Gov. Mike Pence's state-run news outlet

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jan 27, 2015.

  1. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    Seriously? This is small government? When I think of state run media, Pravda comes to mind.



    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...n-news-outlet-to-compete-with-media/22370005/
     
  2. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #2
    Republicans have a tendency to coin terms such as "small government", "family values", etc. They just fail to mention that they only push these values when it works in favor of their agenda.
     
  3. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #3
    You never pass on a chance to bash the republican party, do you? :rolleyes:

    It's ironic, because far more media outlets are controlled by democrats. I'm not defending this story, but at least it's pretty obvious who is behind this project; unlike major news outlets where you have to dig and find wonderful people like Michael Bloomberg standing behind the curtains.
     
  4. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #4
    Nope.

    This isn't about who controls the media. This is about "small government". Keep up.
     
  5. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #5
    Oh I know, we've been down this road before like your arguments in the thread about the irrelevant hobby lobby girl. You'll make such tight constraints on your argument only so you can refuse to accept the extreme irony in your statements.

    Dems are okay controlling the media, because they don't claim they are against it!
     
  6. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #6
    I ask again, what does media control have to do with the OP? We're talking about "small government" republicans. Stay on topic.

    But you're right, we have been down this road before. The road of deflection.
     
  7. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #7
    Are you serious?

    :confused:
     
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #8
    It's not ironic and in seeking for false equivalence you miss the point. A government agency is creating its own "news outlet" to promote itself. It's the kind of sketchy operation one should expect from your favorite dictatorship and not the governor's office of Indiana.

    However, Pence has already tried to backpedal on what this project is supposed to do:

    Furthermore, Mike Bloomberg's holdings in the media are limited to the Bloomberg network, Business Week, Eagle Eye Publishing, and a few others. Recently, Bloomberg apparently asked if the New York Times was for sale, but was rebuffed by Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

    There is no "man behind the curtain" at "major news outlets." Now, keep in mind that NBC is owned by Comcast (through NBCUniversal), while ABC is run by Disney. CBS is owned by CBS Corporate, CNN is owned by the Turner Broadcasting Network, and newspapers that aren't owned by a single family are owned by the Tribune Company, Lee or Gannett.

    There's also the Journal Broadcast Group which owns many local television news stations.
     
  9. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #9

    Which is exactly what other, rich democrats do with their media outlets. Extremely ironic, and no difference.
     
  10. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #10
    It wouldn't be ironic even if your statement was accurate.

    You make the common mistake of believing that, for example, because Disney owns ABC, this meant that Steve Jobs could (or would) have demanded that an affiliate in Iowa cover a story differently.

    This is a complete misunderstanding of the operation of a news outlet and its relationship with corporate owners and this makes the assumption that all news outlets are owned by a few "rich Democrats" which simply isn't true.

    Instead, media ownership in the local market is often complex. Here, there are at least seven companies competing against each other for news. Even if one outlet is bought by a "rich Democrat" the other six will simply scoop them.

    However, if a state governor's office uses its own media outlet to scoop other news outlets while, I'm assuming, refusing to talk to those outlets than that is propaganda.

    You see everything through this dumb partisan lens, which makes it easy to draw false equivalencies and hunt for "irony" or hypocrisy.
     
  11. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #11
    Firstly, I'm not partisan but thanks for that incorrect assumption. Secondly, the majority of news outlets are owned by rich democrats. It's a fact.

    You can dig down to the local markets in an attempt to blur the argument, but those local news outlets have very little influence and coverage.

    The irony is absolutely there.
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Most advertisers are Republicans however.
     
  13. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #13
    Lets see, some media is controlled by Democrats, cos the owners who run them with their own money happen to be Democrats.

    This news-outlet is controlled by Republican Govenor useing taxpayer money.


    Nah, no difference at all ;)
     
  14. hulugu, Jan 29, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2015

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    You're making a partisan argument.

    First, keep in mind that whatever the political leanings of the ownership, a media company cannot survive by bending hard to those leanings and reporters, editors, and publishers/station managers will revolt if they feel that ownership has an undue influence.

    Most of the invasive influence is really driven by commerce, summed up best as "don't piss off the advertisers." And, they may be highly conservative or liberal depending on the market.

    So, your argument is build on sand. But, let's talk about ownership anyway for a moment because it's interesting.

    You're focusing on the national outlets, but you keep saying "majority" and I'm sorry, but you have to include local markets because they are a major part of how people absorb the news. People don't go to the AP wire, they read their daily paper. People don't pull video from Reuters, they watch the local TV news.

    And, ownership at this level is complicated because it includes national companies like JRN and Gannet, as well as small organizations.

    Now, you could I guess that Tribune Media, the NY Times and Bloomberg are owned by rich Democrats, but ABC and CBS are owned by publicly-traded corporations. So, even in this your argument is incredibly flawed.

    EDIT: I started looking for 527s and PACs owned by media companies and ran into this article by OpenSecrets.

    Now, unfortunately, their .XLS doc is unavailable, but from the article:

    Inconceivable.

    Exactly.

    luv's entire argument is based around a false equivalence. A governor, no matter what his stripes are, should not be using public funds to create his own media program.

    EDIT:

    Gov. Pence closes program.

    In a memo sent out, Pence wrote:

     
  15. luvmymbpr macrumors regular

    luvmymbpr

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    #15
    Your original argument wasn't based on taxpayer funding. I agree with the fact news outlets shouldn't be funded by taxpayer funding. I also agree that detail makes my argument a false equivalency.

    Before, I was arguing from the standpoint of influence and left/right leaning media based on who controlled them.
     

Share This Page