA and tons of educated doctors developing vaccines for it, and reccomended that everyone take it, as opposed to simply making it availible. :roll:

coolbeans90

Which is clearly why government bureaus advocated people to take the vaccines. Those greedy bastards!!!

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="blackngold29"] We're talking about direct quotes from Obama, who reports it is irrelevant.blackngold29

Who reports it can leave out other things he said, paraphrase him, or make up the quotes entirely. In addition, they can spin what he said. So yes, who reports it is very relevant.

That's not my job.

The source is extremely relevant. This is rule 1 of media. :lol: A biased source will make a person they don't like look as bad as possible.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

You sure like to change up the topic as you go along, don't you?

QuistisTrepe_

You keep dodging that question. Of course he can criticize those that lie about him, that makes perfect sense. It's his right to do so. Now, has he tried to ban that speech? He does not have that right.

And you're putting words into my mouth. Where did I make such a claim? I made a point about a President that complains about, "You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments."

As if that were a bad thing. Which by the way is what helps the people to maintain the republic......not our democracy as the President put it. Yes, I agree with Obama, it does put pressures on our country, the way it was meant to be. I believe we call that accountability.

So a news source that reports dilligently, backs up its articles with sources, and quotes legitimate science needs another news source that does none of those things and basically makes up claims based on specious and circumstantial logic in order to stay accountable? Sorry, that doesn't help accountability one bit.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I didn't get the vaccine either. But the fact remains that it was more than baseless fearmongering, even if an overreaction.

coolbeans90

I never said anything negative about the vaccine. I just didn't feel compelled enough to go get one. I think that there was more than enough fear mongering with respect to swine flu itself, and the associated vaccine.