The level of insecurity is something to behold. It's unfathomable that one of the major networks was ever going to run "Here's why America is Bad" as part of a 250th anniversary celebration. This entire pledge is nonsensical.
I'm imaging an upcoming wedding that seems to be going well, until the mother of the bride starts sending out messages such as: "Everyone is expected to meet at least a 'silver' contribution level of approved items on the gift registry. This is easy for anyone who deserves an invitation for this special occasion."
It would be pretty foolish to just... ignore the subtext.
I suppose in this case, an angered "momzilla" can get you fired, freeze your bank account, etc.
Well, at least they're creating an easy litmus test the majority of the population can use to filter out propaganda sources.
Ratings of news networks with Trump-mandated censors are already in free-fall. This pledge will provide additional public signal to help viewers know which channel to switch to.
It's amazing to me that censors still don't understand the Streisand Effect. I guess we should just take the small wins at this point.
How do you celebrate someone's birthday when their wife just died? You still do, but it's more somber and bittersweet than joyous. Just like America's 250th with these fascists busy destroying our cherished societal institutions.
I'm not against celebrating the Declaration of Independence. Especially this part:
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.
Most of the Signers of that document were slaveholders.
They didn't care about ideals any more than modern administrations. They were well connected opportunists who saw a chance to create a world that worked more for them: rich white guys.
I can't speak for the other signers, but Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, was an idealist who didn't always live up to his own ideals, including but not limited to slaveholding.
Jefferson, 1789: I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in any thing else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.
Also Jefferson, 1792: (founds political party to oppose the Federalists)
> They didn't care about ideals any more than modern administrations
They obviously did, just like recent past presidential administrations both D and R did - by at the very least paying lip service to them. There was real value in that, and we took it for granted. The current regime is just as (if not more) performative, but they're signalling vices rather than virtues. Following that example makes for a worse society, regardless of how much we actually live up to the virtues in practice.
I'm disappointed by the discussion on this submission. Here's a list of things that would be encouraged by the main text of the request [1]:
- The national anthem / pledge of allegiance (explicitly suggested by the text)
- Civics-related stuff -- information about voting, how laws are passed, the branches of govt, the separation of powers, etc.
- Arts that are "truly" American -- Blues, Jazz, Rock n Roll, etc. I know there will be disagreement about what counts as "American", but it's clear that there are some art forms that wouldn't exist without America's unique mixture of cultures.
- Things about America's history -- speeches from George Washington/Lincoln/MLK/Other significant figures, the musical Hamilton, the emancipation proclamation, the text from the statue of liberty, discussion of Japanese internment camps, the history of Hawaii/Peurto Rico/Alaska/Any relevant state, etc
I think those would all be positive. I'm sure there will also be some less inclusive parts that will endorsed by some broadcasters (I think discussion of that is good, but not endorsement). Carr's message is not asking for that, it's just encouraging an increased focus on America.
> Things about America's history -- speeches from George Washington/Lincoln/MLK/Other significant figures
Is there a source for this? I'd be little surprised if they encouraged airing MLK's speeches, but the linked document doesn't mention MLK, or encourage airing historical speeches of any kind.
> “That is why I am inviting broadcasters to pledge to air programming in their local markets in
support of this historic national, non-partisan celebration. As an example, this could include:
> • Running PSAs, short segments, or full specials specifically promoting _civic education,
inspiring local stories, and American history_.
> • Including segments during regular news programming that highlight local sites that are
significant to American and regional history, such as National Park Service sites.
> • Starting each broadcast day with the “Star Spangled Banner” or Pledge of Allegiance.
> • Airing music by America’s greatest composers, such as John Philip Sousa, Aaron Copland,
Duke Ellington, or George Gershwin.
> • Providing daily “Today in American History” announcements highlighting significant events
that took place on that day in history.
> • Partnering with community organizations and other groups that are already working hard to
bring America’s stories of unity, perseverance, and triumph to light.
MLK's speeches are certainly included in civic education, inspiring local stories, and American history.
Hi pinkmuffinere, please do me a favor and consider the context surrounding this request and Carr's behavior in general. Others have provided it, you've chosen to ignore it. Choosing to be ignorant does not help here, you can do better.
You claim that the request does not encourage "speeches from George Washington/Lincoln/MLK/Other significant figures". I believe I've provided quotes and sources proving otherwise. I am not here to discuss more generic American politics, I'm here to discuss the main text referenced by the submission -- to wit, the Gizmodo article misrepresents the main text. I'm defending that (fairly narrow) claim.
> I am not here to discuss more generic American politics
This entire submission is about generic American politics. If you don't want to comment on this submission and participate in discussions about it, that's okay, but I think folks are confused by your insistence on discussing generic American politics (this submission) while omitting other generic American politics about the very same topic (the context of this submission).
If you want to discuss a thing, you should be okay with thinking and talking about the critical context around that thing. As an engineer, I'm sure you can understand.
"...and I am the government, and I order you to broadcast my message, and also you can't say these other things I dislike, or I will revoke your ability to operate at all."
It's disappointing to see this point missed: this isn't a random person sharing their opinion, it is both government-mandated speech and literal censorship.
Did you read the text? It _does not_ order such broadcasting, your quote is made-up. Here's the closest quote I find:
> Chairman Brendan Carr issued the following statement:
... "I am inviting broadcasters to pledge to air programming in their local markets in
support of this historic national, non-partisan celebration."
Are you aware that this government, and indeed this government rep which we're discussing, has threatened to revoke broadcasting licenses from companies for airing content the government disagrees with? Or worse? On multiple occasions?
If you don't have that context, none of my post will have made sense to you, which it appears is what happened.
This submission claims to be about this announcement [1]. It is not about the full context of American politics right now. In fact generic politics is off-topic for HN [2]. I am responding to the main text of the announcement, not to general American politics.
So you AREN'T aware that this government, and indeed this government rep which we're discussing, has threatened to revoke broadcasting licenses from companies for airing content the government disagrees with? Or worse? On multiple occasions?
The omission of that critical context might be why none of my post made sense to you: you would be unable to realize that the 'invitation to participate' we're discussing involves a degree of coercion, based on those threats. If you threaten somebody to give you their money 3 times, and then a 4th time you 'invite them to participate in giving you their money', that is 4 threats total, not 3.
Of course, anything in the world can be justified if you omit enough context, even government-compelled speech and government censorship. Just omit the context of the 3 times you threatened your mugging victim to comply, and all you have left is a polite invitation to share money. Totally okay, right?
My claim is -- the main text of the announcement is _good_. I make no claim about the larger context. Obviously I don't like Trump. But IMO that kind of generic discussion is not what HN is for.
Right, and I am adding the critical context that the 'invitation to participate' in spreading government propaganda and silencing government-disliked speech, is actually a veiled threat couched in numerous previous explicit threats made by the same party, making it both government-compelled speech and government censorship.
As for your personal politics, you can have whatever ones you want. I'm focusing on the issue here, not you personally. Hope I didn't say anything that came across as too personal.
Feel free to downvote or flag my comment if you personally feel that way, the mods here are pretty reasonable.
Indeed, feel free to flag this submission, and not comment in it, if you feel it is too political for HN. HN thrives because of a multitude of views, of which you are a part.
In the meantime, feel free to respond to the substance of my comments rather than complaining because I added critical context to an already-existing submission/discussion.
I am obviously not wholesale endorsing the administration. The request as-issued is a positive thing, and indeed _would encourage_ discussing why we have term limits, why we should push back against autocrats, bigotry, etc. If they go around arresting people for not obeying their request, I'll feel differently.
The only use for lofty values or nuance that fascists have is for distracting from their plain agenda. At the point we're at, it's prudent to wonder why someone would help carry water if they don't support the regime.
Also, setting your criteria at "arresting people" seems like straightforward denial, especially as we're talking about broadcasters where the actual threat being wielded is to shut down their transmitters.
I'd say the GP comment was entirely appropriate, despite it being flagged by the tone police. The context is very important here, and you seem to be deliberately ignoring it.
I’ll start by saying that it pains me to have to defend anything out of Carr’s mouth, but “loyalty” isn’t anywhere in that doc. Carr calls for a pledge to air PSAs and what have you, not loyalty. And when he complains of civic illiteracy, is he wrong? Ironically, how do we think we got into this mess of the current administration? Is Carr wrong in calling for the airing of things like School House Rock? Is it so bad to start the broadcast day with the national anthem? (Trick question, because when I was a kid some 50 years ago, I remember the broadcast day ending with the national anthem. Was never up early enough to find out what they did at the start of the day.)
The way Gizmodo words it, you’d think Carr is requiring that all broadcasters air blatant government propaganda. And maybe the FCC document is just a dog whistle, I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong. But the original document takes about five minutes to read, and I strongly suggest you read it and judge for yourself, rather than get all riled up from TFA’s editorializing.
"The Pledge America Campaign enables broadcasters to lend their
voices in support of Task Force 250 and the celebration of America’s 250th birthday by airing
patriotic, pro-America content that celebrates the American journey and inspires its citizens by
highlighting the historic accomplishments of this great nation from our founding through the Trump
Administration today."
Even ignoring the context (Trump censoring things, limiting private institutions speech, murdering people because their state's governor said mean things, etc, etc), the text of the page you link to clearly says broadcasters will need to air pro-Trump programming.
If you take context into account by looking at how the administration has redefined many of the words they use in the document (I guess you'd call that a "dog whistle"), then it's even more clear this is the Trump's attempt to force the news media to air a coordinated propaganda campaign during a pivotal election year.
>> "The Pledge America Campaign enables broadcasters to lend their voices in support of Task Force 250 and the celebration of America’s 250th birthday by airing patriotic, pro-America content that celebrates the American journey and inspires its citizens by highlighting the historic accomplishments of this great nation from our founding through the Trump Administration today."
> Even ignoring the context (Trump censoring things, limiting private institutions speech, murdering people because their state's governor said mean things, etc, etc), the text of the page you link to clearly says broadcasters will need to air pro-Trump programming
Where does it say that? The part you quoted is using "Trump Administration today" as an interval endpoint, not a specifier of content.
Carr threatened ABC's broadcasting license by saying they could go "the easy way or the hard way" after Jimmy Kimmel made a joke that offended MAGA. Why would we give the administration the benefit of the doubt here?
They're obviously not a unifying force looking to make people love America again by making it better; I would liken them to a North Korean PR team.
They used similar threats to dissuade Netflix from buying Time Warner, influencing coverage at CBS News and so on. Carr is a sycophant in service to a narcissist with an incredibly fragile ego.
Thankyou for your well-moderated reading of the text, you're absolutely right that Gizmodo's article is blowing it out of proportion. The actual ask is not so absurd. My reading of the text is that all of the following are encouraged:
- The national anthem / pledge of allegiance (explicitly suggested by the text)
- Civics-related stuff -- information about voting, how laws are passed, the branches of govt, the separation of powers, etc.
- Arts that are "truly" American -- Blues, Jazz, Rock n Roll, etc. I know there will be disagreement about what counts as "American", but I think it's clear that there are some art forms that wouldn't exist without America's unique mixture of cultures.
- Things about America's history -- speeches from George Washington/Lincoln/MLK/Other significant figures, the musical Hamilton, the emancipation proclamation, the text from the statue of liberty, discussion of Japanese internment camps, the history of Hawaii/Peurto Rico/Alaska/Any relevant state, etc
I'm sure there will also be some less inclusive bits of history that are endorsed by some broadcasters. But Carr's message is not asking for that, it's just encouraging an increased focus on America. America is a melting pot, and has a great history of including downtrodden people, as well as a long history of injustice. A focus on America _doesn't_ mean we endorse the injustice. If anything, I think the injustice should be discussed, because they make the big shifts even _more_ palpable. There are people alive today that went to segregated schools. That's insane, and personally I do think that knowledge changes my behavior. I'd be very happy to be reminded about those things by public radio.
