Media Meltdown and also Media Bias 101

[romad1]

8 hours ago, Deleterious said:

It was never leagl to hunt and murder Jews, you dumb ****.

80 years of Holocaust scholarship have been a pitched battle over various questions.  Few Holocaust scholars except the denialists would say it wasn't "legal" in Nazi Germany given the Nuremburg Laws and subsequent directives of the Final Solution.  

Here is a helpful list of historians and celebrities who support that denialist position (see Kanye West):

Who's Who of Holocaust Denial | ADL

The other main argument was between the "Functionalists" and the "Intentionalists"

Functionalism–intentionalism debate - Wikipedia

Put into a bumper sticker: 

Functionalists: To some degree the Nazis hated Jews but the actual Final Solution was more part of various organs of power slipping into the decision to commit genocide because it seemed to fit with the overall war or just they felt they were interpreting Hitler and other leading Nazi's views. 

Intentionalists:  Hitler may have never signed any directive but everything that happened was because he wanted it to happen. 

The degree to which these battles were fought and were tinged with political hues of left/right etc.  And to which some of the best scholars (e.g., Raul Hilberg) were tainted because they were somehow less tough on the Nazis for being "Functionalists" is just weird in hindsight.   Hilberg wrote a MASSIVE accounting of the process of the Holocaust which is an amazing document.  Just a massive tesseract of historical work.  He counted each train, each arrival, each order he could find.  He knew all about the size and shape of the Holocaust.  

At the end of the day...my heart is in both academic camps and despairs of the conflict.  Clearly Hitler was sociopathic toward the Jews and none of this would have happened if he had not wanted it to happen. 

[mtutiger]

 

 

[mtutiger]

38 minutes ago, romad1 said:

80 years of Holocaust scholarship have been a pitched battle over various questions.  Few Holocaust scholars except the denialists would say it wasn't "legal" in Nazi Germany given the Nuremburg Laws and subsequent directives of the Final Solution.  

Here is a helpful list of historians and celebrities who support that denialist position (see Kanye West):

Who's Who of Holocaust Denial | ADL

The other main argument was between the "Functionalists" and the "Intentionalists"

Functionalism–intentionalism debate - Wikipedia

Put into a bumper sticker: 

Functionalists: To some degree the Nazis hated Jews but the actual Final Solution was more part of various organs of power slipping into the decision to commit genocide because it seemed to fit with the overall war or just they felt they were interpreting Hitler and other leading Nazi's views. 

Intentionalists:  Hitler may have never signed any directive but everything that happened was because he wanted it to happen. 

The degree to which these battles were fought and were tinged with political hues of left/right etc.  And to which some of the best scholars (e.g., Raul Hilberg) were tainted because they were somehow less tough on the Nazis for being "Functionalists" is just weird in hindsight.   Hilberg wrote a MASSIVE accounting of the process of the Holocaust which is an amazing document.  Just a massive tesseract of historical work.  He counted each train, each arrival, each order he could find.  He knew all about the size and shape of the Holocaust.  

At the end of the day...my heart is in both academic camps and despairs of the conflict.  Clearly Hitler was sociopathic toward the Jews and none of this would have happened if he had not wanted it to happen. 

The academic research is interesting, but it's really just the difference between a liberal democracy and illiberal/totalitarianism...

In a liberal democracy, we have the rule of law. In totalitarianism, the laws are irrelevant, what the government says is the law is the law.

We aren't to the latter yet... But there is no doubt in my mind that if this administration has its way, it's where they want us to end up.

[romad1]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

The academic research is interesting, but it's really just the difference between a liberal democracy and illiberal/totalitarianism...

In a liberal democracy, we have the rule of law. In totalitarianism, the laws are irrelevant, what the government says is the law is the law.

We aren't to the latter yet... But there is no doubt in my mind that if this administration has its way, it's where they want us to end up.

Concur. 

[romad1]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

The academic research is interesting, but it's really just the difference between a liberal democracy and illiberal/totalitarianism...

In a liberal democracy, we have the rule of law. In totalitarianism, the laws are irrelevant, what the government says is the law is the law.

We aren't to the latter yet... But there is no doubt in my mind that if this administration has its way, it's where they want us to end up.

I get the original argument that what is "legal" within a state operating with no regard to International Law and human rights isn't actually legal and can be punished by international courts like the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials. 

[pfife]

13 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

 

 

Woah.  Thats crazy.

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Can't wait to see which comedians the state hand selects for us to laugh at

Apparently, John Oliver is not yet on his radar.

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Can't wait to see which comedians the state hand selects for us to laugh at

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, Tigermojo said:

24/7 ballet on every channel.

 

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, oblong said:

Size doesn’t equal intelligence. I’m still not convinced or understand what about his comments were offensive enough to justify this.
 

MAGA are nothing but intellectual snowflakes.  

Kudos for successfully and coherently using "MAGA" and "intellectual" in the same sentence.

