Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   So, Drudge Report, and Hannity will need to be regulated like PACs. Makes you wonder why they didn't mention Mother Jones, HuffPo and Daily Kos   (washingtonexaminer.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Sean Hannity, Drudge Report, Federal Election Commission, Fe C, HuffPost, political action committees, selective enforcement, Fairness Doctrine  
•       •       •

1561 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2014 at 11:04 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



163 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-05-08 09:02:25 AM  
Without looking into this issue any further than the linked article, since I am sure it is bullshiat, I thought PACs were regulated so that they could be tax exempt.  These conservative media outlets aren't tax exempt.  If you aren't asking for preferred tax status, you are not regulated, and I seriously doubt there is any push whatsoever to regulate.  Maybe some people would like a return to the fairness doctrine.  While I have serious doubts there is any real push to return to that, that has nothing to do with regulation of PACs.
 
2014-05-08 09:20:09 AM  
Hey, it's the Manufactured Conservative Outrage of the Day. Welcome to Thursday, MCOD!
 
2014-05-08 09:22:46 AM  
Against my better judgment I read TFA and it appears to be based on commentary directly from the chairwoman of the FEC, and that she was expressing specific concerns about how the conservative media was prompting the government towards imposing regulatory restrictions.  I will leave the source-checking to someone else, but it was certainly a better-written piece than just about anything I've ever seen from the WX.

/that's not saying much
 
2014-05-08 09:23:44 AM  

clancifer: Hey, it's the Manufactured Conservative Outrage of the Day. Welcome to Thursday, MCOD!


Please elaborate.
 
2014-05-08 09:25:26 AM  
While at the same time, the FEC chair said:  'He added, "Truth be told, I want conservative media to have the same exemption as all other media."'

Three Crooked Squirrels: Maybe some people would like a return to the fairness doctrine


They actually mention that in TFA:  'Liberals over the years have also pushed for a change in the Federal Communications Commission's "fairness doctrine" to cut off conservative voices'

While I'm no big fan of the manufactured outrage, obfuscation and hyperbole found in conservative media, I think this tactic is bullshiat.  Of course, I don't know which way the Washington Examiner leans, so the whole damn article could be bullshiat.
 
2014-05-08 09:36:15 AM  

xanadian: Of course, I don't know which way the Washington Examiner leans, so the whole damn article could be bullshiat.


The Washington Examiner is a political journalism publication based in Washington, D.C., that distributes its content via daily online reports and a weekly magazine. It is owned by MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group, which is owned by Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz and which also owns the influential conservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard.

/per, The Pedia.
 
2014-05-08 09:41:35 AM  
All media has long benefited from an exemption from FEC rules, thereby allowing outlets to pick favorites in elections and promote them without any limits or disclosure requirements like political action committees.

But Goodman cited several examples where the FEC has considered regulating conservative media, including Sean Hannity's radio show and Citizens United's movie division. Those efforts to lift the media exemption died in split votes at the politically evenly divided board, often with Democrats seeking regulation.


The question is, has it only been conservative media or have they voted to do this to liberal media as well?  They can't apply a rule to Michelle Malkin's blog HotAir, but then not apply the same rule to DailyKos (or apply it differently).

One way around it is to just go after talk radio.  Since talk radio is dominated by the right, it will disproportionately hurt right-wing media.  I see Internet news and blog sites about 50/50 right/left.  Print media disproportionately left.
 
2014-05-08 09:54:46 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: clancifer: Hey, it's the Manufactured Conservative Outrage of the Day. Welcome to Thursday, MCOD!

Please elaborate.


TFA expresses outrage about a speculated future proposal based on the statements of the head of the agency who would enact said proposal directly saying he would fight such proposals, and misrepresents the Fairness Doctrine as a way to justify that speculation by claiming it would be used in a way completely different than how it was before it was rescinded.

That would be the manufactured outrage.
 
2014-05-08 09:56:49 AM  

SlothB77: One way around it is to just go after talk radio.  Since talk radio is dominated by the right, it will disproportionately hurt right-wing media.  I see Internet news and blog sites about 50/50 right/left.  Print media disproportionately left.


Ironically, which of those mediums uses public airwaves that must be regulated to ensure relatively fair access for all citizens who seek it? The right-wing one? The right-wing medium is the only one that relies on finite, limited airwaves necessarily regulated by the government?
 
2014-05-08 10:03:58 AM  

Bloody William: TFA expresses outrage about a speculated future proposal based on the statements of the head of the agency who would enact said proposal directly saying he would fight such proposals, and misrepresents the Fairness Doctrine as a way to justify that speculation by claiming it would be used in a way completely different than how it was before it was rescinded.

That would be the manufactured outrage.


The fact that it is even considered is bothersome...to me anyway.
 
2014-05-08 10:06:28 AM  
Goodman's bio:
Commissioner Lee E. Goodman serves as Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. He was appointed by President Barack Obama on October 21, 2013, and sworn into office on October 22, 2013. President Obama nominated Commissioner Goodman, a Republican, on June 24, 2013, on the recommendation of Senator Mitch McConnell and he was confirmed by unanimous consent of the United States Senate on September 23, 2013.


Hoisted by your own retard, really.
 
2014-05-08 10:08:06 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: The fact that it is even considered is bothersome...to me anyway.


There should be a balance between the 4th estate keeping the government honest and the government ensuring that people aren't hiding behind the idea that they're "the press" while actually just being completely unregulated campaigners and cheerleaders for politicians.

But I'd rather have the right wing derp machine on full blast (current setting) than the government selectively choosing to regulate one side of the political spectrum for purely partisan reasons.
 
2014-05-08 10:13:17 AM  

factoryconnection: But I'd rather have the right wing derp machine on either, any and all  sides on full blast (current setting) than the government selectively choosing to regulate one side of the political spectrum for purely partisan reasons.


FTFY
 
2014-05-08 10:31:56 AM  
Hannity should definitely be regulated...listening to him has the same effect as eating old pain chips.
 
2014-05-08 10:32:36 AM  
So, Drudge Report, and Hannity will need to be regulated like PACs. Makes you wonder why they didn't mention Mother Jones, HuffPo and Daily Kos

Because they aren't very popular?
 
2014-05-08 10:32:43 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Hannity should definitely be regulated...listening to him has the same effect as eating old pain chips.


That's it, to a "t"!
 
2014-05-08 10:53:43 AM  
"The right has begun to break the left's media monopoly"

stopped-reading-there.jpg
 
2014-05-08 10:59:48 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FTFY


Keep telling yourself that, and remind me again which liberal radio jock controls the Democratic party the way Rush does for the GOP?  Oh, none of them?
 
2014-05-08 11:00:59 AM  

factoryconnection: Against my better judgment I read TFA and it appears to be based on commentary directly from the chairwoman of the FEC, and that she was expressing specific concerns about how the conservative media was prompting the government towards imposing regulatory restrictions.  I will leave the source-checking to someone else, but it was certainly a better-written piece than just about anything I've ever seen from the WX.

/that's not saying much


I tried source checking on an earlier red lit link. The first two pages were all echo chamber. Stopped looking and called bullshiat.
 
2014-05-08 11:10:27 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: clancifer: Hey, it's the Manufactured Conservative Outrage of the Day. Welcome to Thursday, MCOD!

Please elaborate.


NIXON, YOU DOLT!
 
2014-05-08 11:11:14 AM  
I see the difference as there is a lot of evidence that Hannity et al. coordinate with the GOP on talking points where KOS et all on the left just spout their own opinions. The FEC is proposing to regulate that the same way they do with PAC's where candidates are not allowed to direct or confer with the PAC. The problem will be just like it is today with PACs where how do you enforce it??? I don't think anyone is dumb enough to think in the last election cycle Obama and Romney were not driving those PACs but nobody was ever prosecuted.
 
2014-05-08 11:11:22 AM  

factoryconnection: Dancin_In_Anson: FTFY

Keep telling yourself that, and remind me again which liberal radio jock controls the Democratic party the way Rush does for the GOP?  Oh, none of them?


He's an admitted troll and liar, who wouldn't have a job without the government.
 
2014-05-08 11:12:57 AM  
One does not have to dive too deeply into Fark threads to see how hurt and scared neo-liberals are of opposing views.

Diversity of thought is scary, apparently.
 
2014-05-08 11:13:20 AM  
These things happen when you're running a propaganda outfit that directly coordinates with a political party.
 
2014-05-08 11:18:04 AM  
well the invisible hand of the free market certainly isn't doing anything to make right-wing media sources suffer any consequences for literally lying 24/7
 
2014-05-08 11:18:37 AM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: He's an admitted troll and liar, who wouldn't have a job without the government.


