View Poll Results: should networks ban Kelly Ann Conway

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • no.

    10 47.62%
  • yeah.

    9 42.86%
  • undecided

    1 4.76%
  • other

    1 4.76%
  • leave Kelly Ann alone.

    1 4.76%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 81
Thanks Tree43Thanks

Thread: should networks ban Kelly Ann Conway?

  1. #41
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    23,677
    Thanks
    6119

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    How is what you've suggested differ from a "ban?" Isn't a policy not to do something a "ban" on that thing?
    It's mostly just word differences.

    A "ban" would have to be rescinded, overturned, or reversed.

    A "policy" could be only temporary, and can be changed easily and quickly.

    It's the word "ban" that means censorship.

    Banned means not allowed.

  2. #42
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    63,158
    Thanks
    34742

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    It's mostly just word differences.

    A "ban" would have to be rescinded, overturned, or reversed.

    A "policy" could be only temporary, and can be changed easily and quickly.

    It's the word "ban" that means censorship.

    Banned means not allowed.
    But bans can be intentionally temporary. You're trying to create a distinction where there is no difference.

  3. #43
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    23,677
    Thanks
    6119

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    But bans can be intentionally temporary. You're trying to create a distinction where there is no difference.
    No matter the length, it means not allowed.

    So, a "ban" is censorship.

  4. #44
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    63,158
    Thanks
    34742

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    No matter the length, it means not allowed.

    So, a "ban" is censorship.
    But you're okay with a "policy" that says the person is not allowed on air, temporarily. You are hung up on a word, which is silly. "Ban" is no different from "policy" but you insist on a distinction without a difference.

  5. #45
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    61,696
    Thanks
    19103

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    But you're okay with a "policy" that says the person is not allowed on air, temporarily. You are hung up on a word, which is silly. "Ban" is no different from "policy" but you insist on a distinction without a difference.
    Most Righties' arguments devolve into meaningless semantics arguments
    Thanks from the watchman and ATLglock

  6. #46
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    78,261
    Thanks
    41024

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    No matter the length, it means not allowed.

    So, a "ban" is censorship.
    the thing is your broad interpretation of censorship could include practically any refusal to air something. We're talking about private entities here. There's nothing wrong with them making choices to preserve the integrity of what they report. The federal government regulates what they're allowed to broadcast. Are you saying that's censorship too?

  7. #47
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    63,158
    Thanks
    34742

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    the thing is your broad interpretation of censorship could include practically any refusal to air something. We're talking about private entities here. There's nothing wrong with them making choices to preserve the integrity of what they report. The federal government regulates what they're allowed to broadcast. Are you saying that's censorship too?
    I don't think anyone questions that regulations against certain images and certain language is censorship--we just see the censorship as necessary.

  8. #48
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    78,261
    Thanks
    41024

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I don't think anyone questions that regulations against certain images and certain language is censorship--we just see the censorship as necessary.
    sorry I wasn't clear. I agree some censorship is necessary. But, I don't get the impression that the people talking about self-censorship by a network is necessary. Networks have to worry about things like ratings. If viewers are turned off by the appearance of certain individuals that's a legitimate reason for a network to refuse to continue having them on. The word is being used with negative connotations. Imposing requirements that force networks to have individuals on regardless of the impression it has on viewers. My argument is that private networks should have a choice. Just as we exercise the choice as to whether to watch them. So long as the networks isn't violating federal regulations.

  9. #49
    Senior Member vikingbeast's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2013
    Posts
    11,394
    Thanks
    6222

    From
    Banned Camp Segregation Unit
    As Bill Clinton might say, "I'd hit it!"

  10. #50
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    34,724
    Thanks
    32044

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    the thing is your broad interpretation of censorship could include practically any refusal to air something. We're talking about private entities here. There's nothing wrong with them making choices to preserve the integrity of what they report. The federal government regulates what they're allowed to broadcast. Are you saying that's censorship too?
    When a private broadcasting network is prohibited by the state from broadcasting content that has been deemed pornographic, for instance, that is a genuine case of censorship.

    When a private broadcasting network, on the other hand, chooses not to share their air time with a specific person or persons, that is merely a programming choice.
    Thanks from the watchman

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Kelly Ann Conway....really?
    By Isalexi in forum Current Events
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 1st September 2017, 09:45 AM
  2. Kelly Anne Conway
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 9th February 2017, 05:10 PM
  3. 5 Networks Admit
    By MaryAnne in forum Current Events
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 21st March 2016, 04:01 PM
  4. Should news networks compensate I reports?
    By EnigmaO01 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14th March 2011, 12:59 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed