In the last 4 years, I have learned how gullible many people

[raccoon]

Can be. (I used the word “gullible” to be polite.)
I wanted to say stupid, willfully ignorant...

“Wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then. “
—-Bob Seger, “Against the Wind “

[Squinch]

1. Also how putridly hateful.

[turtleblossom]

2. Because you're not black.

[DFW]

3. I saw posted elsewhere:

„If it walks like a chicken, clucks like a chicken and lays eggs like a chicken, if Trump says it‘s a cow, his followers will try to milk it.“

I re-posted that in an OP earlier. As long as there is a Fox Noise and National Hate Radio, it will remain true.

[Turin_C3PO]

9. That's a good quote!

Gonna have to remember that one.

[Victory at Yorktown]

4. Gullible or downright evil?

[Mike 03]

5. It's taught me a lot too.

But that dawning realization about how stupid or hateful or susceptible "others" are usually goes hand in hand with the recognition that we've been naive about the actual state of our world.

[Miguelito Loveless]

6. "You know how stupid the average person is?"

"Well, half of them are stupider than that"

- George Carlin

[SmartVoter22]

7. Our vast information resources are a cause

We have more information than any other nation. More TV, more radio, more printed news and far more internet informational resources which gives us a phenominal amuont of information.
Some is factual, some fictional. Most are a starting point to for us to seek out more. Humans like all information.
All information originates from one human being wanting to express something to another human beings.
It's what we do with that information that matters.

Having a college (real degree not a Trump U) major in communications, I know that we have laws that help us gather information by protecting the truth which requires printed news;
-- to have two expert sources, in the specific topic being reported on, to validate, as fact, anything that is printed.
-- to clearly identify and separate, opinions and columnists articles as opinions, to differentiate the two info sources.

It started for printed newspapers/magazine and radio, as an FCC regulation in the 1934 Communications Act.
It was expanded to include cable TV services and the internet in the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

These FCC regulations were designed to protect both;
---the 1st amendment rights of opinions being published.
---to differentiate opinion from factual news reporting.

It did not clarify that printed news is the only information resource that can be counted on to be validated factual information. Print regulations are far stricter than cable tv or the internet. This was how the libel and slander laws were interpeted and how evidence would be defined in court. In 1934, it was obviously printed news as the main source for potential criminal liabilities.
Courts have since ruled that cable news, in fact anything on cable TV, is a paid subscription entertainment service and nothing more.
So, cable can write a script and produce a program that can really look like a news program. FoxNews does this.
This is why what you may see reported on FoxNews, you never see in a printed newspaper.

If you do see the exact same claim made on cable news, a printed newspaper and on over-the-air TV news (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS only)...well you are likely to have an actual validated fact.

The far right, has yet to realize this regulatory fact and unfortunately, they can and often do, simply accept whatever they see or hear on cable TV and talk radio as fact. This is something we all need to be aware of and make efforts to show the far right, how to find validated information. Not to prove them wrong, but to encourage a consistent and dependable method of gathering information.

to make my point, what you read in this post, is in fact my opinion, but the two Communications Acts are easy to google and find and read for yourselves.

I do think, that some reforms of these two Communications Acts, and an expanded FCC authority can provide everyone with a better understanding of how America handles information and how we can prevent the free-for-all approach the far right has embraced.

Information is something that everyone needs, throughout their lifetimes and we owe to the future to take the steps of reform, to keep truthful and factual information as the main and preferred resource.

I do also want to protect the opinion based formatted programs, as it does help everyone understand what the extreme factions of society want to express, no matter how bizarre or dysfunctional. Of course, anything criminal in nature, being broadcast, should be stopped, banned and renounced, loudly and thoroughly across all information resources.

We cannot get enough information. It is hard wired into our human brains. It must be protected, but we, have in the last four years, seen how damaging, unregulated information can be.


Here is the 1934 Act, including the 1996 updates and revisions:
It's only 333 pages, which is quite small when yu consider the amount of pages made, just in repsonse to FoxNews nonsense in the last four years alone!
https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

[SmartVoter22]

8. Our vast information resources are a cause

We have more information than any other nation. More TV, more radio, more printed news and far more internet informational resources which can, and does, give out more information from an unlimited number of diverse viewpoints. Some factual, some fictional. Most a starting point to seek out more. Humans like all information.
All information originates from one human expressing something to another human being.
It's what we do with that information that matters.

Having a college major in communications, I know that we have laws that help us gather information which protects the truth when portrayed as news; Factual news requires any claim of fact;
-- to have two expert sources, in the specific topic being reported on, be able to validate, as fact, anything that is printed. ( Citations, legal rulings, scientific publications... any recognized professional resource. Not a think tank.)
-- to clearly identify and separate, opinions and columnists articles as opinions, to differentiate the two info sources.
(The op-ed page was created to show the content may not be validated and is not to be taken as a fact.)

It started for printed newspapers/magazine and radio, as an FCC regulation in the 1934 Communications Act.
It was expanded to include cable TV services and the internet in the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

These FCC regulations were designed to protect both;
---the 1st amendment rights of opinions being published.
---to differentiate opinion from factual news reporting.

It did not clarify that printed news is the only information resource that can be counted on to be validated factual information. Print regulations are far stricter than cable tv or the internet. This was how the libel and slander laws were interpeted and how evidence would be defined in court. In 1934, it was obviously printed news as the main source for potential criminal liabilities.
Courts have since ruled that cable news, in fact anything on cable TV, is a paid subscription entertainment service and nothing more.
So, cable can write a script and produce a program that can really look like a news program. FoxNews does this.
This is why what you may see reported on FoxNews, you never see in a printed newspaper.

If you do see the exact same claim made on cable news, a printed newspaper and on over-the-air TV news (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS only)...well you are likely to have an actual validated fact.

The far right, has yet to realize this regulatory fact and unfortunately, they can and often do, simply accept whatever they see or hear on cable TV and talk radio as fact. This is something we all need to be aware of and make efforts to show the far right, how to find validated information. Not to prove them wrong, but to encourage a consistent and dependable method of gathering information.

to make my point, what you read in this post, is in fact my opinion, but the two Communications Acts are easy to google and find and read for yourselves.

I do think, that some reforms of these two Communications Acts, and an expanded FCC authority can provide everyone with a better understanding of how America handles information and how we can prevent the free-for-all approach the far right has embraced.

Information is something that everyone needs, throughout their lifetimes and we owe to the future to take the steps of reform, to keep truthful and factual information as the main and preferred resource.

I do also want to protect the opinion based formatted programs, as it does help everyone understand what the extreme factions of society want to express, no matter how bizarre or dysfunctional. Of course, anything criminal in nature, being broadcast, should be stopped, banned and renounced, loudly and thoroughly across all information resources.

We cannot get enough information. It is hard wired into our human brains. It must be protected, but we, have in the last four years, seen how damaging, unregulated information can be.


Here is the 1934 Act, including the 1996 updates and revisions:
It's only 333 pages, which is quite small when yu consider the amount of pages made, just in repsonse to FoxNews nonsense in the last four years alone!
https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf