User talk:JzG/Archive 188

Denial? About what pray tell....

No time to watch TV, too much work to do on the railway.
Nice work! English Electric, famed makers of the Lightning!! My recollection is more of steam engines hauling LNER wooden trucks. Comment added by dave souza, talk 11:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Why do American politics facinate you so much? What is it about American conservatives that intimidates you so horribly that you pepper every single discussion in such a polarizing manner? My perspective is there are few if any great truths in the arenas outside hard science, so when I see a proposed "academic" who cherry picks evidence like a good lawyer to support their premise and overlooks those that don't support it as clearly NOT academic. But my training was originally in the field of forensic anthropology and have been an investigator for a very long time, nearly 40 years, so what you refer to as academic has been raising my eyebrows a lot.--MONGO (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Mongo, why wouldn't the politics of the only superpower (though China is coming) not be fascinating to Guy? I read the discussion, and I think that Guy is entitled to argue that "Fox's move from right-leaning mainstream to the conservative hyper-partisan bubble," represents reality. So long as they focus on content (which I expect you to, too) by providing high-quality sources. At the same time, you are also entitled to argue otherwise, bringing your own sources to the table (or by pointing defects in the sources brought by Guy). So, that's how it should work between the two of you, I'm hoping. Whether Guy wishes to answer at length to your query, whose tone is a bit on the aggressive side, would be his prerogative. But I advise against it. El_C 16:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And, with Lenin and at one time Che adorning your page, I find it unsurprising you might think that "Fox's move from right-leaning mainstream to the conservative hyper-partisan bubble," represents reality, being that the perspective of left of center and perhaps left-leaning editors is that Fox IS "conservative. JzG and I go way back as do we ElC, so were all big boys here and we can have a discussion about this and while we may disagree most feverantly, perhaps I can reach an understanding why JzG says it is I who am in denial[1]...which I took as an insult. Or are we going to ignore this?--MONGO (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, oh, please don't take that literally. It is not an attack: I think you have a blind spot, you think I have one, but there's nothing over which we should spill blood or even tea. Guy (help!) 18:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in seeing any sanction applied to anyone, especially not JzG and if I was I could have shown up at the last arbcom case and fired a broadside barrage of diffs, but thats what assholes do, not people who merely disagree.--MONGO (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Being upfront about my biases does not preclude me from being uninvolved with AP2, where I would argue my record has been decent. I am entitled to advise, MONGO, as I see fit, without suffering insinuations. And I didn't say I thought it represented reality, you are misreading. I said Guy is entitled to argue that with the aid of high quality sources. As are you likewise entitled to argue the opposite. True, as an uninvolved admin in AP2, I wish to see less polemics. But you two have earned the right to engage in some with one another, if it is what you both wish. So, my "advise" may be safely ignored, all optics aside. El_C 16:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You might be surprised to learn I share more with you politically than you may realize and I do believe that in AP02 you have been a neutral admin. I apologize that I misread your comment about realities. If JzG, who was one of my most staunch defenders when I was facing 9/11 conspiracy theorists, wishes to not respond to me I respect that, but ask he refrain from saying I am in denial which I take as an insult to my education and training.--MONGO (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, MONGO. And thanks, I appreciate that a lot coming from someone as accomplished as you. I think both "denial" and "intimidates" do not carry an ideal tone. But, as you said, you're both big boys. I certainly did not mean to overstep. El_C 17:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, I still think of you as a friend. Whether or not that is reciprocated. There are issues on which reasonable people may differ. Guy (help!) 17:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, may I just say needle nardle noo. Am impressed by the advanced tech of reel to reel tape at your father's knee. Me and and my pals had to listen hard to the Light Programme on the steam wireless (valve radiogram, or later portable tranny) and try to memorise lines to repeat the jokes in school the next day. Now plagued by erratic memory. . . . dave souza, talk 17:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, ah yes, on a valve radio, too. And I also learned the songs of Flanders and Swann, which remain in my repertoire to this day. Guy (help!) 17:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Mongo, regrettably these small islands on the right of the pond aren't isolated from American "conservative" politics. As climate change denial shows, that's academic and educational terminology used by a significant weight of reliable sources for what was misleadingly called climate skepticism. There's also a ghastly fascination in bigly Trump and friends, though our mini-Trump has his own lack of charm and also does wildly inaccurate Churchill impersonations. On-Wiki, editing biographies of certain British scientists soon met a pov push from American religious politics. Small world! . . . dave souza, talk 17:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, I think you have fallen for the common fallacy that critique of American conservatives is driven by fear. That might have been true in the 1970s and 80s, when nuclear Armageddon was a real possibility, but these days? Not so much. Of course if they do succeed in creating a Dominionist theocracy at the State level, it will negatively impact a lot of my friends, but in the end they will move. It won't be Gilead, however much it might feel like it to those who lack the means to get out.

No, nothing about American conservatism intimidates me, other than its potential to inspire other right-wing populist movements. I am much more worried about Putin. Any sane person would be. That said, we could do without the climate change denialists. There's only one planet. Guy (help!) 17:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, "the other Guy" correctly identifies the bullshit from the US conservative side, but is somewhat blind to the bullshit from the US liberal side, and -- again in my opinion -- has an unfounded belief that there are significant differences between the two main US political parties. It is also my opinion that "the other Guy" has never let his politics interfere with NPOV either as an editor or as an administrator. If you read his comments on talk pages you can clearly see the politics. If you look at actual edits to articles and decisions as an admin, you cannot tell what his politics are. I see nothing wrong with any of that.

(Political rant; please skip if you don't care what I think about politics -- and why should you?):

Which of the two major US political parties will stop the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Niger?

Which one will stop deciding to kill US citizens[2] with drone strikes on the US president acting as judge, jury, and executioner?

Which will stop imprisoning people for life without charging them and without giving them access to a lawyer?

Which party will stop the police from stealing your property without charging you with any crime?

Which party will stop recording every phone call and every email?

Which party will reduce spending or in any way reduce the size and power of the federal government?

Which party will obey the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Just tell me who to vote for to stop these things. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I think that is fair up to a point. I am not blind to the faults of the American left, I just consider them to be much less of a problem than those of the right. As the cartoon says: "but what if we're wrong about climate and the environment, and we make the world a cleaner place for nothing?"

My answer to your questions is: neither. American politics is broken for exactly the reason some of the Founders predicted when they rejected parties as a concept. The solution is more democracy, but what you always get is less. As an example, the truly absurd ruling by SCOTUS that your only remedy for having your vote nullified by gerrymandering, is to vote the buggers out. Er, how, exactly? Of course if it were not for reconstruction-era fudges, the US would be a liberal hegemony. A California Senator represents about seventy people for every one represented by a Senator from Wisconsin, and Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three million against Hillary Clinton, about the most unsympathetic candidate since Nixon got to choose his opponent. Would that result in a split in the Democratic Party? I don't know.

I wish there were more conservatives like George Conway, who can state an actual set of principles they would like to see enacted rather than railing about MS-13.

As a point of principle, though, the limit on the Tenth Amendment is qualified by the Eighteenth. And rightly so. Guy (help!) 18:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

All of that depends on perspective, though. Why, a priori, do we assume that the people want to reduce spending or in any way reduce the size and power of the federal government? And in what manner? Yes, if you generically ask people whether they want to shrink the federal government, that polls well. But when you get to the point of asking people which actual federal government programs they want to get rid of, things turn 180 degrees. Because it turns out that the American people want federal spending. They want good highways, medical care, food aid to the poor, veterans benefits, parks, environmental protection, etc. The only areas that have even modest support for reducing federal spending are foreign aid (which is a tiny fraction of the budget) and the military - which has an impossibly-powerful military-industrial complex lobby behind it, and which the purportedly "conservative" party has proposed doing nothing but boundlessly increase. Libertarianism, in the idea of "shrinking government until it fits in a bathtub," is simply not politically popular in the United States. So the answer to that question is "neither, because the people clearly desire federal spending and a powerful federal government."

I fundamentally agree that the American federal political system has serious flaws - beginning with our first-past-the-post, non-proportional electoral system, broken upper house, and dramatically-undersized lower house (the size of the House of Representatives should be doubled). Neither party is ready to deal with these issues head-on, but only one party has even proposed thinking about addressing some of them. The other party substantially benefits from all of these flaws supporting its minority rule, and so wants to perpetuate them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, at some level, Americans do seem to demand the right to starve to death - but I think that largely depends on nobody actually asking most of the people who are doing the starving. Same with universal healthcare - around the world, it's tremendously popular, except with those who could afford to do without it - and they own the media, the think-tanks and most of the corporations. Guy (help!) 18:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a good way of looking at that is to look at Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc. They are railed against from every corner... until they're enacted, and people experience them. Then they become something of a one-way ratchet. Nobody dares to cut Medicare, one of the reddest states in the union just expanded Medicaid by public referendum, Obamacare famously survived the one and only attempt to legislatively gut it (which then became an electoral catastrophe for those who attempted it), and the Roberts Court tinkered on the edges but refused to fundamentally strike it down. I think there's a lot of (mostly older) Americans who internalized the rhetoric of "socialized medicine" and "death panels," but once they actually experience the reality of it... these programs become popular and politically untouchable. It's like the polling on other federal spending - in the abstract, people decry it, but when made concrete, people demand it. It may take us 20 different overlapping and redundant programs over the span of a century, but I'm pretty sure we're headed to some sort of actual universal healthcare in my lifetime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It takes an extraordinary degree of privilege, and an extraordinary lack of empathy, to believe that there are no significant differences between the modern incarnations of our two major political parties. For a lot of people, the differences are literally matters of life and death. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

[3]

Please don't engage in personal attacks. I may be wrong, but there is no evidence to support your claims about empathy or privilege other that that you don't agree with me. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

MastCell, viewing both political parties more in terms of their similarities than their differences is a totally legitimate view to hold. Making a connection to "an extraordinary degree of privilege, and an extraordinary lack of empathy" is starting to push the envelope of this good faith discourse. Of course, there are significant differences. There are also significant similarities. One may emphasize on one or the other as they see fit in whichever context. Generalizing and personalizing is ill-advised. El_C 20:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course there are similarities between the parties—that is obvious and unarguable. But to claim that there are "no significant differences" is ludicrous, or at least speaks to a very blinkered view of what is significant. I can understand that for a subset of people—for the sake of argument, let's say straight white males with libertarian leanings and access to health insurance—the differences may seem minimal. In my day-to-day life, for instance, it makes very little difference which party is in charge.

But if you're a woman unable to access reproductive health services, or a child separated from her parents and put in a cage, or one of the 45,000 people who die every year because they lack health insurance, or an LGBTQ person facing job discrimination, or one of the tens of thousands of people who have died unnecessarily to date during the US Covid-19 pandemic, or a health-care worker confronting the pandemic without protective gear, or a non-white person in a country whose President promotes white supremacists... then the claim that there are no significant differences between the parties might be the truly offensive thing in this discussion. Whether or not you personally know people in any of those categories, they exist and are just as human as us. I'm not saying that you have to ignore the similarities between the two parties, only that the differences are real whether you see and acknowledge them or not. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You just did it again. You could have simply said why you think the major US parties are different, but no. You weren't willing to control yourself and had to throw in that comment about "blinkered". Knock it it off. People are allowed to disagree with you without you painting them as stupid, deceived, blind, or whatever other insult you feel like using today. Let's assume just for the sake of argument that you are an idiot. See? I can do it too! And my version is funnier.

You say "if you are a child separated from her parents and put in a cage" as if it makes a difference to that child whether the Republican Party or the Democrat Party won the election. Yes, Trump did separate immigrant parents from their children. But it was Obama who built those cages and Obama put more children in cages than Trump did,[4] mostly because he had more children available to put in cages. You may think that Trump, Bush, etc. treated immigrants really poorly (true) but if you think Obama, Clinton, etc. didn't, then you are clearly [ please insert whatever personal comment you were going to use on me next here ].

You say "or a health-care worker confronting the pandemic without protective gear". But the federal government knew that someday there would be a pandemic and failed to prepare for by stockpiling protective gear it under multiple democrat and republican presidents.[5] Carter didn't address the problem. Reagan didn't address the problem. Neither did Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, or Trump. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Obama didn't address the problem? See[6], and your own source "Obama administration.... attempt to scale up preparedness... The Trump administration, however, neglected and rolled back these efforts.." Unsuccessful addressing, but better than rolling back. Seem to recall the Obama administration being persistently obstructed by both houses of Congress, so not sure if they had the opportunity to do more. . . . dave souza, talk 10:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah. The old "Our president would have fixed this except congress stopped him" argument. Comes up every time I point out any problem (not preparing for a pandemic, police killing unarmed black people, asset forfeiture, etc.) that both democrats and republicans failed to solve.

There was a Democrat President, House and Senate from 1993 to 1995, and again in 2009 to 2011.[7] There was a Republican President, House and Senate from 2003 to 2007, and again from 2017 to 2019.[8] During all of these periods we knew that a pandemic was going to come sooner or later and that the federal government needed to prepare. It is absolutely not true that you can lay the blame on any one party for this. Your theory that all evil comes from Republicans and the all good comes from Democrats in contradicted by the facts. Both parties do mostly annoying things, a fair amount of stupid or evil things, and an occasional good thing. The differences are minimal. And neither the 77 year old rich white guy or the 74 year old richer white guy will change that. At least in the UK they have political parties that aren't peas in a pod. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, not my theory, nor my president. Obama got into a very ugly habit of killing forners with drones, but in the particular instance of pandemic preparations his administration provided the basis for alertness and a quicker response, which team Trump wasted. Our incumbent was off on honeymoon / pregnancy leave so too preoccupied to respond to all the signs of a pandemic. Both countries were in the grip of anti-public-spending zealots, and had inadequate stockpiles of PPE, though these things have a limited shelf life so need replenished. We should have manufactured PPE, but it was supposedly cheaper to rely on China and Turkey, rather than have English Electric and Imperial Chemical Industries to hand – but oops, we sold them off. There have been and are still impressive Republicans around, but they're not in power. . dave souza, talk 14:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, the congressional GOP does not seem to me to believe that government has any legitimate role other than providing federal pork. Their approach to government is like that of a man who deliberately runs his car without oil and then points to the seized engine as evidence that cars are not an effective means of transport. Even if the fundamental case is correct (yes, cars are inefficient), the approach is fundamentally dishonest. Guy (help!) 10:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Get the impression that both US parties were right-wing conservative, the anti-science popularised by William Jennings Bryan (Dem) has become dogma with the Tea Party Republicans. Randians, rather like the Trotskyist Brexit Tendency that's taken over the shell of the Tory Conservatives. So agree. . . dave souza, talk 11:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Fun thought for those divided by a common language: for the US, cars means railway carriages, while in Glasgow the caurs were trams. . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I think it is important to draw a distinction between conservatives, the Republican party, and the caricature MAGA-hatters.

One reason this is important is because of the discourse around social media bans. When right-wing agitators say that shutting down white supremacists is "silencing conservative voices", they do a tremendous disservice to conservatives. Yes, there is a difference between traditional conservatism and movement conservatism, and the business of ideological purity tests on gun rights and abortion has made this much worse, but people like George Conway are arguing in good faith for a set of principles that they can articulate. George Conway is not a racist. George W. Bush is not a racist.

The GOP, as an institution, is more of a problem. Since the Southern Strategy, it has dominated elections in the former Confederate states, and these states have among the highest proportion of Black Americans. The House has around 12% Black membership, which more or less matches the US as a whole, but only ONE of those is a Republican, and he's retiring. 26% of the Senate are female, but only nine of those are Republican. 38% of Democratic representatives are women versus under 7% of Republicans. The 116th Congress is the most diverse ever, and virtually none of that comes from the Republican side. So it's easy to see how on hot button issues like abortion rights and racial politics, the GOP would struggle to speak with authority even if their president were not given to defending white supremacists, hiring a white nationalist to run his immigraiton policy, and responding to the George Floyd protests by pushing for ten year jail terms for bringing down statues of traitors erected by racxists in the 20th Century. On race and gender issues, the GOP has a massive problem, and this is compounded by the fact that most elected representatives have close to zero fear of their electorate, their biggest chance of losing their cushy job is a primary challenge from a more extreme candidate int heir own party.

When the hottest issues dividing the nation are around gender, income insecurity and race, it is really hard to speak with authority when your party is mainly rich old white dudes. And I would argue that this makeup of the GOP not only makes it hard for them to speak to anyone outside their bubble, but also makes it difficult, if not impossible to understand the problems that are contributing to increasing unrest, and even harder to try to fix them. If your job depends on not losing the support of people who have confederate flags on their trucks, it requires tremendous courage to stand up and lead on an issue like confederate symbols in the public square. Tim Scott is a very brave man, and more of his caucus should listen to him. Guy (help!) 09:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

There are many conservative voices that say that the Democratic Party is still the party of slavery. Most conservatives I know are not opposed to a hand up, but are opposed to hand outs...the difference being of course that handouts tend to put people in a position of dependency.--MONGO (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Political priorities and values are best understood through budgets, rather than rhetoric. The most recent Republican budget proposals focus on cutting Medicaid, student loan aid, and food assistance ([9]). These targets are clearly "hand-up" programs—after all, how can you expect someone to escape dependency by taking away their access to food, medical care, and higher education?—yet they're high priorities for conservatives to cut or eliminate. At the same time, Republican budgets prioritize the extension of tax cuts disproportionately favoring the very wealthy, which are clearly "hand outs" rather than "hand ups"—there is no further "up" for these people to go. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Mastcell, California has the highest top tier tax rate in the US, yet, they also have the highest income disparity in the US with approximately 40% of its citizens rated at below or near the poverty line. Only 150,000 of the highest earners in California pay HALF the states income taxes...HALF the taxes collected, yet they should pay more? The bottom 40% pay zero...ZERO. Yet the state has the third highest homeless rate in the US and the most total persons who are homeless. The state is nearly completely run by Democrats.--MONGO (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, indeed. This is due to a specific problem in California: Silicon Valley, which is rapidly pushing up the incomes of the top earners, and strongly favouring knowledge workers, leaving those in the service economy way behind.

"Income inequality would be greater without taxes or safety net programs." https://www.ppic.org/publication/income-inequality-in-california/

Major tax and safety net programs reduce inequality by 48%, according to the California Poverty Measure. Gains occur both from taxing high incomes and providing cash and safety net benefits such as the federal and state Earned Income Tax Credits, and food assistance from CalFresh, WIC, and school meals. This combination also reduces racial income inequality, shrinking the gap in median income by about 30% for African American and Latino families compared to white families. Education, regional economic development, transportation, and childcare policies are also critical tools for addressing income inequality.

But we could always ask Brownback if trickle-down works yet. Guy (help!) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

They pay zero state income tax. It's not as if they pay zero taxes. In fact, they pay the lion's share of a highly-regressive consumption tax system which approaches 10% in many areas. This is in large part because California has highly-restricted and capped property taxes, and does not reassess property except when it is sold. This means that my mother's property tax is capped at 1% of $76,000, which is what she paid in 1986 for an 1100-square-foot bungalow in the San Francisco Bay Area which is now worth in the region of half a million dollars. When you put all the emphasis on income tax and ignore the extremely low by national standards property taxes, you are only telling half the story. California is highly reliant on a very progressive income tax and a very regressive sales tax because an entire major taxation system is artificially kneecapped. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Now that would be such an excellent idea! Raise the property tax so the homeless situation goes even higher! Who thinks like that? What a notion it would be to now raise the property tax or send out assessors every couple years and repeal Prop13, leading to more tax revenue (for awhile) but fewer and fewer people able to afford housing due to the need to offset these increase via higher rent? Excellent. 9 of the 10 worst states from a cash solvency, financial fluidity, unfunded pension obligations and tax to income ratio are all run by Democrats. Only Illinois has a currently worse situation of solvency than California. 9 out of the 10 best states in those categories are run by Republicans. Oddly the worst states also have some of the worst tax burdens and the best have some of the least costly tax burdens.--MONGO (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we start by repealing or modifying Prop. 13 as it applies to non-residential buildings and single-family homes valued over a million dollars? Protections for seniors on fixed incomes is one thing, protections for multi-billion-dollar corporations and their gleaming new Silicon Valley office complexes is entirely another. And if California could raise property taxes, it could (and should) couple that with some reductions in income and sales taxes. Again, it's about creating a more equitable and stable taxation system. Being overly reliant on income and sales taxes is problematic for several reasons, some of which you touched on. The solution to that is to rebalance in a way that Prop. 13 currently prohibits. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

