Democracy only works if folks participate. If you're for or against, let 'em know.Call me a pessimist, but I don't think they give a damn. I've written thoughtful, polite letters to my congresscritters. All I've ever received in return is a bunch of pandering, nonsense and bullshit where the critters refused to take an issue on either side.
Me: "I feel strongly about x, and this is why."
Them: "There are valid opinions on both sides of x. Believe me when I say I am working to ensure the correct course of action is taken. I thank you for your concern, and don't forget to vote for me in the next election."
No good bastards. I've no idea who to vote for because they won't answer simple questions about where they stand on any given issue.
I've got half a mind to run for a state office as an independent with a "just the facts, ma'am" campaign. I've got no problem telling people which way I'd vote on any given issue and why.
I've got half a mind to run for a state office as an independent with a "just the facts, ma'am" campaign. I've got no problem telling people which way I'd vote on any given issue and why.And you will misarably fail. That was very naive of you.
There is a reason these people are so ambiguous. It's the only way to get elected. Name me one person that has made it while talking straight all along (actually don't, it would get this thread closed). Talking straight = alienate a large portion of the populace ==> You lose ==> Yeah, you're honest, but your honesty ain't doing much good to anyone if you can't get yourself in position of power and actually do the things you believe in.
In any case, this news is bad news.
--
Holadem
That was very naive of you.I haven't done it yet. Only said I had "half a mind" ...
And I don't even want to get into the thousands of media people that will be out of work.Sadly, I think that this will happen anyway. There are just too many sources of information out there for all of them to survive. For example, Seattle is currently a two-newspaper town, but I don't expect that to last much longer.
While I agree that this is scary, I don't think that it will have quite the impact that you all think it will. There are a huge number of ways to get your news these days (way more than there were ten years ago), so I just don't see one demographic controlling all of the info that we receive.
Some ads took on Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox News Channel, 20th Century Fox TV and film studios, the New York Post and other media properties. Murdoch told a Senate committee last month he has no plan for a media buying spree after the changes, other than his proposed acquisition of DirecTV, the nation's largest satellite television provider.Hey Simpsons writers, how about an entire episode dedicated to bashing News Corp. and Murdoch?
There are a huge number of ways to get your news these daysUnfortunately, the vast majority of people do NOT seek out other news source. The bulk of at least US citizenry that pay attention enough typically get their information just from their evening news or the smattering they get from the morning shows like GMA and Today.
Check out this link about the "American Matrix", as it covers aspects of the media and the way people are (and wanting to be) fed their news among other topics.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do NOT seek out other news source.In other words, as in so many aspects of life, it all comes down not to "I should be protected from the big bad whatever that's doing evil things to me", but rather "I should take responsibility for the way I run my life instead of blaming others".