There is one line that I felt was a bit concerning, but I think it really depends on your reading of the text (emphasis mine):
> The Pledge America Campaign [encourages broadcasters to air] ... _pro-America_ content"
Even then... the social cohesion in this country has lapsed so much in my half century of life that I can't help but think maybe we could use a little propaganda to come together more as a country.
I can't help but remember one example of my youth to my son's youth a few decades later. When I was in school, the position on fights is if you have the ability to intercede to stop it, you have a responsibility to do so... by the time my son was in school it was, "don't get involved, get a teacher or call the police."
It's just such a stark contrast to me that it's hard to fathom where things are now a couple decades further still from when I was a young kid in later elementary school and Jr. High. Without a shared society and cohesion, we're largely doomed as a society. I realize that some people actually want this, but I really don't.
I want our nation and our people to be successful.
I too am very concerned about a collapse of cohesion, mainly focused on agreement that "lies are wrong", "people given authority should be held to higher standards", "taking bribes should be punished" and "dictatorship is a bad idea". These principles are in trouble these days, as a shocking segment of people have spent a few years demonstrating they don't care. [0]
In fact, those same issues apply to your school scenario! (For the sake of argument, let's wave-away other factors like larger school-sizes, general nostalgia, easier access to deadly weapons, etc.)
Consider: Why are kids being instructed to run off and get a teacher?
It's not because eagle-eyed Mrs. Frizzle is trusted to take in the battlefield at a glance, unsheathing the old yardstick by the whiteboard, this tan-colored Excalibur falling upon the necks of the wicked in defense of the just. Well, at least not where I went to school.
It's actually the opposite, school authorities [1] are summoned because they are not trusted! They are not trusted to carefully investigate and rule fairly when it comes to the former-bystander "doing the right thing." Or, for that matter, trusted to prevent retribution and escalation.
_________
[0] Or at any rate, they weirdly place those principles beneath other stuff like "gay people can't partner up" or *checks notes* "the largest deportation operation in US history".
[1] Teachers, staff, but also indirectly the parents of those involved.
Why turn this into a divisive Trump thing? I'm literally talking about trying to bring the country closer together and the response is just more divisiveness...
The article is a divisive Trump thing about how we cannot have free media anymore because the FCC is censoring stuff.
Your comment about citizenship and tolerance makes sense, but that's also under direct attack by the Trump administration. They literally just forcefully coerced the scouts into dropping the exact things you are advocating for from their program.
There's no real path towards tolerating that and also having a tolerant society. This is the main weakness of liberal democracies, and it's being exploited to tear our institutions down.
I say this as a former First Class scout, the entire thing is a racket. The "point" of Boy Scouts is to make you associate pointless meritocratic flair with actual accomplishment. It is a conditioning and propaganda pipeline with the purpose of stimulating enlistment.
The Boy Scouts were not an apolitical fun-fair, which became pretty glaringly obvious when the Army recruiters came by to meet with middle-schoolers. If you didn't enlist, you probably didn't stick around to earn your Eagle scout.
I think there's some value basic survival skills, but this is pretty removed from modern scouts. It's mostly a recruitment tool and tbf the shift has been awkward in trying to capture the market that "Girl Scouts" carved out.
The level of insecurity is something to behold. It's unfathomable that one of the major networks was ever going to run "Here's why America is Bad" as part of a 250th anniversary celebration. This entire pledge is nonsensical.
I hope it's just insecurity. My fear is that it's a deliberate attempt to incite polarization, as if we don't have enough of that already.
I'm imaging an upcoming wedding that seems to be going well, until the mother of the bride starts sending out messages such as: "Everyone is expected to meet at least a 'silver' contribution level of approved items on the gift registry. This is easy for anyone who deserves an invitation for this special occasion."
It would be pretty foolish to just... ignore the subtext.
I suppose in this case, an angered "momzilla" can get you fired, freeze your bank account, etc.
It's a broadcast of tribal affiliation and has nothing to do with sense.
