Sen. Rockefeller: FCC should shut down Fox News and MSNBC

[Cicero]

"There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, "Out. Off. End."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8Eq3hOQF9o

Welcome to Rockefeller Center & Re-Education Camp.

Hey Rocky, the FCC doesn't license cable TV.

 

[eeyore1954]

Surprisingly he didn't want to end FOX but not MSNBC. At least he was equal opportunity. or equalk anti opportunity

 

[Crossbow]

"There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, "Out. Off. End."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8Eq3hOQF9o

Welcome to Rockefeller Center & Re-Education Camp.

Hey Rocky, the FCC doesn't license cable TV.

Ummm, so what?

Rockefeller is just giving his personal opinion on something. Essentially, the Constitution states that everyone (including Senators) are allowed to voice their personal opinions.

 

[daredelvis]

I also wish they would both stfu, but I would never support any government attempt to do so. They add nothing. As Crossbow said, it is his personal opinion.

Daredelvis

 

[Cicero]

Ummm, so what?Rockefeller is just giving his personal opinion on something. Essentially, the Constitution states that everyone (including Senators) are allowed to voice their personal opinions.

Ummm, is that your reaction to anything private citizen S.P. says?

Everybody has the inalienable right to make a fool of themselves. Rocky never misses the opportunity exercise that right. Would it be too much to ask of a U.S. Senator who is on the Committee on Commerce, Science, Transportation Committee on Finance, Subcommittee on Health Care, Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy, Select Committee on Intelligence Committee on Veterans' Affairs and joint Committee on Taxation, to be familiar with the actual purview of the FCC?

Rocky has a history of wanting to use the FCC as his personal club to censor anything he deems unworthy of his attention. Back in 2007, he introduced legislation that would give the FCC the power to regulate TV violence. He should have introduced legislation that would give the FCC power over cable TV. Had it passed, he wouldn't look like a complete moron with his latest public musings.

 

[Lurker]

...to use the FCC as his personal club to censor anything he deems unworthy of his attention.

Um, isn't that statement kind of self-contradictory?

 

[Crossbow]

Ummm, is that your reaction to anything private citizen S.P. says?

Everybody has the inalienable right to make a fool of themselves. Rocky never misses the opportunity exercise that right. Would it be too much to ask of a U.S. Senator who is on the Committee on Commerce, Science, Transportation Committee on Finance, Subcommittee on Health Care, Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy, Select Committee on Intelligence Committee on Veterans' Affairs and joint Committee on Taxation, to be familiar with the actual purview of the FCC?

Rocky has a history of wanting to use the FCC as his personal club to censor anything he deems unworthy of his attention. Back in 2007, he introduced legislation that would give the FCC the power to regulate TV violence. He should have introduced legislation that would give the FCC power over cable TV. Had it passed, he wouldn't look like a complete moron with his latest public musings.

Sorry, but I still do not see what is bothering you so much.

So what if Rockefeller gave an opinion based on incorrect data?

People do that sort of thing all the time, however that does not mean that they are bad people. Instead, it means that they gave an opinion based on incorrect data.

 

[boooeee]

Sorry, but I still do not see what is bothering you so much.

So what if Rockefeller gave an opinion based on incorrect data?

People do that sort of thing all the time, however that does not mean that they are bad people. Instead, it means that they gave an opinion based on incorrect data.

Sorry, but I still do not see what is bothering you so much.

So what if Colin Powell gave an opinion based on incorrect data?

People do that sort of thing all the time, however that does not mean that they are bad people. Instead, it means that they gave an opinion based on incorrect data.

 

[Crossbow]

Sorry, but I still do not see what is bothering you so much.

So what if Colin Powell gave an opinion based on incorrect data?

People do that sort of thing all the time, however that does not mean that they are bad people. Instead, it means that they gave an opinion based on incorrect data.

That is a great question and I will try my best to answer it!

Now then, if Powell was giving his opinion on something and that opinion was based on incorrect data, then that is still considered Constitutionally protected speech.

I hope that is clear, because now I would like to show you something a bit different.

Suppose, for the moment that Powell held a very high office: like the US Secretary of State, for example.
And suppose that Powell was addressing an international body as the personal representative of the United States: like he did with the UN on February 6, 2003, for example.
And suppose he was there on a very important and very official job: like proving how urgent it is for the USA to go to war with Iraq, for example.
And suppose he said something like:

"there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."

And then he went on to show diagrams of mobile production facilities for biological agents, as well assure everyone that he was speaking of facts.

Well, this sort of thing is not an opinion, and such it is not Constitutionally protected speech.

I hope that this point is clear as well.

 

[hgc]

It bothers me that a US Senator would say something so bone stupid as this. First, the FCC does not have this power, because a) they control broadcast, not cable and b) even if it were broadcast, their portfolio doesn't reach to shutting down politically offensive outlets.

Next: Why does a senator fantasize about shutting down outlets of opinion journalism? Asshat.

 

[boooeee]

That is a great question and I will try my best to answer it!

Now then, if Powell was giving his opinion on something and that opinion was based on incorrect data, then that is still considered Constitutionally protected speech.

I hope that is clear, because now I would like to show you something a bit different.

Suppose, for the moment that Powell held a very high office: like the US Secretary of State, for example.
And suppose that Powell was addressing an international body as the personal representative of the United States: like he did with the UN on February 6, 2003, for example.
And suppose he was there on a very important and very official job: like proving how urgent it is for the USA to go to war with Iraq, for example.
And suppose he said something like:

"there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."

And then he went on to show diagrams of mobile production facilities for biological agents, as well assure everyone that he was speaking of facts.

Well, this sort of thing is not an opinion, and such it is not Constitutionally protected speech.

I hope that this point is clear as well.

I wasn't aware that the First Amendment only protected opinions.

Nobody is disputing the Senator's right to say what he said. But if people say something stupid, especially elected officials, shouldn't they be called on it? Isn't that pretty much the whole point of this subforum?

 

[Crossbow]

I wasn't aware that the First Amendment only protected opinions.

Nobody is disputing the Senator's right to say what he said. But if people say something stupid, especially elected officials, shouldn't they be called on it? Isn't that pretty much the whole point of this subforum?

Excuse me, but I never said anything about the first amendment only protecting opinions, so please remove me from that topic.

However, if you wish to call Senator Rockefeller out on what he said, then please do so. Just call his office in the Senate and his staff will pass on your message.

As for me, I think he just had a moment of inarticulation as opposed to speaking from ignorance. But in either case, I hardly think that it is anything to be concerned about.

 

[Cicero]

Excuse me, but I never said anything about the first amendment only protecting opinions, so please remove me from that topic.

However, if you wish to call Senator Rockefeller out on what he said, then please do so. Just call his office in the Senate and his staff will pass on your message.

As for me, I think he just had a moment of inarticulation as opposed to speaking from ignorance. But in either case, I hardly think that it is anything to be concerned about.

You consider a U.S. Senator's desire to regulate cable media outlets out of existence as a "moment of in articulation?"

When Nelson Rockefeller died in flagrante delicto, did you consider that a moment of articulation? I know the Rockefeller's have a history of screwing those underneath them, but could Jay at least kiss us in the process.

 

[boooeee]

Excuse me, but I never said anything about the first amendment only protecting opinions, so please remove me from that topic.

From your previous post:

Well, this sort of thing is not an opinion, and such it is not Constitutionally protected speech.

However, if you wish to call Senator Rockefeller out on what he said, then please do so. Just call his office in the Senate and his staff will pass on your message.

As for me, I think he just had a moment of inarticulation as opposed to speaking from ignorance. But in either case, I hardly think that it is anything to be concerned about.

Or you could start a thread to discuss it with others. Like I said, the whole point of this place.

 

[johnny karate]

You consider a U.S. Senator's desire to regulate cable media outlets out of existence as a "moment of in articulation?

Do you honestly think that what Senator Rockefeller said was the expression of a desire to regulate cable media outlets out of existence? As opposed to, say, an expression of frustration over the political polarization he sees coming from those cable media outlets?

 

[Crossbow]

You consider a U.S. Senator's desire to regulate cable media outlets out of existence as a "moment of in articulation?"

When Nelson Rockefeller died in flagrante delicto, did you consider that a moment of articulation? I know the Rockefeller's have a history of screwing those underneath them, but could Jay at least kiss us in the process.

Well, at the risk of addressing a poster who is under a seven day suspension, he goes my response.

First of all, Senator Rockefeller did not say anything about regulating "cable media outlets of out existence", so I do not know what you are talking about there.

Second of all, while there is some debate as to just how Nelson Rockefeller died, however considering that he died about 31 years ago hardly makes him relevant to this conversation, so I do not know what your are talking about there.

 

[Unabogie]

Someone shoot me, because I'm about to agree with Cicero. Rockefeller is just a straight up nincompoop for saying this because yes, as a Senator (or any elected official) what you say carries the heft of the power behind your office. That's why Bush should never have joked about being a dictator, and Ari Fleischer should not have warned us all to "watch what we say".

We'd all be clearly better off if Fox wasn't spewing its racist garbage. And we're all clearly better off to have people like Rachel Maddow on doing what she does.

But.

And it's a big but.

We're all far, far, far better off living in a place where both Fox and MSNBC and Democracy Now can all be heard, without fear of government censorship, and THAT outweighs my personal bias about WHAT these people are saying by a mile.

 

[hgc]

Do you honestly think that what Senator Rockefeller said was the expression of a desire to regulate cable media outlets out of existence?

Those were his plain words.

As opposed to, say, an expression of frustration over the political polarization he sees coming from those cable media outlets?

He should express his frustration less idiotically.

 

[Crossbow]

From your previous post:








Or you could start a thread to discuss it with others. Like I said, the whole point of this place.

Thanks much for sharing your thoughts!

So please excuse me for not posting a response to them.

 

[maxpower1227]

I for one agree with Rockefeller. Not necessarily about wanting the FCC specifically to shut down MSNBC and the Fox Ministry of Truth, but about the fact that 24-hour cable news is detrimental to us as a society and we would all be better off without it.