Eh, DIA isn't 1/10th the hot mess that half the trolls I see are.  That he isn't totally threadsh*tting and already blasting ad hominem all over the place puts him in pretty good stead by internet standards.  People can disagree with me and I don't consider it trolling.
 
2014-05-08 11:22:09 AM  

factoryconnection: Eh, DIA isn't 1/10th the hot mess that half the trolls I see are.


did you just buy that account
 
2014-05-08 11:24:39 AM  

factoryconnection: Keep telling yourself that, and remind me again which liberal radio jock controls the Democratic party the way Rush does for the GOP? Oh, none of them?


And this means what? That it's ok for the Federal government to squelch Rush?
 
2014-05-08 11:25:40 AM  

xanadian: While at the same time, the FEC chair said:  'He added, "Truth be told, I want conservative media to have the same exemption as all other media."'

Three Crooked Squirrels: Maybe some people would like a return to the fairness doctrine

They actually mention that in TFA:  'Liberals over the years have also pushed for a change in the Federal Communications Commission's "fairness doctrine" to cut off conservative voices'

While I'm no big fan of the manufactured outrage, obfuscation and hyperbole found in conservative media, I think this tactic is bullshiat.  Of course, I don't know which way the Washington Examiner leans, so the whole damn article could be bullshiat.


The fairness doctrine was the right's fav boogieman until the blah guy implementing their own ideas came along and stole the show.
 
2014-05-08 11:26:47 AM  
Using your first amendment freedom of the press to lie to people is one thing.

Abusing your first amendment freedom of the press to lie to people for political gain is another.

If the second action occurred, absolutely regulate.
 
2014-05-08 11:27:02 AM  
FTA: They can compete with the big boys now, and I have seen storm butts that the second you start to regulate them, there is at least the possibility or indeed proclivity for selective enforcement, so we need to keep the media free and the internet free.

I wonder how he feels about Net Neutrality.
 
2014-05-08 11:27:10 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: factoryconnection: Keep telling yourself that, and remind me again which liberal radio jock controls the Democratic party the way Rush does for the GOP? Oh, none of them?

And this means what? That it's ok for the Federal government to squelch Rush?


He can talk as much as he likes.
 
2014-05-08 11:28:18 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Hannity should definitely be regulated...listening to him has the same effect as eating old pain chips.


I think you're thinking of rush.
 
2014-05-08 11:28:30 AM  
So, Drudge Report, and Hannity will need to be regulated like PACs. Makes you wonder why they didn't mention Mother Jones, HuffPo and Daily Kos The Daily KOS

FTFS

Nemo's Brother:
One does not have to dive too deeply into Fark threads to see how hurt and scared neo-liberals are of opposing views.

Diversity of thought is scary, apparently.


Ah, you mean the infamous "TotalFark Left™"?
 
2014-05-08 11:29:19 AM  
I'll trust the FEC to regulate blogs about thirty minutes after the FTC clears the market of homeopathic remedies for making false or untestable claims.
 
2014-05-08 11:30:55 AM  

wildcardjack: I'll trust the FEC to regulate blogs about thirty minutes after the FTC clears the market of homeopathic remedies for making false or untestable claims.


hey now studies have shown that placebos can cure all kinds of problems
 
2014-05-08 11:33:44 AM  

Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: clancifer: Hey, it's the Manufactured Conservative Outrage of the Day. Welcome to Thursday, MCOD!

Please elaborate.

TFA expresses outrage about a speculated future proposal based on the statements of the head of the agency who would enact said proposal directly saying he would fight such proposals, and misrepresents the Fairness Doctrine as a way to justify that speculation by claiming it would be used in a way completely different than how it was before it was rescinded.

That would be the manufactured outrage.


Just got back to office. Well said. Thank you.
 
2014-05-08 11:34:25 AM  

Triple Oak: Abusing your first amendment freedom of the press to lie to people for political gain is another.


You say that as if lying for political gain is a new thing.
 
2014-05-08 11:34:47 AM  

Nemo's Brother: One does not have to dive too deeply into Fark threads to see how hurt and scared neo-liberals are of opposing views.

Diversity of thought is scary, apparently.


it's always odd when conservatives claim that because you can't go on to a right wing website and even post something remotely against the derp or your comment will be deleted. Where fark allows your comments to remain and be argued against.
 
