News Media: The Fourth Estate, The Printing Press, The Display Screen ... > "Info. War" ? Centralized Control Of The Messages

[sear]

"The worst part of our system is the political party that can select a candidate for the whole party without having majority consent." R5 #20

?
I suspect the distinction between party population, and national population is blurred here. Care to clarify?

"The solutions generally involve allowing more candidates on the final ballot." R5 #20

The superficial appeal of that idea wears thin quick. Reductio ad absurdum, if 3 is better than 2, and 7 is better than 4 then is 99 better than 56? Why not a million? Ideal ! Right?
Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Jesse Ventura was about the darkest horse I can recall in a political election. BUT !!
Because he ran 3rd party there were 3 candidates on the ballot. And as you know from having divided 100 by 3 in such electoral contest a candidate can win the vote / election
without obtaining majority support from the electorate.

Compounding this, though Governor Ventura seems to have served faithfully, honorably, his third party status disenfranchised him from his own legislature.
The result, Minnesota Governor Ventura's administration was little more than a place-holder, a pause on State governance until the duopoly kicked in again.

I welcome a diversity of candidates, and platforms.
This the benefit, the power of our primaries, to cull from an ocean of competing agenda the two most favored by the bipartisan electorate. If you'll pardon an inaccurate oversimplification:
40% die-hard Republicans vote reliably Republican.
40% die-hard Democrats vote reliably Democrat.
Therefore the outcome of our elections are decided by the remaining 20%, the so called "swing vote".

 

[Rigby5]

?
I suspect the distinction between party population, and national population is blurred here. Care to clarify?


The superficial appeal of that idea wears thin quick. Reductio ad absurdum, if 3 is better than 2, and 7 is better than 4 then is 99 better than 56? Why not a million? Ideal ! Right?
Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Jesse Ventura was about the darkest horse I can recall in a political election. BUT !!
Because he ran 3rd party there were 3 candidates on the ballot. And as you know from having divided 100 by 3 in such electoral contest a candidate can win the vote / election
without obtaining majority support from the electorate.

Compounding this, though Governor Ventura seems to have served faithfully, honorably, his third party status disenfranchised him from his own legislature.
The result, Minnesota Governor Ventura's administration was little more than a place-holder, a pause on State governance until the duopoly kicked in again.

I welcome a diversity of candidates, and platforms.
This the benefit, the power of our primaries, to cull from an ocean of competing agenda the two most favored by the bipartisan electorate. If you'll pardon an inaccurate oversimplification:
40% die-hard Republicans vote reliably Republican.
40% die-hard Democrats vote reliably Democrat.
Therefore the outcome of our elections are decided by the remaining 20%, the so called "swing vote".

Political parties are not bound by laws or rules, and can select candidates that did not win the primary vote.
Like in 2016, Bernie Sanders won the most votes, but the party told hundreds of special delegates to ensure Hillary would be selected as the party candidate.

Political parties actually add nothing to the election, are not sponsored by any law, and should just be totally eliminated.
The duopoly is a bad idea and parties should not exist at all.

 

[Shiftless2]

This the benefit, the power of our primaries, to cull from an ocean of competing agenda the two most favored by the bipartisan electorate.

Definitely not the case - the party is not required to consider what the "bipartisan electorate" wants.

As Rigby points out

Like in 2016, Bernie Sanders won the most votes, but the party told hundreds of special delegates to ensure Hillary would be selected as the party candidate.

In short, the DNC was so determined to make Hillary the next President that they gamed the system to ensure that she ended up as the Democratic candidate.

A different discussion but she was a terrible candidate with an unpleasant public persona. One who came to the election with far too much baggage from her husband's time in office. And she ran a terrible campaign. It didn't help that the media kept predicting she'd easily win the election so a lot of people who probably would have voted for her figured that there was no need to vote so they didn't bother coming out. The end result was Trump 45.

 

[sear]

"Political parties are not bound by laws or rules, and can select candidates that did not win the primary vote." R5 #22

That needs clarification.
U.S. federal government leaves much electoral administration to the States. Thus basic standards vary widely from one State to another. Example:
in New York State a voter must register as a Democrat or Republican to vote in that party's primary.
In some other States primaries are open, allowing for example a Republican to vote in a primary for a Democrat candidate.

"Like in 2016, Bernie Sanders won the most votes, but the party told hundreds of special delegates to ensure Hillary would be selected as the party candidate." R5 #22

For most of my life, on principle, I agreed with you. My opinion was that the U.S. political tradition of the "smoke-filled room" making important electoral decisions beyond public view was sinister. BUT !

Then the invincibly ignorant reality show huckster shyster TV host D. Trump seized control and is inflicting extensive mess around the planet. The occupants of the Republican's smoke-filled room did NOT want Trump.
And if the smoke-filled room tradition had prevailed in that case, Trump would not have made it to 1600 Penn. Ave as anything other than a visitor.

"Political parties actually add nothing to the election" R5 #22

Probably factually false. Their contribution may seem, may indeed be meager by significant criteria. "Nothing" seems to over-state the case.

"are not sponsored by any law, and should just be totally eliminated." R5 #22

It's clear to me that would be a substantial change.
It is not clear to me that would be a substantial improvement.

"The duopoly is a bad idea and parties should not exist at all." R5 #22

Weren't there political parties at the U.S. Founding?

"In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in factor principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull;
it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 24 Nov. 1808, to his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph

 

[Rigby5]

That needs clarification.
U.S. federal government leaves much electoral administration to the States. Thus basic standards vary widely from one State to another. Example:
in New York State a voter must register as a Democrat or Republican to vote in that party's primary.
In some other States primaries are open, allowing for example a Republican to vote in a primary for a Democrat candidate.


For most of my life, on principle, I agreed with you. My opinion was that the U.S. political tradition of the "smoke-filled room" making important electoral decisions beyond public view was sinister. BUT !

Then the invincibly ignorant reality show huckster shyster TV host D. Trump seized control and is inflicting extensive mess around the planet. The occupants of the Republican's smoke-filled room did NOT want Trump.
And if the smoke-filled room tradition had prevailed in that case, Trump would not have made it to 1600 Penn. Ave as anything other than a visitor.


Probably factually false. Their contribution may seem, may indeed be meager by significant criteria. "Nothing" seems to over-state the case.


It's clear to me that would be a substantial change.
It is not clear to me that would be a substantial improvement.


Weren't there political parties at the U.S. Founding?

"In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in factor principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull;
it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 24 Nov. 1808, to his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph

All election regulations are supposed to be left to the states by the Constitution.
And there is not supposed to actually be any government involvement in any primary at all.

You do not want to have a gazillion candidates on a ballot, but it should never be dictated there can only be 2, as it is now.
There is no reason to allow the party to arbitrarily dictate who gets to be on the ballot.
The party is controlled by the wealthy elite who contribute the most money, and it should instead be decided by the voters.

And I disagree on the "smoke-filled rooms", as I think they are who selected Trump, based on pre-election negotiations and promised pay-backs.

And no, there originally were no political parties or primary elections.
{...
The first federal elections were held in the United States following the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788. In the elections, George Washington was elected as the first president and the members of the 1st United States Congress were selected.

Formal political parties did not exist, as the leading politicians of the day largely distrusted the idea of "factions." However, in the years after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress would become broadly divided by the economic policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, with the Pro-Administration faction supporting those policies. Opposing them was the Anti-Administration faction, which sought a smaller role for the federal government.[3] In these elections, the Pro-Administration faction won majorities in both houses of Congress.

Meanwhile, General George Washington was elected as the country's first president, while John Adams, who finished with the second largest number of electoral votes, was elected as the first vice president.
...}

 

[sear]

"... the party is not required to consider what the "bipartisan electorate" wants." S2 #23

clarification: "required"?
I don't recall having asserted such requirement.

" - the party is not required to consider what the "bipartisan electorate" wants." S2 #23

True but irrelevant.
I will exclude the notable complication of the electoral college, not to dismiss its impact. Very serious! BUT !
Instead to cite the basics of the democratic process:

most adult citizens in the U.S. are eligible to vote, unless for example eligibility has been forfeit by conviction of felony.

"- the party is not required to consider what the "bipartisan electorate" wants." S2 #23

If you have persuasive evidence a significant segment of U.S. primary voters do NOT vote in their own enlightened self-interest,
I urge you to post it here.

Until you do I'll continue to believe most U.S. voters cast their ballots in accordance with their preference.
The Democrat primary voters choose the candidate they most prefer. The candidate with the most votes in that State wins in that State.

" - the party is not required to consider what the "bipartisan electorate" wants." S2 #23

By process described above the Democrats choose their party's candidate for the general election.
Same deal for Republicans. The result?

The Democrat primary voters get their choice of candidate for the general election.
The Republican primary voters get their choice of candidate for the general election.

The party's candidate nominated by primary is NOT necessarily chosen by a democratic majority of the party's registered members within that voting district.
Instead it is chosen by those among that party's registered members that actually vote in the primary.

 

[Shiftless2]

To repeat the DNC was desperate to see Hillary in the Oval Office so they gamed the system to obtain the results they wanted. Had nothing to do with what the party as a whole wanted.

BTW, the Electoral College only comes into play with the actual Presidential election - after all, it's the College that elects the POTUS, not the voters.

 

[Rigby5]

clarification: "required"?
I don't recall having asserted such requirement.


True but irrelevant.
I will exclude the notable complication of the electoral college, not to dismiss its impact. Very serious! BUT !
Instead to cite the basics of the democratic process:

most adult citizens in the U.S. are eligible to vote, unless for example eligibility has been forfeit by conviction of felony.


If you have persuasive evidence a significant segment of U.S. primary voters do NOT vote in their own enlightened self-interest,
I urge you to post it here.

Until you do I'll continue to believe most U.S. voters cast their ballots in accordance with their preference.
The Democrat primary voters choose the candidate they most prefer. The candidate with the most votes in that State wins in that State.


By process described above the Democrats choose their party's candidate for the general election.
Same deal for Republicans. The result?

The Democrat primary voters get their choice of candidate for the general election.
The Republican primary voters get their choice of candidate for the general election.

The party's candidate nominated by primary is NOT necessarily chosen by a democratic majority of the party's registered members within that voting district.
Instead it is chosen by those among that party's registered members that actually vote in the primary.

I totally disagree.

First of all, parties violate the whole concept of free choice voting.
I at first declared myself to be with the Green Party since I liked their environmental stance.
But the reality was that by doing that, all I accomplished was to prevent myself from being allowed to vote in the primary at all.

Second is that primary voters do NOT at all get their choice of candidate for the general election.
The win of Hillary over Bernie Sanders in the primary proved that.
Parties are not at all bound by any law or regulation to select candidates with the most primary votes.

Third is that you are forgetting about how candidates with the most bipartisan appeal who would have easily won in a general election, are eliminated by the extremely partisan primaries.

 

[sear]

"To repeat the DNC was desperate to see Hillary in the Oval Office so ... S2 #27

I'm not sure that's the most precise description.
Seems obvious to me they didn't want to lose the general election to the Republican.
I suspect any of the top 5 or so Democrats in the primary would have received DNC preference over the Republican. BUT !

S a v v y electoral political operatives understand the consequences of running their dream candidate in the primary only to lose the general election to the opposing party candidate.
Knowing that, experienced partisan political operatives may attempt to influence the outcome of the primary, to result in the party nominating a candidate THAT CAN WIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

"To repeat the DNC was desperate to see Hillary in the Oval Office so ... S2 #27

I suspect the true nature of the Democrat's desperation in that race was to prevent TV host Trump from becoming president. iirc Trump lost the 2016 popular vote. Right?

