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 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 81
Thanks Tree43Thanks

Thread: should networks ban Kelly Ann Conway?

  1. #51
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,952
    Thanks
    3773

    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    so , are you saying networks should not be allowed to control what they put on the air?
    Each network has the right to choose what they air. The OP makes it sound as though the politburo must make a collectivist decision.

    As in "shall we the intelligentsia ban this deplorable from our owned media?"

    This is why Trump is succeeding. He is punching the intelligentsia in the mouth and you don't even recognize that playing to the pit is playing to a future majority.

    When the left was mocking Romney's 47% comment, little did they know that in 4 years, they would actively be trying to manage the whole country while disregarding the other 53%.

  2. #52
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    34,724
    Thanks
    32044

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Each network has the right to choose what they air. The OP makes it sound as though the politburo must make a collectivist decision.

    As in "shall we the intelligentsia ban this deplorable from our owned media?"
    Bullshit. The OP simply asks whether we are of the opinion that the various networks should refrain from giving air time to a specific individual.

    You are being a drama queen, as usual.
    Thanks from the watchman

  3. #53
    Trust Dusty Davocrat's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    44,545
    Thanks
    25917

    From
    Deep State
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    yeah, I know, as if.
    It's not a serious question (not really). Of course, networks shouldn't be deciding who the WH chooses to represent them. Even though, Morning Joe has already banned her. Forgive me, if it pisses me off that the American tax payers have to pay for it. American tax payers shouldn't have to pay for her spewing out her "alternative facts" propaganda. Actually, know what? Strike that. Yes it is a serious question.
    No for obvious reasons. And in fact, for the same obvious reasons she should be on MORE as long as she's not let off any hooks.

    Also, FWIW, she acknowledge Porter's wife is telling the truth. The faintest glimmer of humanity in her bony-faced-just-smelled-shit sneer.
    Thanks from boontito

  4. #54
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    63,158
    Thanks
    34742

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    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.
    They also have a responsibility as journalists. If a spokesperson has lost credibility because they say things with a straight face that are outright ridiculous, the result is either pressing them even harder to give a straight answer (which looks ungracious) or insist on some other spokesperson.

    Censorship should be about content, not individuals.

  5. #55
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    63,158
    Thanks
    34742

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Each network has the right to choose what they air. The OP makes it sound as though the politburo must make a collectivist decision.
    From what I see, that's what you want from news generally.

  6. #56
    Nuisance Factor Yeti 8 Jungle Swing Champion, YetiSports 4 - Albatross Overload Champion, YetiSports7 - Snowboard FreeRide Champion, Alu`s Revenge Champion boontito's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    90,095
    Thanks
    66413

    From
    out of nowhere!
    Quote Originally Posted by Davocrat View Post
    No for obvious reasons. And in fact, for the same obvious reasons she should be on MORE as long as she's not let off any hooks.

    Also, FWIW, she acknowledge Porter's wife is telling the truth. The faintest glimmer of humanity in her bony-faced-just-smelled-shit sneer.
    Yep. Keeping her on air provides an important service to the American people.

    Kinda hoping she gets her own Fox show eventually...

    "Alternative Facts with Kellyanne Conway" has a nice ring to it.
    Thanks from Davocrat

  7. #57
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    23,677
    Thanks
    6119

    From
    midwest
    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.
    Nah, I'm just saying they should "call it" a policy, to stay away from the "b" word.

    And, yes, there is a difference.

    The word "ban" means not allowed.

    The word "policy" is a much "kinder and gentler" word, dontcha think?

    I don't care if they ban KAC, but if they do, just call it what it is: censorship.

  8. #58
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    48,151
    Thanks
    34119

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Don't watch any of the networks, but saw on Twitter today that she suggested that Rob Porter deserves presumption of innocence for wifebeating, same as Jake Tapper.

    She actually said that, to Tapper's face, in a way that implied that she was prepared to suggest Tapper is a wifebeater if he didn't shut up about the issue without conclusive proof.

    I'm amazed that he didn't boot her off the show right there. Probably because doing so only made Trump like Stephen Miller more, so it does no good.

    But it further does no good to host administration flaks who cast personal aspersions on specific journalists at the host network without evidence.
    Kelly Ann did say she had no reason not to believe the 2 ex wives.. one old Republican they drug out of some where said, There were other ways to get bruises.

    Andy Card flipped out on Velshi and Rhule defending John Kelly. He was furious.

    I understand and feel bad that he lost his Son. Such a terrible loss, but that does not justify him covering for Porter.

    What really bothers me is the many without security clearance reading classified material.

  9. #59
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    23,677
    Thanks
    6119

    From
    midwest
    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?
    Nah, I did not say that.

    If I was saying that, I woulda said that.

    A ban is censorship.

    If a network wants to ban KAC, then call it what it is: censorship.

    Censorship is never the answer.

  10. #60
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    48,151
    Thanks
    34119

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    They also have a responsibility as journalists. If a spokesperson has lost credibility because they say things with a straight face that are outright ridiculous, the result is either pressing them even harder to give a straight answer (which looks ungracious) or insist on some other spokesperson.

    Censorship should be about content, not individuals.
    How many real Journalists are on Fox News? Most are simply pundits, paid to carry the party line.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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