Time to re-read this: https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/The-Toxoplasma-Of-Rag...
Well, at least they're creating an easy litmus test the majority of the population can use to filter out propaganda sources.
Ratings of news networks with Trump-mandated censors are already in free-fall. This pledge will provide additional public signal to help viewers know which channel to switch to.
It's amazing to me that censors still don't understand the Streisand Effect. I guess we should just take the small wins at this point.
This is very creepy. It's right out of 1984.
How do you celebrate someone's birthday when their wife just died? You still do, but it's more somber and bittersweet than joyous. Just like America's 250th with these fascists busy destroying our cherished societal institutions.
It does feel odd celebrating the birth of an institution that's never looked so mortal.
Or celebrating a Declaration of Independence when we've pretty much returned to rule by royals.
I'm not against celebrating the Declaration of Independence. Especially this part:
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.
Most of the Signers of that document were slaveholders.
They didn't care about ideals any more than modern administrations. They were well connected opportunists who saw a chance to create a world that worked more for them: rich white guys.
I can't speak for the other signers, but Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, was an idealist who didn't always live up to his own ideals, including but not limited to slaveholding.
Jefferson, 1789: I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in any thing else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.
Also Jefferson, 1792: (founds political party to oppose the Federalists)
> They didn't care about ideals any more than modern administrations
They obviously did, just like recent past presidential administrations both D and R did - by at the very least paying lip service to them. There was real value in that, and we took it for granted. The current regime is just as (if not more) performative, but they're signalling vices rather than virtues. Following that example makes for a worse society, regardless of how much we actually live up to the virtues in practice.
Everyone knows that. How does that change anything?
I'm disappointed by the discussion on this submission. Here's a list of things that would be encouraged by the main text of the request [1]:
- The national anthem / pledge of allegiance (explicitly suggested by the text)
- Civics-related stuff -- information about voting, how laws are passed, the branches of govt, the separation of powers, etc.
- Arts that are "truly" American -- Blues, Jazz, Rock n Roll, etc. I know there will be disagreement about what counts as "American", but it's clear that there are some art forms that wouldn't exist without America's unique mixture of cultures.
- Things about America's history -- speeches from George Washington/Lincoln/MLK/Other significant figures, the musical Hamilton, the emancipation proclamation, the text from the statue of liberty, discussion of Japanese internment camps, the history of Hawaii/Peurto Rico/Alaska/Any relevant state, etc
I think those would all be positive. I'm sure there will also be some less inclusive parts that will endorsed by some broadcasters (I think discussion of that is good, but not endorsement). Carr's message is not asking for that, it's just encouraging an increased focus on America.
[1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-418890A1.pdf
> Things about America's history -- speeches from George Washington/Lincoln/MLK/Other significant figures
Is there a source for this? I'd be little surprised if they encouraged airing MLK's speeches, but the linked document doesn't mention MLK, or encourage airing historical speeches of any kind.
Here's the relevant section [1] (emphasis mine):
> “That is why I am inviting broadcasters to pledge to air programming in their local markets in support of this historic national, non-partisan celebration. As an example, this could include:
> • Running PSAs, short segments, or full specials specifically promoting _civic education, inspiring local stories, and American history_.
> • Including segments during regular news programming that highlight local sites that are significant to American and regional history, such as National Park Service sites.
> • Starting each broadcast day with the “Star Spangled Banner” or Pledge of Allegiance.
> • Airing music by America’s greatest composers, such as John Philip Sousa, Aaron Copland, Duke Ellington, or George Gershwin.
> • Providing daily “Today in American History” announcements highlighting significant events that took place on that day in history.
> • Partnering with community organizations and other groups that are already working hard to bring America’s stories of unity, perseverance, and triumph to light.
MLK's speeches are certainly included in civic education, inspiring local stories, and American history.
[1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-418890A1.pdf
In other words you're incredibly naive and are just taking the Trump administration at their word
mzajc asked for a source, and I provided a source from the main text.
No, GP is making things up to try and paint the request in a positive light. They're just bullshitting, safe to ignore folks like that.