" they gamed the system to obtain the results they wanted. Had nothing to do with what the party as a whole wanted. " S2 #27

I sense you think this refutes a position I've taken / posted.
I've never denied the DNC & RNC have at least the potential to put their thumb on the scale. The primary voters get to cast their ballot.
What their party does with the outcome of that primary vote is a separate issue. Consequential? Extremely! BUT !
At very least the primary vote is democratic, within the subset of the population registered to vote in that party. Right?

The name that actually ends up with the party's endorsement on general election day not necessarily the same, your intended point I imagine.

"BTW, the Electoral College only comes into play with the actual Presidential election - after all, it's the College that elects the POTUS, not the voters." S2 #27

I've read a variety of explanations for the existence of the Constitution's electoral college. wad ev
I'm opposed to it. BUT !
The Republicans have benefited mightily over recent decades, and so seem exceedingly unlikely to participate constructively in its repeal. BUT !

I suspect it might not take much more than a single heartbreaker of an election wherein the wildly adored Republican candidate wins the popular vote, but loses the election to the Democrat because of the electoral college.
In that event, if the Democrats are smart enough, agile enough, competent enough to strike while the Iron is hot, (a dubious premise) we may have a glimmer of hope in getting rid of the electoral college.

Of U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former Speaker Newton Gingrich (R-GA) said: "She's serious, she's hard working, she is a first rate professional."

Supplementing that, (then) current RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said: "Senator Clinton is smart, uh, she's effective, uh ... very hard working."
Source: NBC-TV Meet The Press June 5, 2005

 

[Rigby5]

I'm not sure that's the most precise description.
Seems obvious to me they didn't want to lose the general election to the Republican.
I suspect any of the top 5 or so Democrats in the primary would have received DNC preference over the Republican. BUT !

S a v v y electoral political operatives understand the consequences of running their dream candidate in the primary only to lose the general election to the opposing party candidate.
Knowing that, experienced partisan political operatives may attempt to influence the outcome of the primary, to result in the party nominating a candidate THAT CAN WIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.


I suspect the true nature of the Democrat's desperation in that race was to prevent TV host Trump from becoming president. iirc Trump lost the 2016 popular vote. Right?


I sense you think this refutes a position I've taken / posted.
I've never denied the DNC & RNC have at least the potential to put their thumb on the scale. The primary voters get to cast their ballot.
What their party does with the outcome of that primary vote is a separate issue. Consequential? Extremely! BUT !
At very least the primary vote is democratic, within the subset of the population registered to vote in that party. Right?

The name that actually ends up with the party's endorsement on general election day not necessarily the same, your intended point I imagine.


I've read a variety of explanations for the existence of the Constitution's electoral college. wad ev
I'm opposed to it. BUT !
The Republicans have benefited mightily over recent decades, and so seem exceedingly unlikely to participate constructively in its repeal. BUT !

I suspect it might not take much more than a single heartbreaker of an election wherein the wildly adored Republican candidate wins the popular vote, but loses the election to the Democrat because of the electoral college.
In that event, if the Democrats are smart enough, agile enough, competent enough to strike while the Iron is hot, (a dubious premise) we may have a glimmer of hope in getting rid of the electoral college.

Of U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former Speaker Newton Gingrich (R-GA) said: "She's serious, she's hard working, she is a first rate professional."

Supplementing that, (then) current RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said: "Senator Clinton is smart, uh, she's effective, uh ... very hard working."
Source: NBC-TV Meet The Press June 5, 2005

There are many huge problems with partisan primaries.
The party extremists actually force the least likely candidate in the primary.
That is because the most likely candidate in the final election will be more bi-partisan or at least more neutral.

If you look at Bernie Sanders, he had much higher bi-partisan ratings since he was such a fiscal conservative.
Hillary was not popular with those of either party due to her "Arab Spring" support for illegal wars.

As far as the Electoral College, I am in full favor of it.
Why is that the high population centers, like NYC, LA, etc., I think are crazy, greedy, and totally manipulated by propaganda.
The lower population areas are far more rational and have better values.

 

[sear]

Media

Disney-owned ABC files First Amendment lawsuit against FCC​

Published Tue, Aug 18 20269:11 AM EDT Updated Tue, Aug 18 202612:57 PM EDT
Lillian Rizzo@Lilliannnn

Key Points

• Disney-owned ABC has filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the FCC.
• The lawsuit comes after the FCC began an early broadcast license renewal process tied to Disney’s DEI practices.
• In the lawsuit, ABC is calling for the FCC to halt its early broadcast renewal proceedings.

Disney’s ABC has filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission, calling the government agency’s recent investigation into the company a “retaliatory campaign” due to the nature of its programming, which has been critical of President Donald Trump.

The broadcast network filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

It comes months after the FCC launched an early renewal of a set of ABC’s broadcast station licenses, citing concerns around the company’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

However, that early review process came shortly after renewed political backlash against ABC following comments made by TV host Jimmy Kimmel on his late-night show, which airs on the broadcast network. ABC has also faced criticism from the government around its daytime talk show, “The View.”

ABC’s lawsuit calls for the FCC to halt its early broadcast renewal proceedings.

An FCC spokesperson said in a statement Tuesday the government entity was working in the public interest.

“Disney is obviously very concerned about the FCC’s proceeding, as evidenced by their ongoing campaign of disinformation as well as their decision to ask a court to stop the FCC from further pursuing matters. The FCC will continue to follow the facts and law wherever they lead,” the statement said.

The agency launched its review of ABC licenses in April, years ahead of their scheduled expiration. ABC shot back in May, saying in filings that it was submitting the applications “under protest in response to an unlawful, arbitrary, and unconstitutional order” from the FCC.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told CNBC at the time that the agency’s focus was on Disney’s DEI practices and that the early license renewal was not tied to First Amendment matters.

Carr was appointed by Trump to lead the federal entity meant to regulate the media and telecommunications industry. It began its investigation into Disney’s stations last year for possible violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC’s rules regarding its prohibition on unlawful discrimination.

On Tuesday, ABC said it “continues to face irreparable harm” from the administration, which “has been acting” through the FCC.

Last week, Disney CEO Josh D’Amaro doubled down on the company’s position in a CNBC interview.

“I think you saw in our FCC filings our position on this is clear,” D’Amaro told CNBC’s Julia Boorstin at the time. “We’re very principled on this. We’re going to stand up to what we believe is journalistic and integrity, and we’re not going to be told how to run that side of our business.”

D’Amaro took over as CEO in March from longtime Disney chief Bob Iger.

Last week, Iger agreed to purchase a majority stake in the NBA’s Los Angeles Lakers alongside Joshua Kushner, founder of Thrive Capital and brother of Jared Kushner, who is married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez — the sole Democrat on the commission and who has opposed its actions against ABC thus far — issued a statement on Tuesday in support of ABC’s move to sue the FCC.

“For months, the FCC has waged a campaign of censorship and control against Disney’s ABC stations, using the threat of broadcast license revocations to punish a company for speech this administration doesn’t like,” Gomez said. “I have long called on companies to push back against this kind of government intimidation, and I’m glad Disney has shown courage and stepped up. This should be a welcome sign for every broadcaster who has felt the weight of this overreaching government pressure in silence.”

