Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[JimC]

I still believe in having my taxes used for building roads, teaching children, having a decent justice system, and funding the health care for everyone.

OK, so it's only infecting one small region of your brain at the moment...

[Svartalf]

oh, and to me "gode" is slang for a dildo, or old Norse for some kind of priest or person with religious duties/prerogatives, not for some kind of delusion regarded as a reality.

[MrJonno]

On the radio, if one looks at prior regulation in the US, the Fairness Doctrine was our equal time requirement. However, if you want to compare the amount of radio news and worthwhile informative content on the radio now, as compared to when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, it's not even a contest. In the early 80s the radio was a vast wasteland of nonsense, and there were hardly any comment and commentary stations. There were no talk radio personalities that talked politics in depth. It was bland, and superficial in content. Now, of course, the radio is filled with hundreds of different stations nationwide that have thousands of different commentators spanning all different points of view.

Multiple highly biased news organised versus a few reasonably balanced ones. I know what I prefer but each to their own. I generally think the BBC and the news organisations (including Sky news which is owned by Rupert Murdoch/News International) does some pretty good stuff.

Sometimes less is definitely more, which is why there are only a 5 total 5 minute tv broadcasts per party in an election. The idea of trying to sell political ideas via 30 second ad breaks is obscene and I'm glad we totaly ban it

[Clinton Huxley]

Looks like in the US you can just watch far-right news and never be exposed to any contrary point of view. Explains a lot.

[tattuchu]

The plot thickens:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/2 ... 86764.html

No visible injuries on Zimmerman at the police station immediately following the incident, contradicting the claim that he was savagely beaten.

[Clinton Huxley]

The plot thickens:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/2 ... 86764.html

No visible injuries on Zimmerman at the police station immediately following the incident, contradicting the claim that he was savagely beaten.

Maybe Trayvon put a pillow over his face before beating him with a rubber hose, you know, the way the police do....

[Tyrannical]

Zimmerman was treated by an ambulance at the scene as I recall and he was evaluated on whether he needed to go to the hospital or not. I'm sure their testimony will be very helpful in showing once again that I was right all along

The media thought it was some cut and dry case of some evil racist white killing an innocent black child , and now that more facts have surfaced they don't know how to back down from the story without upsetting Blacks. They probably regret ever carrying this story, because the end result will probably be Zimmerman exonerated and angry Blacks rioting and looting like in London. So in the end an irresponsible race baiting media will cause dozens of riot related deaths and tens of millions in damages.

[FBM]

The plot thickens:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/2 ... 86764.html

No visible injuries on Zimmerman at the police station immediately following the incident, contradicting the claim that he was savagely beaten.

Don't know whether the guy is guilty or innocent, but I can easily expect that someone, probably paramedics, would've wiped any blood off during their exam. Can't really see much of the back of Zimm's head in the vid because of abc's advert, but @ 0:49 an officer looks closely at something on the back of his head. Maybe he just wanted to know what the back of a nigger-killer's head looked like?

[Coito ergo sum]

Looks like in the US you can just watch far-right news and never be exposed to any contrary point of view. Explains a lot.

If you were at all correct, I could agree with you.

[MrJonno]

Looks like in the US you can just watch far-right news and never be exposed to any contrary point of view. Explains a lot.

If you were at all correct, I could agree with you.

How many people actually watch more than one (anywhere)?. Given a chance people will watch whatever supports their own prejudices which is great for happy viewers but not so good for a functional and educated democracy

[Clinton Huxley]

Looks like in the US you can just watch far-right news and never be exposed to any contrary point of view. Explains a lot.

If you were at all correct, I could agree with you.

One could watch Fox "News" all day, could one not?