...Because as we all know, the politicians in Sacramento are just chomping at the bit to slash sending[10] and it is only that pesky Prop 13[11] that is stopping them. Pull the other one. It has bells on it! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Who said anything about slash spending? You're right, there's no support in California for doing that. You claim it's "politicians in Sacramento," but the people of the state of California keep electing those politicians in overwhelming numbers. The Republican Party practically doesn't even exist in California anymore. Like I said, libertarianism is a political failure because literally nobody wants a substantially smaller government. What I said is that reforming Proposition 13 would enable a broad-based structural reform of California's taxation system to improve its stability and fairness. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, well, not nobody. The handful of people who have so much money that they could have their own roads, hospitals and army, they are quite happy with zero government. Presumably that's why they bankrolled the Tea Party takeover of the GOP. Guy (help!) 09:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

MastCell, I think it should be viewed mainly as a rhetorical device. The point is that context matters. The scope of what is deemed systemic, structurally, versus what isn't also matters, for example. Views can diverge on that front in good faith without casting blame or fault on the individual holding them. Because then it ceases to be a good faith discourse and risks devolving into conflict or an echo chamber. That's all I'm saying. El_C 21:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, it is unfortunate that public discourse around the GOP, in particular, is defined by the absurd self-caricature that now constitutes its congressional caucus. Unfortunately, though, a clear majority of Republicans - and pretty much nobody else - currently approve of Donald Trump's performance as President. Leaving aside the specifics of his agenda, and the extent to which it is actually his, rather than him simply ceding points over which he cares little to extremist groups who adore him for doing so, it is clear to me that he is both incompetent and temperamentally utterly unsuited to any office of public trust.

I would make a shit politician, but at least I know it. Guy (help!) 21:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, Guy, I'm not touching that. But I was going on about it from the other end, as is my nature. El_C 21:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, understood Guy (help!) 21:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ugh...well this diverged a bit. I just learnt that FoxNews is not available in Britain and was apparently removed due to lack of interest (something like a daily viewership of only 60K, mainly due to its USA-centric broadcasting) so I cannot ask JzG to watch it and provide me with things they report that are complete bollocks. I know that asking him to submit to this torture would be a pretty unreasonable request, but I did want to do some sort of experiment if for no other reason than the ability to understand how a personal policy can be made for one to decide that something they can't even readily access is nonsense or packed full of lies and distortions.--MONGO (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  MONGO, ha! Thread drift? On the Internet? Never.

The Fox stop in the UK was a bit more complicated than that. We have strict impartiality rules for broadcasters, and Fox violated them (e.g. [12]). That, combined with very low viewing figures, prompted Murdoch to pull it.

But I do not watch any broadcast news. I do not watch television. I rarely watch anything at all, I prefer a good (audio)book. I do read the New York Times, the Washington Post, BBC News, the Financial Times, the Guardian (of course) and I subscribe to Private Eye. My views on Fox come form reading academic studies and in-depth journalistic reporting. That's probably better in my case because the framing is so blatant in most Fox pieces I read that I often cannot get past the second paragraph. It's like trying to read clinical trials written by homeopaths.

I tried watching Maddow a few times, but there again, the blatant framing was too annoying. Guy (help!) 21:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I find that troubling to be honest. I am sure there must be more to the story than just shows presented with pundits Hannity or Carlson were skewed or even overtly partisan enough to warranted sanctions or censorship of this nature, leading to a license revocation or whatever. I am extremely cautious to critique other's nations actions, but this smacks of overt censorship of the kind we do not have in the USA. I think the attitude here is more, if you don't like it, flip the channel and the survival of things is more based on market valuation, with a weak market leading to changes, not censorship just because some programs didn't always tow some ideological dogma as prescribed by government censors. It odd because Hannity and Carlson routinely have opposing interviewees on their programs...they may spend the entire segment arguing with them, but unlike CNN and MSNBC, they at least make an effort to bring in opposing voices rather than like minded ones. I used to read either the WaPo or NYTimes regularly, but now find them too mission oriented. I also check BBC via the web several times a week.--MONGO (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, there's more to it in the 2017 BBC article JzG linked: "Sky said the decision to axe the channel was down to low audience figures. Ofcom [said] Fox News [was] no longer a licensed television service falling under its jurisdiction. The decision was not related to Fox's takeover bid for Sky.. [critics fear that] will mean Rupert Murdoch has too much control of the UK media." Sky News was started by Murdoch, looks like he was still a main shareholder. The Fox News channel was apparently just for US enthusiasts who didn't get enough Fox News on the internets. . . dave souza, talk 14:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, I remember it being messy, and I remember that nobody was especially convinced by the pretext of low ratings. Guy (help!) 22:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, Fox could not exist in its current form if the fairness doctrine were still in place. It cannot exist in the UK due to fairness laws around broadcasting (TV and radio). We have no Hannity, we have no Limbaugh, we have no Maddow. Where we do have political talking head shows (e.g. Andrew Neil) these generally feature a range of voices. Unfortunately, Farage still managed to get massively disproportionate airtime. Guy (help!) 23:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, sorry that simply sounds like government censorship and I am glad when Nancy Pelosi tried to get that in place for AM Radio here she failed. Maybe your Parliament is trusted by you guys more than most of us trust our House and Senate, but glad I can pick and choose what I get to listen to without some government group of censors deciding that for me.--MONGO (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, the government here does not "censor" broadcasts. It regulates them, via an independent regulator, who applies certain standards of fairness and accuracy. On present evidence, the requirement for balance in broadcast media would appear to have led to a less polarised and more accurate broadcast media landscape here. It is unfortunate that this also led to Farage being granted grossly disproportionate coverage on the BBC.

The ability of large chunks of the country to effectively opt out of being confronted with inconvenient facts does not seem to me to have delivered great results for the USA.

The government did not shut down Fox. Fox failed to gain a license because it was unwilling to comply with the requirement to provide balance. Guy (help!) 16:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, here's the amazing thing. US politics doesn't just impact the US. Hard the believe right? So whilst I am a New Zealander living in the Middle East with a British wife, and Guy lives (as I understand) in the UK for some reason the inane politics of the US is somewhat fascinating (euphemism for terrifying) to everyone globally. We have opinions, but thankfully don't sway our edits on Wikipedia. Crazy stuff I know. Glen 15:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: We take it back. This whole "declaring independence from England" thing just isn't working out. Let's ask the UK to let us back in. Nuke the entire US government and let the UK government rule over us as a colony. Alternative proposal: Hey Canada; can I interest you in 50 new provinces? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, but that would mean my ancestor John André died in vain! Guy (help!) 22:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If we went back in time, my ancestor, George Washington would also be opposed. Take either André or Washington to 2020 America and show them what is happening now, and they would both most likely support just about anything else. Still no word from Canada on my proposal... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry chaps, you're too late. Bojo has already agreed to England becoming an unincorporated territory of the US after Brexodus, so we can enjoy all the benefits of the American healthcare system. Look forward next year to President Trump visiting and chucking us some paper towels. . . dave souza, talk 04:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, on the plus side, the Brexiteers are famously unhappy with the idea of unaccountable legal oversight, so they will definitely riot when they find out about the trade courts. They will no doubt be egged on by that bloke in the Telegraph who writes complete bollocks about trade regulations. Whatever became of him? Guy (help!) 09:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, following your recommendation I had a look at what Fox News said on a topic, and was pleased to find it sane (and the same as other reports). However, after you said "unlike CNN and MSNBC, they at least make an effort to bring in opposing voices", it was disappointing today to find Fox complaining that CNN brought in differing opinions. Rather like the blog-based story, run by the Daily Mail, the Sun and Breitbart, that inspired a recent pov push on the Grauniad.
On a brighter note, found that Rand Paul brilliantly got Dr. Fauchi to admit, even as COVID-19 deaths finally approach a long-desired decline, that the political elite were going beyond what he'd said to dictate public health behavior. So no need to worry, as England heads for Spoons to get bevvied! . . dave souza, talk 09:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)