Hi Jtsummers, please do me a favor and read Carr's request: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-418890A1.pdf
Hi pinkmuffinere, please do me a favor and consider the context surrounding this request and Carr's behavior in general. Others have provided it, you've chosen to ignore it. Choosing to be ignorant does not help here, you can do better.
You claim that the request does not encourage "speeches from George Washington/Lincoln/MLK/Other significant figures". I believe I've provided quotes and sources proving otherwise. I am not here to discuss more generic American politics, I'm here to discuss the main text referenced by the submission -- to wit, the Gizmodo article misrepresents the main text. I'm defending that (fairly narrow) claim.
> I am not here to discuss more generic American politics
This entire submission is about generic American politics. If you don't want to comment on this submission and participate in discussions about it, that's okay, but I think folks are confused by your insistence on discussing generic American politics (this submission) while omitting other generic American politics about the very same topic (the context of this submission).
If you want to discuss a thing, you should be okay with thinking and talking about the critical context around that thing. As an engineer, I'm sure you can understand.
"I think these would be positive"
is fine. The problem is the rest of the sentence:
"...and I am the government, and I order you to broadcast my message, and also you can't say these other things I dislike, or I will revoke your ability to operate at all."
It's disappointing to see this point missed: this isn't a random person sharing their opinion, it is both government-mandated speech and literal censorship.
Did you read the text? It _does not_ order such broadcasting, your quote is made-up. Here's the closest quote I find:
> Chairman Brendan Carr issued the following statement: ... "I am inviting broadcasters to pledge to air programming in their local markets in support of this historic national, non-partisan celebration."
Are you aware that this government, and indeed this government rep which we're discussing, has threatened to revoke broadcasting licenses from companies for airing content the government disagrees with? Or worse? On multiple occasions?
If you don't have that context, none of my post will have made sense to you, which it appears is what happened.
This submission claims to be about this announcement [1]. It is not about the full context of American politics right now. In fact generic politics is off-topic for HN [2]. I am responding to the main text of the announcement, not to general American politics.
[1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-418890A1.pdf
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So you AREN'T aware that this government, and indeed this government rep which we're discussing, has threatened to revoke broadcasting licenses from companies for airing content the government disagrees with? Or worse? On multiple occasions?
The omission of that critical context might be why none of my post made sense to you: you would be unable to realize that the 'invitation to participate' we're discussing involves a degree of coercion, based on those threats. If you threaten somebody to give you their money 3 times, and then a 4th time you 'invite them to participate in giving you their money', that is 4 threats total, not 3.
Of course, anything in the world can be justified if you omit enough context, even government-compelled speech and government censorship. Just omit the context of the 3 times you threatened your mugging victim to comply, and all you have left is a polite invitation to share money. Totally okay, right?
My claim is -- the main text of the announcement is _good_. I make no claim about the larger context. Obviously I don't like Trump. But IMO that kind of generic discussion is not what HN is for.
Right, and I am adding the critical context that the 'invitation to participate' in spreading government propaganda and silencing government-disliked speech, is actually a veiled threat couched in numerous previous explicit threats made by the same party, making it both government-compelled speech and government censorship.
As for your personal politics, you can have whatever ones you want. I'm focusing on the issue here, not you personally. Hope I didn't say anything that came across as too personal.
It's not too personal, but it is against HN guidelines [1]:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
...
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Feel free to downvote or flag my comment if you personally feel that way, the mods here are pretty reasonable.
Indeed, feel free to flag this submission, and not comment in it, if you feel it is too political for HN. HN thrives because of a multitude of views, of which you are a part.
In the meantime, feel free to respond to the substance of my comments rather than complaining because I added critical context to an already-existing submission/discussion.
thanks! ya, I don't want to discuss generic American politics on HN, I get too much of that already every day, and I think the HN guidelines are good.
[flagged]
I am obviously not wholesale endorsing the administration. The request as-issued is a positive thing, and indeed _would encourage_ discussing why we have term limits, why we should push back against autocrats, bigotry, etc. If they go around arresting people for not obeying their request, I'll feel differently.
The only use for lofty values or nuance that fascists have is for distracting from their plain agenda. At the point we're at, it's prudent to wonder why someone would help carry water if they don't support the regime.
Also, setting your criteria at "arresting people" seems like straightforward denial, especially as we're talking about broadcasters where the actual threat being wielded is to shut down their transmitters.
I'd say the GP comment was entirely appropriate, despite it being flagged by the tone police. The context is very important here, and you seem to be deliberately ignoring it.
> The only use for lofty values or nuance that fascists have is for distracting from their plain agenda.
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes”
Even Jar Jar was wise to treachery.
Could we just link to the original source instead of Gizmodo’s editorialized bad take?
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-418890A1.pdf
I’ll start by saying that it pains me to have to defend anything out of Carr’s mouth, but “loyalty” isn’t anywhere in that doc. Carr calls for a pledge to air PSAs and what have you, not loyalty. And when he complains of civic illiteracy, is he wrong? Ironically, how do we think we got into this mess of the current administration? Is Carr wrong in calling for the airing of things like School House Rock? Is it so bad to start the broadcast day with the national anthem? (Trick question, because when I was a kid some 50 years ago, I remember the broadcast day ending with the national anthem. Was never up early enough to find out what they did at the start of the day.)
The way Gizmodo words it, you’d think Carr is requiring that all broadcasters air blatant government propaganda. And maybe the FCC document is just a dog whistle, I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong. But the original document takes about five minutes to read, and I strongly suggest you read it and judge for yourself, rather than get all riled up from TFA’s editorializing.
"The Pledge America Campaign enables broadcasters to lend their voices in support of Task Force 250 and the celebration of America’s 250th birthday by airing patriotic, pro-America content that celebrates the American journey and inspires its citizens by highlighting the historic accomplishments of this great nation from our founding through the Trump Administration today."
Even ignoring the context (Trump censoring things, limiting private institutions speech, murdering people because their state's governor said mean things, etc, etc), the text of the page you link to clearly says broadcasters will need to air pro-Trump programming.
If you take context into account by looking at how the administration has redefined many of the words they use in the document (I guess you'd call that a "dog whistle"), then it's even more clear this is the Trump's attempt to force the news media to air a coordinated propaganda campaign during a pivotal election year.
>> "The Pledge America Campaign enables broadcasters to lend their voices in support of Task Force 250 and the celebration of America’s 250th birthday by airing patriotic, pro-America content that celebrates the American journey and inspires its citizens by highlighting the historic accomplishments of this great nation from our founding through the Trump Administration today."
> Even ignoring the context (Trump censoring things, limiting private institutions speech, murdering people because their state's governor said mean things, etc, etc), the text of the page you link to clearly says broadcasters will need to air pro-Trump programming
Where does it say that? The part you quoted is using "Trump Administration today" as an interval endpoint, not a specifier of content.
Carr threatened ABC's broadcasting license by saying they could go "the easy way or the hard way" after Jimmy Kimmel made a joke that offended MAGA. Why would we give the administration the benefit of the doubt here?
They're obviously not a unifying force looking to make people love America again by making it better; I would liken them to a North Korean PR team.
They used similar threats to dissuade Netflix from buying Time Warner, influencing coverage at CBS News and so on. Carr is a sycophant in service to a narcissist with an incredibly fragile ego.
Thankyou for your well-moderated reading of the text, you're absolutely right that Gizmodo's article is blowing it out of proportion. The actual ask is not so absurd. My reading of the text is that all of the following are encouraged:
- The national anthem / pledge of allegiance (explicitly suggested by the text)
- Civics-related stuff -- information about voting, how laws are passed, the branches of govt, the separation of powers, etc.
- Arts that are "truly" American -- Blues, Jazz, Rock n Roll, etc. I know there will be disagreement about what counts as "American", but I think it's clear that there are some art forms that wouldn't exist without America's unique mixture of cultures.
