Businesses should stay out of politics and politicians should stay out of business as a general rule. Disney is a prime example. As for Bud, they're paying for their stupid campaign. Leave it at that and the politicians should stay out. The market decided.
Well on your point I fully disagree. I may not like what Hannity, Maddow, or the other pundits say on these stations, I believe they have the right to say it. They are pundits. But I assume Bob that you and I and others can distinguish the difference between facts and fiction (hopefully). And I'm not sure if you are paying attention but Bernie and John have been pretty hard on Fox.
I believe Bob there is a difference between Bud and Fox.
Of course they have the right to say it, just as Bud Light has the right to have an ad with a trans chick. Our 1st A. rights cannot be taken away merely because what we say and do is offensive, irresponsible, dishonest, etc. But you said that businesses should stay out of politics. My point was that talk radio and cable news are businesses and they're frequently political.
Maybe you meant that businesses selling products like beer should stay out of politics. I don't see a problem with a businesses dipping into politics as long as they're doing so constructively and responsibly. If the businesses are run intelligently , they'll make decisions factoring in the cost-effectiveness of their politicking. Again, I'm not for abolishing the 1st A.
"But I assume Bob that you and I and others can distinguish the difference between facts and fiction (hopefully)."
Why do you assume that? How can you tell the difference between fact and fiction if you don't know the difference in a given instance? If I told you that I am a veteran of our war in Iraq, how would you know if that is fact or fiction? How many knew that Fox News was reporting fiction when its reporters claimed that a hotel in upper NY kicked out its veterans so the homeless could stay there? The Fox News reporters (hopefully) did NOT know that this was fiction. Had I heard this reported on Fox, I'd be suspicious that I wasn't being told the whole story, but I'd have no way of knowing at the time that the story was fiction. until later when other outlets reported it as fiction.
Oftentimes it's not a case of fact vs. fiction per se. Frequently, stories are misleading because selective facts are presented, the language used - while technically not untrue - implies something that is not true or the importance of a story is distorted because of the type or frequency of coverage its given. This type of deception is far more insidious.
I'll give you a simple but extreme example. In his book "Addicted to Outrage" Glen Beck told a cold war story about a horse race between an American jockey and a Soviet jockey. The Soviet press truthfully reported that the Russian placed second and the American finished second to last. The American press truthfully reported that the American beat the Soviet.
Distortions are not uncommon in the American news media. Even for those of us who take the time and effort to consume a variety of news media, discerning truth from falsehood is frequently difficult.
Businesses should stay out of politics and politicians should stay out of business as a general rule. Disney is a prime example. As for Bud, they're paying for their stupid campaign. Leave it at that and the politicians should stay out. The market decided.
>>Businesses should stay out of politics and politicians should stay out of business as a general rule.
Agreed, but I give more latitude to private entities expressing political speech than I do government-officials trying to punish them over it.
>>As for Bud, they're paying for their stupid campaign. Leave it at that and the politicians should stay out. The market decided.
Yep.
"Businesses should stay out of politics...."
Tell that to the businesses of Fox News, NewsMax, OANN and hate radio.
Yes, yes, yes. I know I know I know, other "news" media do it too.
Well on your point I fully disagree. I may not like what Hannity, Maddow, or the other pundits say on these stations, I believe they have the right to say it. They are pundits. But I assume Bob that you and I and others can distinguish the difference between facts and fiction (hopefully). And I'm not sure if you are paying attention but Bernie and John have been pretty hard on Fox.
I believe Bob there is a difference between Bud and Fox.
Of course they have the right to say it, just as Bud Light has the right to have an ad with a trans chick. Our 1st A. rights cannot be taken away merely because what we say and do is offensive, irresponsible, dishonest, etc. But you said that businesses should stay out of politics. My point was that talk radio and cable news are businesses and they're frequently political.
Maybe you meant that businesses selling products like beer should stay out of politics. I don't see a problem with a businesses dipping into politics as long as they're doing so constructively and responsibly. If the businesses are run intelligently , they'll make decisions factoring in the cost-effectiveness of their politicking. Again, I'm not for abolishing the 1st A.
"But I assume Bob that you and I and others can distinguish the difference between facts and fiction (hopefully)."
Why do you assume that? How can you tell the difference between fact and fiction if you don't know the difference in a given instance? If I told you that I am a veteran of our war in Iraq, how would you know if that is fact or fiction? How many knew that Fox News was reporting fiction when its reporters claimed that a hotel in upper NY kicked out its veterans so the homeless could stay there? The Fox News reporters (hopefully) did NOT know that this was fiction. Had I heard this reported on Fox, I'd be suspicious that I wasn't being told the whole story, but I'd have no way of knowing at the time that the story was fiction. until later when other outlets reported it as fiction.
Oftentimes it's not a case of fact vs. fiction per se. Frequently, stories are misleading because selective facts are presented, the language used - while technically not untrue - implies something that is not true or the importance of a story is distorted because of the type or frequency of coverage its given. This type of deception is far more insidious.
I'll give you a simple but extreme example. In his book "Addicted to Outrage" Glen Beck told a cold war story about a horse race between an American jockey and a Soviet jockey. The Soviet press truthfully reported that the Russian placed second and the American finished second to last. The American press truthfully reported that the American beat the Soviet.
Distortions are not uncommon in the American news media. Even for those of us who take the time and effort to consume a variety of news media, discerning truth from falsehood is frequently difficult.