Skip to content
 
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.

(Twitter)   Are you an upstart conservative news network that doesn't like the results of the California recall election? Simple, don't report them   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, shot  
•       •       •

2668 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Sep 2021 at 10:29 AM (11 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



46 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-09-15 9:41:28 AM  
Original Tweet:

 
2021-09-15 9:41:47 AM  
This is seriously Stalin-era stuff.
 
2021-09-15 9:56:20 AM  
Do you have a more Reliable Source than some guy on Twitter?
 
2021-09-15 10:00:22 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Do you have a more Reliable Source than some guy on Twitter?


That guy founded Stray Cats and is a virtuoso guitarist, so that's all the proof you need.
 
2021-09-15 10:03:14 AM  

markie_farkie: NewportBarGuy: Do you have a more Reliable Source than some guy on Twitter?

That guy founded Stray Cats and is a virtuoso guitarist, so that's all the proof you need.


th.bing.comView Full Size
 
2021-09-15 10:19:43 AM  

markie_farkie: NewportBarGuy: Do you have a more Reliable Source than some guy on Twitter?

That guy founded Stray Cats and is a virtuoso guitarist, so that's all the proof you need.


media3.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2021-09-15 10:34:50 AM  
"OAN:  We cover all the news that we decide to tell you about, and then make up the rest!"
 
2021-09-15 10:37:49 AM  
 
2021-09-15 10:41:01 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Do you have a more Reliable Source than some guy on Twitter?


He's CNN's media correspondent, not just "some guy."
 
2021-09-15 10:41:50 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Reliable Source



Aaaand I just picked up that you capped "reliable source."

Never mind.
 
2021-09-15 10:44:47 AM  

OldRod: "OAN:  We cover all the news that we decide to tell you about, and then make up the rest!"


"AND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FINE." - FCC (which Biden is about to lose control of due to inattention)
 
2021-09-15 10:45:24 AM  

FlashHarry: NewportBarGuy: Reliable Source


Aaaand I just picked up that you capped "reliable source."

Never mind.


brobible.comView Full Size
 
2021-09-15 10:53:18 AM  
That recall wouldn't have happen without the constant advertisement from OAN and Fox.  Fox pushed the recall daily for over a year.
 
2021-09-15 10:54:18 AM  

FlashHarry: This is seriously Stalin-era stuff.


No surprise. ONAN is really the USA office of the Russian Ministry of Propaganda, or whatever they're calling it these days.
 
2021-09-15 10:55:28 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Do you have a more Reliable Source than some guy on Twitter?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-09-15 10:55:32 AM  
If I were a more handsome man, and OANN offered me like $500k a year to spout bullsh*t on their channel while dressed in a $200 off the rack suit?

The election was stolen.
 
2021-09-15 10:56:38 AM  

markie_farkie: NewportBarGuy: Do you have a more Reliable Source than some guy on Twitter?

That guy founded Stray Cats and is a virtuoso guitarist, so that's all the proof you need.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-09-15 10:58:38 AM  
This has always been my concern about re-implementing/upgrading the Fairness Doctrine. If Fox News doesn't like a particular story (the Jan 6th panel is a recent example) then they just don't report about it. How can you force a news agency to report fairly about a controversial issue if they don't mention it in the first place?
 
2021-09-15 11:02:11 AM  
This is one of those "technically correct is the best kind of correct" things.

The vote counting is nowhere near final.  Vote by mail ballots only have to be postmarked by Sept 14 (and this election was almost entirely vote by mail); they can be received as late as a week later and still be counted.  The counties have until Oct 15 to submit their final totals to the state and the state only certifies it as final on Oct 22.

So, if they want to pretend that the results aren't official yet, well, they are technically correct.  Of course, the recall failed by such a large margin there's no way the remaining ballots will change anything.
 
2021-09-15 11:04:42 AM  

fiddlehead: This has always been my concern about re-implementing/upgrading the Fairness Doctrine. If Fox News doesn't like a particular story (the Jan 6th panel is a recent example) then they just don't report about it. How can you force a news agency to report fairly about a controversial issue if they don't mention it in the first place?


Note that the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable TV, just to broadcast.  And, due to the first amendment, requiring something like that for cable TV might be unconstitutional (broadcast channels are limited and assigned by the Federal government so they have more control over them constitutionally, which cable TV slots are basically unlimited and therefore can not be controlled as strictly under the constitution).
 