Disney-owned ABC files First Amendment lawsuit against FCC

Disney's ABC has sued the FCC claiming its investigation and early broadcast licenses renewal are a "retaliatory campaign" due to its programming.

www.cnbc.com

 

[sear]

Appeals Court Upholds Right To Film Police—but Grants Immunity to Cops Who Arrested a Connecticut Videographer​

The 2nd Circuit is the latest federal circuit court to find a First Amendment right to record the police.​

C.J. Ciaramella / Tue, August 18, 2026 at 1:10 PM GMT-5

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit rules that a Connecticut man had a First Amendment right to film a police station from a public sidewalk, but officers who arrested him are immune from lawsuit.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit held that Keith Massimino, a self-described "First Amendment auditing hobbyist," had a constitutional right to film the exterior of a police department in Waterbury, Connecticut, on an October evening in 2018.

"When the government wants to preserve its privacy, it may build a fence or close a door—but not ban speech," U.S. Circuit Judge Myrna Pérez wrote for the majority.

The panel's opinion creates binding precedent in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, and, according to the opinion, it makes the 2nd Circuit the ninth federal circuit to agree on the issue. Although the Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter, every circuit court that has considered the issue has found an unambiguous First Amendment right to record and monitor the police, so long as one isn't physically interfering with or obstructing an officer.

It "helps secure an important First Amendment right for millions of people, and Keith Massimino deserves our gratitude and applause," Olson says. "Yet the court denied him simple justice in his own individual case."

Olson says that's a predictable result of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that grants government employees immunity from civil suits when the right they violated wasn't "clearly established" at the time.

Civil liberties groups across the political spectrum say qualified immunity lets police officers and government employees bog down civil suits for years and escape accountability for gross violations of rights. The Cato Institute recently filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to review and reverse a 6th Circuit decision granting qualified immunity to a Cleveland police officer who shot his partner while firing blindly into a boarding house bathroom.

Appeals Court Upholds Right To Film Police—but Grants Immunity to Cops Who Arrested a Connecticut Videographer

The 2nd Circuit is the latest federal circuit court to find a First Amendment right to record the police.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 6102

Appeals Court Upholds Right To Film Police—but Grants Immunity to Cops Who Arrested a Connecticut Videographer​

The 2nd Circuit is the latest federal circuit court to find a First Amendment right to record the police.​

C.J. Ciaramella / Tue, August 18, 2026 at 1:10 PM GMT-5

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit rules that a Connecticut man had a First Amendment right to film a police station from a public sidewalk, but officers who arrested him are immune from lawsuit.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit held that Keith Massimino, a self-described "First Amendment auditing hobbyist," had a constitutional right to film the exterior of a police department in Waterbury, Connecticut, on an October evening in 2018.

"When the government wants to preserve its privacy, it may build a fence or close a door—but not ban speech," U.S. Circuit Judge Myrna Pérez wrote for the majority.

The panel's opinion creates binding precedent in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, and, according to the opinion, it makes the 2nd Circuit the ninth federal circuit to agree on the issue. Although the Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter, every circuit court that has considered the issue has found an unambiguous First Amendment right to record and monitor the police, so long as one isn't physically interfering with or obstructing an officer.

It "helps secure an important First Amendment right for millions of people, and Keith Massimino deserves our gratitude and applause," Olson says. "Yet the court denied him simple justice in his own individual case."

Olson says that's a predictable result of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that grants government employees immunity from civil suits when the right they violated wasn't "clearly established" at the time.

Civil liberties groups across the political spectrum say qualified immunity lets police officers and government employees bog down civil suits for years and escape accountability for gross violations of rights. The Cato Institute recently filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to review and reverse a 6th Circuit decision granting qualified immunity to a Cleveland police officer who shot his partner while firing blindly into a boarding house bathroom.

Appeals Court Upholds Right To Film Police—but Grants Immunity to Cops Who Arrested a Connecticut Videographer

The 2nd Circuit is the latest federal circuit court to find a First Amendment right to record the police.

www.yahoo.com

I think "qualified immunity" is illegal since the function by police is normally done by average citizens, either before police existed or when they are not available now, so that implies everyone should have that same immunity or none.
But the idea of police having "privacy" is vastly worse.
No public employees should ever have any privacy from public scrutiny.