[Coito ergo sum]

On the radio, if one looks at prior regulation in the US, the Fairness Doctrine was our equal time requirement. However, if you want to compare the amount of radio news and worthwhile informative content on the radio now, as compared to when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, it's not even a contest. In the early 80s the radio was a vast wasteland of nonsense, and there were hardly any comment and commentary stations. There were no talk radio personalities that talked politics in depth. It was bland, and superficial in content. Now, of course, the radio is filled with hundreds of different stations nationwide that have thousands of different commentators spanning all different points of view.

Multiple highly biased news organised versus a few reasonably balanced ones.

That isn't true at all. You obviously don't know anything about what is available on US AM/FM radio and satellite radio.

I know what I prefer but each to their own. I generally think the BBC and the news organisations (including Sky news which is owned by Rupert Murdoch/News International) does some pretty good stuff.

We have many news sources that do some pretty good stuff too. We also have BBCAmerica. We have dozens. What aren't reasonably balanced, in your estimation, ABC News? CBS News? NBC News? MSNBC? C-SPANs 1, 2 and 3? CNN News? CNN Headline News? PBS?

On the radio - ABC, CBS and NBC are all national, and each city has local radio stations and many National Public Radio stations - there are hundreds.

It sounds to me, like you are reporting what you think you're supposed to believe about the US media, rather than anything approaching knowledge.

Sometimes less is definitely more, which is why there are only a 5 total 5 minute tv broadcasts per party in an election. The idea of trying to sell political ideas via 30 second ad breaks is obscene and I'm glad we totaly ban it

Well, of course, to each his own, but controlling what people are allowed to talk about is what sounds obscene. It's as if your system is set up to insulate orthodoxy and prevent new ideas from being promoted. To suggest that you can advertise cereal and soft drinks all you want, but that it is a virtue for political ideas to be silenced, limited and controlled, is, to me, among the most horrific notions one can entertain. It seems to me that political speech is far more valuable than advertisements for the latest hosiery.

I'd be in favor of the parties using private funds to start their own cable stations. They should just have a Republican channel, a Democrat channel, a Libertarian channel, a Socialist channel, a Green Party channel, whatever they want. People can turn to it if they like, or they can ignore that channel. 24-7 politics is fine, if that's your thing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Looks like in the US you can just watch far-right news and never be exposed to any contrary point of view. Explains a lot.

If you were at all correct, I could agree with you.

One could watch Fox "News" all day, could one not?

Sure, but Fox News does provide contrary points of view. Perhaps not to your taste or liking, but they do. Moreover, exposure to different points of view are everywhere. It's not "just" far right news."

And, what does it "explain" to you? That Obama got elected and the Democrats were able to achieve a majority in the House and the Senate in 2008? Why? Because people can only be exposed to one point of view?

It never ceases to amaze me that folks from your side of the pond will say that we need proper State control and sufficient limitations on free speech in order to make sure that we get exposed to meaningful points of view. You folks are actually serious about that. It's outlandish.

[MrJonno]

I'd be in favor of the parties using private funds to start their own cable stations. They should just have a Republican channel, a Democrat channel, a Marshmallow channel, a Socialist channel, a Green Party channel, whatever they want. People can turn to it if they like, or they can ignore that channel. 24-7 politics is fine, if that's your thing.

It's appalling ideal creating a total tribal society where no one has anything in common with anyone who is the other,

[klr]

Looks like in the US you can just watch far-right news and never be exposed to any contrary point of view. Explains a lot.

If you were at all correct, I could agree with you.

One could watch Fox "News" all day, could one not?

Sure, but Fox News does provide contrary points of view. Perhaps not to your taste or liking, but they do. Moreover, exposure to different points of view are everywhere. It's not "just" far right news."

And, what does it "explain" to you? That Obama got elected and the Democrats were able to achieve a majority in the House and the Senate in 2008? Why? Because people can only be exposed to one point of view?

It never ceases to amaze me that folks from your side of the pond will say that we need proper State control and sufficient limitations on free speech in order to make sure that we get exposed to meaningful points of view. You folks are actually serious about that. It's outlandish.

No, it's called the BBC.