2021-09-15 11:06:42 AM  
Recall election? What recall election? I don't know anything about some supposed recall election. Fake news!
 
2021-09-15 11:08:20 AM  
Biden won California with 56% of the vote.
Newsom won the recall with 64% - in an off year election.

Trump has made right-wingers very comfortable openly expressing very extreme positions. They might find that extremism invigorating, but it looks like the electorate is repulsed by it.
 
2021-09-15 11:09:21 AM  
Both subby and Stelter forgot OAN's tag line: "Bringing you yesterday's news, tomorrow.  Because if you haven't heard it, its news to you!"  So they won't be reporting on it until Friday.

/If that isn't their tag line it should be.
//Forced to watch at work.
 
2021-09-15 11:16:20 AM  

Private_Citizen: Biden won California with 56% of the vote.
Newsom won the recall with 64% - in an off year election.

Trump has made right-wingers very comfortable openly expressing very extreme positions. They might find that extremism invigorating, but it looks like the electorate is repulsed by it.


There could be an 8% "I don't like Democrats, but wait for a proper election, you f*ckers" vote. I mean, if they voted for Trump they can't have very many principles, but apparently they have some.
 
2021-09-15 11:17:02 AM  

Erek the Red: Both subby and Stelter forgot OAN's tag line: "Bringing you yesterday's news, tomorrow.  Because if you haven't heard it, its news to you!"  So they won't be reporting on it until Friday.

/If that isn't their tag line it should be.
//Forced to watch at work.


My God. File an OSHA complaint about a unsafe workplace.
 
2021-09-15 11:18:37 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Do you have a more Reliable Source than some guy on Twitter?


I've got one that's less reliable than some guy on Twitter, it's called OANN.
 
2021-09-15 11:26:42 AM  

Mithiwithi: Private_Citizen: Biden won California with 56% of the vote.
Newsom won the recall with 64% - in an off year election.

Trump has made right-wingers very comfortable openly expressing very extreme positions. They might find that extremism invigorating, but it looks like the electorate is repulsed by it.

There could be an 8% "I don't like Democrats, but wait for a proper election, you f*ckers" vote. I mean, if they voted for Trump they can't have very many principles, but apparently they have some.


Could be, but traditionally, Republicans do very well in off year elections. In addition, they were electrified by the chance of getting a Republican to seize the California governor spot - meaning it's most likely that the Republicans were out in force.
Despite that, 64% is a landslide. The GQP only got 36%, meaning they nearly got out voted 2 to 1. That is a Very bad sign for the GQP - and a good one for the nation.

Still, California doesn't have the GQP voter suppression machine in place. The 2022 election is going to incredibly important, and will show if the GQP has mastered the art of the steal.
 
2021-09-15 11:31:43 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Do you have a more Reliable Source than some guy on Twitter?


He has a blue check mark.  He's a somebody!
 
2021-09-15 11:42:08 AM  

Geotpf: fiddlehead: This has always been my concern about re-implementing/upgrading the Fairness Doctrine. If Fox News doesn't like a particular story (the Jan 6th panel is a recent example) then they just don't report about it. How can you force a news agency to report fairly about a controversial issue if they don't mention it in the first place?

Note that the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable TV, just to broadcast.  And, due to the first amendment, requiring something like that for cable TV might be unconstitutional (broadcast channels are limited and assigned by the Federal government so they have more control over them constitutionally, which cable TV slots are basically unlimited and therefore can not be controlled as strictly under the constitution).


Yes, I should have stated "re-implementing/upgrading the Fairness Doctrine so it also applies to cable news."

/Highly doubt any updated form of the Fairness Doctrine or similar will ever come to pass.
 
2021-09-15 11:47:29 AM  
Maybe they were saving it for sweeps week?
 
2021-09-15 11:54:43 AM  

somedude210: What's weird is that news hosts and pundits are still pathologically incurious about contemporary, adversarial state propaganda operations - science & design, and the well-funded domestic individuals and orgs executing it on their behalf.


It's hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it.
 
2021-09-15 12:03:34 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: OldRod: "OAN:  We cover all the news that we decide to tell you about, and then make up the rest!"

"AND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FINE." - FCC (which Biden is about to lose control of due to inattention)


What possible connection could there be between OANN and the FCC? Unless OANN has a broadcast operation of which I am unaware, of course.
 