- Things about America's history -- speeches from George Washington/Lincoln/MLK/Other significant figures, the musical Hamilton, the emancipation proclamation, the text from the statue of liberty, discussion of Japanese internment camps, the history of Hawaii/Peurto Rico/Alaska/Any relevant state, etc
I'm sure there will also be some less inclusive bits of history that are endorsed by some broadcasters. But Carr's message is not asking for that, it's just encouraging an increased focus on America. America is a melting pot, and has a great history of including downtrodden people, as well as a long history of injustice. A focus on America _doesn't_ mean we endorse the injustice. If anything, I think the injustice should be discussed, because they make the big shifts even _more_ palpable. There are people alive today that went to segregated schools. That's insane, and personally I do think that knowledge changes my behavior. I'd be very happy to be reminded about those things by public radio.
There is one line that I felt was a bit concerning, but I think it really depends on your reading of the text (emphasis mine):
> The Pledge America Campaign [encourages broadcasters to air] ... _pro-America_ content"
Even then... the social cohesion in this country has lapsed so much in my half century of life that I can't help but think maybe we could use a little propaganda to come together more as a country.
I can't help but remember one example of my youth to my son's youth a few decades later. When I was in school, the position on fights is if you have the ability to intercede to stop it, you have a responsibility to do so... by the time my son was in school it was, "don't get involved, get a teacher or call the police."
It's just such a stark contrast to me that it's hard to fathom where things are now a couple decades further still from when I was a young kid in later elementary school and Jr. High. Without a shared society and cohesion, we're largely doomed as a society. I realize that some people actually want this, but I really don't.
I want our nation and our people to be successful.
I too am very concerned about a collapse of cohesion, mainly focused on agreement that "lies are wrong", "people given authority should be held to higher standards", "taking bribes should be punished" and "dictatorship is a bad idea". These principles are in trouble these days, as a shocking segment of people have spent a few years demonstrating they don't care. [0]
In fact, those same issues apply to your school scenario! (For the sake of argument, let's wave-away other factors like larger school-sizes, general nostalgia, easier access to deadly weapons, etc.)
Consider: Why are kids being instructed to run off and get a teacher?
It's not because eagle-eyed Mrs. Frizzle is trusted to take in the battlefield at a glance, unsheathing the old yardstick by the whiteboard, this tan-colored Excalibur falling upon the necks of the wicked in defense of the just. Well, at least not where I went to school.
It's actually the opposite, school authorities [1] are summoned because they are not trusted! They are not trusted to carefully investigate and rule fairly when it comes to the former-bystander "doing the right thing." Or, for that matter, trusted to prevent retribution and escalation.
_________
[0] Or at any rate, they weirdly place those principles beneath other stuff like "gay people can't partner up" or *checks notes* "the largest deportation operation in US history".
[1] Teachers, staff, but also indirectly the parents of those involved.
Trump forced the Boy Scouts to eliminate the Citizenship in Society badge.
Just saying.
Why turn this into a divisive Trump thing? I'm literally talking about trying to bring the country closer together and the response is just more divisiveness...
The article is a divisive Trump thing about how we cannot have free media anymore because the FCC is censoring stuff.
Your comment about citizenship and tolerance makes sense, but that's also under direct attack by the Trump administration. They literally just forcefully coerced the scouts into dropping the exact things you are advocating for from their program.
There's no real path towards tolerating that and also having a tolerant society. This is the main weakness of liberal democracies, and it's being exploited to tear our institutions down.
I say this as a former First Class scout, the entire thing is a racket. The "point" of Boy Scouts is to make you associate pointless meritocratic flair with actual accomplishment. It is a conditioning and propaganda pipeline with the purpose of stimulating enlistment.
The Boy Scouts were not an apolitical fun-fair, which became pretty glaringly obvious when the Army recruiters came by to meet with middle-schoolers. If you didn't enlist, you probably didn't stick around to earn your Eagle scout.
I think there's some value basic survival skills, but this is pretty removed from modern scouts. It's mostly a recruitment tool and tbf the shift has been awkward in trying to capture the market that "Girl Scouts" carved out.