2014-05-08 11:41:13 AM  
Looks to me like there is some selective quoting going on in TFA. I'd be curious to see a transcript of this interview.
 
2014-05-08 11:44:24 AM  

Headso: it's always odd when conservatives claim that because you can't go on to a right wing website and even post something remotely against the derp or your comment will be deleted. Where fark allows your comments to remain and be argued against.


Fark is a right-wing website?
 
2014-05-08 11:44:38 AM  
                               freedomoutpost.com
 
2014-05-08 11:45:33 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Without looking into this issue any further than the linked article, since I am sure it is bullshiat, I thought PACs were regulated so that they could be tax exempt.  These conservative media outlets aren't tax exempt.  If you aren't asking for preferred tax status, you are not regulated, and I seriously doubt there is any push whatsoever to regulate.  Maybe some people would like a return to the fairness doctrine.  While I have serious doubts there is any real push to return to that, that has nothing to do with regulation of PACs.


I've heard trial balloons about this in the past. In order to get around that pesky free press thing, some people have suggested classifying political media exposure as "in-kind contributions" and as such make it subject to campaign finance regulation. Completely neutral and administered even-handedly, of course, like IRS grants of tax-exempt status.
 
2014-05-08 11:46:33 AM  

theknuckler_33: Looks to me like there is some selective quoting going on in TFA. I'd be curious to see a transcript of this interview.


"added Goodman, a Republican whose chairmanship lasts through December "

or maybe just typical partisan asshattery.
 
2014-05-08 11:46:38 AM  

GoldSpider: Headso: it's always odd when conservatives claim that because you can't go on to a right wing website and even post something remotely against the derp or your comment will be deleted. Where fark allows your comments to remain and be argued against.

Fark is a right-wing website?


it allows commenters of all kinds
 
MFK [TotalFark]
2014-05-08 11:47:11 AM  
So I saw this yesterday when a derper former coworker sent me this on Facebook and immediately I could tell that this was another one of those bullshiat manufactured outrage stories because a) it was ONLY being talked about on daily caller, blaze, examiner, fox news, etc. and b) because it is a gross misrepresentation of what happened.

As far as I can tell this is what the outrage is about.

1. 3rd party candidate  gets shut out of a media-sponsored political debate in Boston, files complaint with FEC alleging that they violated campaign finance laws by shilling for the 2 major parties - a lame, but somewhat valid complaint.
2. FEC looks into it - because that's their job - and ultimately does exactly fark-all.
3. Chairman of FEC, a Republican operative, gives an interview to Fox framing it as "because the FEC looked into this, it's the same thing as considering regulating it and HOW DARE THEY!??!"
4. The right wing echo-chamber, including Fox, picks up this new spin and runs with it. In this case, Fox is literally linking back to themselves.
5. Derpish-Americans start frothing at the mouth about how FEC is trying to REGULATE(!!!) their favorite blogs.
 
2014-05-08 11:48:00 AM  

jjorsett: I've heard trial balloons about this in the past. In order to get around that pesky free press thing, some people have suggested classifying political media exposure as "in-kind contributions" and as such make it subject to campaign finance regulation. Completely neutral and administered even-handedly, of course, like IRS grants of tax-exempt status.


With hand-picked bureaucrats deciding what is Fair & Balanced.
 
2014-05-08 11:48:31 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Hannity should definitely be regulated...listening to him has the same effect as eating old pain chips.


The regulation is called "changing the channel".
 
2014-05-08 11:49:07 AM  

Nemo's Brother: One does not have to dive too deeply into Fark threads to see how hurt and scared neo-liberals are of opposing views.

Diversity of thought is scary, apparently.


Diversity of thought requires dissenting views to involve thought
 
2014-05-08 11:53:30 AM  
TFA is most likely bullshiat, but this is disturbing:

warned Federal Election Commission Chairman Lee E. Goodman in an interview.
"The right has begun to break the left's media monopoly,


The chair of the FEC, a Republican appointee, is one of the idiot "OMG! Liberal media!" farkwits.

Zeb Hesselgresser: [freedomoutpost.com image 205x244]


Posting a reference to Jonah Goldberg's idiotic and ignorant "liberal fascism" fantasy? I assume you're trying to look stupid.
 
Displayed 50 of 163 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report