2021-09-15 12:05:33 PM  

fiddlehead: This has always been my concern about re-implementing/upgrading the Fairness Doctrine. If Fox News doesn't like a particular story (the Jan 6th panel is a recent example) then they just don't report about it. How can you force a news agency to report fairly about a controversial issue if they don't mention it in the first place?


Again, the Fairness Doctrine is completely irrelevant. It could only apply to broadcast media.
 
2021-09-15 12:12:48 PM  

fiddlehead: Geotpf: fiddlehead: This has always been my concern about re-implementing/upgrading the Fairness Doctrine. If Fox News doesn't like a particular story (the Jan 6th panel is a recent example) then they just don't report about it. How can you force a news agency to report fairly about a controversial issue if they don't mention it in the first place?

Note that the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable TV, just to broadcast.  And, due to the first amendment, requiring something like that for cable TV might be unconstitutional (broadcast channels are limited and assigned by the Federal government so they have more control over them constitutionally, which cable TV slots are basically unlimited and therefore can not be controlled as strictly under the constitution).

Yes, I should have stated "re-implementing/upgrading the Fairness Doctrine so it also applies to cable news."

/Highly doubt any updated form of the Fairness Doctrine or similar will ever come to pass.


If you read the Court's opinion in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, you can see that the Court had to make it very clear that their decision would only and could only apply to broadcast media because the broadcast spectrum belongs to the people. Any other application would be blatantly unconstitutional. And bear in mind, today's Court would be unlikely to expand the reach of the federal government further than the Warren Court was prepared to do in 1969.
 
2021-09-15 12:14:37 PM  
Well, sure. You can't string out the fraud accusations for months if you admit defeat now.
 
2021-09-15 12:27:48 PM  

fiddlehead: Yes, I should have stated "re-implementing/upgrading the Fairness Doctrine so it also applies to cable news."


How do you do that constitutionally? I am not trying to be difficult here but my understanding is that the only reason the Fairness Doctrine survived the SCOTUS was that it regulated over the air broadcasts, and that the stations allowed to use this limited bandwidth were specifically issued licenses that said that they were operating  in the public interest.

With the Internet and cable news, the scarcity argument falls apart. The Commerce clause is unlikely to beat the prior restraint argument, especially in the Rogers court.

Totally willing to be wrong here, but I just don't see a modern Fairness Doctrine surviving court review.
 
2021-09-15 12:34:30 PM  
Well that's understandable, the story happened so far away from their studios in...

*looks notes*

San Diego
 
2021-09-15 12:34:39 PM  

CheatCommando: fiddlehead: Yes, I should have stated "re-implementing/upgrading the Fairness Doctrine so it also applies to cable news."

How do you do that constitutionally? I am not trying to be difficult here but my understanding is that the only reason the Fairness Doctrine survived the SCOTUS was that it regulated over the air broadcasts, and that the stations allowed to use this limited bandwidth were specifically issued licenses that said that they were operating  in the public interest.

With the Internet and cable news, the scarcity argument falls apart. The Commerce clause is unlikely to beat the prior restraint argument, especially in the Rogers court.

Totally willing to be wrong here, but I just don't see a modern Fairness Doctrine surviving court review.


No, you're absolutely right. Again, I urge anyone with any interest in this subject to read Red Lion Broadcasting in its entirety. At least read the headnotes.
 
2021-09-15 12:44:30 PM  
(shrug) So? They're not "news," just like Fox "News" isn't news.

They're both fountains of bullshiat. Pretending that they have news standards to live up to is part of the problem.

They don't. They're no better than some random asshole's blog for information. So I treat them as such. I don't watch them, I don't reference them, I don't click on their derp.

That millions of people think Fox "News" has the best information is no more significant than the millions of people who think Gwyneth Paltrow knows more than anyone else about "wellness" or that the "gay frogs" asshole isn't an obvious lunatic.

People will latch onto whatever stupid justifies whatever stupid shiat they already believe. Not saying it's not alarming, it is. I'm saying that losing our shiat over everything stupid thing they say -- and everything they say is stupid -- is helping them.

The "handling" of actual news by people who don't disseminate actual news isn't "weird," it was absolutely predictable.
 
2021-09-15 12:56:53 PM  

fiddlehead: This has always been my concern about re-implementing/upgrading the Fairness Doctrine. If Fox News doesn't like a particular story (the Jan 6th panel is a recent example) then they just don't report about it. How can you force a news agency to report fairly about a controversial issue if they don't mention it in the first place?


I think them not reporting at all is better than what they're currently doing.
 