[chasfh]

12 hours ago, Deleterious said:

So ABC can go on the air at 3PM and talk about the best way to make a woman cum?  First amendment and all.

 

Didn't "The View" already do that at 9AM?

[chasfh]

12 hours ago, Deleterious said:

Didn't he say that on Fox News?  That is cable, and the government doesn't have any say over it.  They own the OTA channels like ABC, NBC, CBS, and regular Fox.  They do regulate those.  Sorry man.  

I promise that if in an alternate universe Fox News were was the liberal channel and Brian Kilmeade said anything on it the regime didn't like, that would definitely threaten the Fox broadcast network with license revocation unless they fired Meade, whether he said it on cable or not. And deny it if you like, but you know that's true.

[chasfh]

10 hours ago, Deleterious said:

It was never leagl to hunt and murder Jews, you dumb ****.

It was legal in Germany once.

[mtutiger]

The state is apparently now the arbiter of what is funny or not 

[Tigeraholic1]

Chuck gets it.

 

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Jimmy Kimmel getting benched has the left more fired up than a political assassination. 

So to recap:

Charlie Kirk, media personality: political assassination, fly flags at half-mast.

Melissa Hortman, Minnesota state legislator: not a political assassination, leave flags alone.

Do we have that straight?

 

[mtutiger]

 

[chasfh]

5 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Chuck gets it.

 

Oh yeah, I totally remember when Chuck Schumer got Tucker Carlson fired.

[chasfh]

3 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

 

Can the commission interfere with the right of free speech by means of [over-the-air] broadcast communication if the speaker pisses his boss off?

[chasfh]

Look, let’s be clear about what happened: Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air because the Trump regime didn’t like what he had to say, and threatened his employer until they shut Kimmel up. It wasn't that Kimmel was fired because he "pissed off his bosses." It wasn't because he used any "magic words". It wasn't because he "celebrated" anyone's death. He merely offended the regime, the regime pressured the network with business penalities, the network complied. It was nothing short of an attack on a basically principle of democracy.

It can't be any simpler or more complex than that.

[CMRivdogs]

The big thing to me is the FCC Chairman basically used Jimmy Kimmel as a bargaining chip to grant approval for a large purchase and Federal approval in regards to their license. "We can do it the hard way or the easy way" (not the exact quote but that was the drift. "You want this sale to go thru, you gotta do thisl

Just think of MAGA's reaction if a Democratic administration had used the same tactics against the Fox owned TV stations in a similar situation, or to force the firing of one of the Fox News Channel's hosts?
 

The current administration and his disciples have to tolerance for any form of criticism, yet they whine like two year olds when they are critiqued or asked to prove their claims. They are snowflakes.

Prove me wrong

Edited 8 hours ago by CMRivdogs

[romad1]

I'm sad that the company that puts out Andor is involved in this crap. 

Post by @sarahposner.bsky.social — Bluesky

 

[mtutiger]

9 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Look, let’s be clear about what happened: Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air because the Trump regime didn’t like what he had to say, and threatened his employer until they shut Kimmel up. It wasn't that Kimmel was fired because he "pissed off his bosses." It wasn't because he used any "magic words". It wasn't because he "celebrated" anyone's death. He merely offended the regime, the regime pressured the network with business penalities, the network complied. It was nothing short of an attack on a basically principle of democracy.

It can't be any simpler or more complex than that.

With respect to the bolded, the reporting from Status and others seem to indicate that his "bosses" at ABC are as confused as we are as to what he did that was actually wrong. He hasn't even been technically fired yet either.

Not even defending their cowardice, but it lays bare that this action is 100% happening because the administration wants it to happen. As you say, no more simple or complex than that.

[chasfh]

14 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

The big thing to me is the FCC Chairman basically used Jimmy Kimmel as a bargaining chip to grant approval for a large purchase and Federal approval in regards to their license. "We can do it the hard way or the easy way" (not the exact quote but that was the drift. "You want this sale to go thru, you gotta do thisl

Just think of MAGA's reaction if a Democratic administration had used the same tactics against the Fox owned TV stations in a similar situation, or to force the firing of one of the Fox News Channel's hosts?
 

The current administration and his disciples have to tolerance for any form of criticism, yet they whine like two year olds when they are critiqued or asked to prove their claims. They are snowflakes.

Prove me wrong

but trannies

[oblong]

12 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

With respect to the bolded, the reporting from Status and others seem to indicate that his "bosses" at ABC are as confused as we are as to what he did that was actually wrong. He hasn't even been technically fired yet either.

Not even defending their cowardice, but it lays bare that this action is 100% happening because the administration wants it to happen. As you say, no more simple or complex than that.

Nextstar wants a purchase to go through.  They need FCC approval. They see the FCC chairman doesn't like Kimmel.  They band together and take Kimmel off their ABC affiliates over a trumped up charge.  That gives them negligible, but non zero amount, of cover that it was some kind of "business decision".  Because of that then ABC can claim that same non zero amount of cover to take him off "indefinitely" as a business decision because enough people were mad at Kimmel, for whatever reason.