2021-09-15 1:54:54 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-09-15 3:48:21 PM  
I'm guessing a lot of MAGAts didn't vote because elections no longer matter. Their suppression is working well but the target is off.

Actions, consequences, all that rot.
 
2021-09-15 3:56:07 PM  

markie_farkie: NewportBarGuy: Do you have a more Reliable Source than some guy on Twitter?

That guy founded Stray Cats and is a virtuoso guitarist, so that's all the proof you need.


isleofran.comView Full Size
 
2021-09-15 6:13:02 PM  

CheatCommando: fiddlehead: Yes, I should have stated "re-implementing/upgrading the Fairness Doctrine so it also applies to cable news."

How do you do that constitutionally? I am not trying to be difficult here but my understanding is that the only reason the Fairness Doctrine survived the SCOTUS was that it regulated over the air broadcasts, and that the stations allowed to use this limited bandwidth were specifically issued licenses that said that they were operating  in the public interest.

With the Internet and cable news, the scarcity argument falls apart. The Commerce clause is unlikely to beat the prior restraint argument, especially in the Rogers court.

Totally willing to be wrong here, but I just don't see a modern Fairness Doctrine surviving court review.


Not the current court, at least.

But given that the current SCOTUS has gone rogue and set the frightening precedent of ruling on the grounds of, "because fark you, that's why," it's not entirely certain that a future court couldn't expand the Fairness Doctrine to include cabel and internet.
 
2021-09-15 6:36:10 PM  

emtwo: CheatCommando: fiddlehead: Yes, I should have stated "re-implementing/upgrading the Fairness Doctrine so it also applies to cable news."

How do you do that constitutionally? I am not trying to be difficult here but my understanding is that the only reason the Fairness Doctrine survived the SCOTUS was that it regulated over the air broadcasts, and that the stations allowed to use this limited bandwidth were specifically issued licenses that said that they were operating  in the public interest.

With the Internet and cable news, the scarcity argument falls apart. The Commerce clause is unlikely to beat the prior restraint argument, especially in the Rogers court.

Totally willing to be wrong here, but I just don't see a modern Fairness Doctrine surviving court review.

Not the current court, at least.

But given that the current SCOTUS has gone rogue and set the frightening precedent of ruling on the grounds of, "because fark you, that's why," it's not entirely certain that a future court couldn't expand the Fairness Doctrine to include cabel and internet.


As noted above, it isn't just the current Court. The Court that held the Fairness Doctrine constitutional in the pre-cable, pre-internet age, would likely find it unconstitutional today. Note that the Doctrine was never Constitutional for newspapers or other print media. The only reason they found it legal at all was that technically the Federal Government owns the broadcast spectrum in public trust and only rents it to TV and radio. This again does not apply to cable TV or Internet sources, where you can find a provider and stand up your own site almost at will.
 
2021-09-15 6:52:20 PM  

CheatCommando: emtwo: CheatCommando: fiddlehead: Yes, I should have stated "re-implementing/upgrading the Fairness Doctrine so it also applies to cable news."

How do you do that constitutionally? I am not trying to be difficult here but my understanding is that the only reason the Fairness Doctrine survived the SCOTUS was that it regulated over the air broadcasts, and that the stations allowed to use this limited bandwidth were specifically issued licenses that said that they were operating  in the public interest.

With the Internet and cable news, the scarcity argument falls apart. The Commerce clause is unlikely to beat the prior restraint argument, especially in the Rogers court.

Totally willing to be wrong here, but I just don't see a modern Fairness Doctrine surviving court review.

Not the current court, at least.

But given that the current SCOTUS has gone rogue and set the frightening precedent of ruling on the grounds of, "because fark you, that's why," it's not entirely certain that a future court couldn't expand the Fairness Doctrine to include cabel and internet.

As noted above, it isn't just the current Court. The Court that held the Fairness Doctrine constitutional in the pre-cable, pre-internet age, would likely find it unconstitutional today. Note that the Doctrine was never Constitutional for newspapers or other print media. The only reason they found it legal at all was that technically the Federal Government owns the broadcast spectrum in public trust and only rents it to TV and radio. This again does not apply to cable TV or Internet sources, where you can find a provider and stand up your own site almost at will.


I understand, I agree, and I'm not arguing against you.

I'm just pointing out that SCOTUS no longer sees itself as bound by such piddling nuisances as "legal precedent" or "the Constitution," so theoretically nothing is off the table.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  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.