You're using Russia as a comparison standard for press. While RT is a dangerous propaganda arm, I doubt it'd be wise to act like Putin would
Why is this being allowed if Putin won't allow Voice of America to buy and operate an FM station in Moscow?https://twitter.com/axios/status/882019124641226753 …
-
-
-
reason why we allow this while Putin does not is that we still have free press for better and for worse. 1/
-
Be wary that by claiming to protect from the worse ill-advised people could destroy the best of free press 2/2
-
Not when there is no reciprocation. This a baldfaced propaganda effort. All Pres back to FDR woulda bounced this.
-
Issue is RU attack on US sovereignty. It must be addressed; not at cost of our values (hell paved w/ good intentions)
-
While the democratic values makes it difficult. Based on history allowing propaganda to flow free in society never ends well.
-
We are already allowing propaganda free reign with POTUS sucking up to Fox, listening to Breitbart and warring with American MSM.
-
This is hostile foreign govt propaganda, not the voice of our people. There are NO protections for foreign enemy propaganda.
会話の終了
新しい会話 -
-
-
Because Trump is a Russian stooge who owes his current fortune to Putin-influenced banks and oligarchs? Just a guess mind you.
-
That's not a guess. Trump would be financially ruined without Russian cash flow. Time to pay the puppet master.
会話の終了
新しい会話 -
-
-
Putin is now effectively POTUS, the GOP and Trump are just his blackmailed agents. Wake up MAX.
-
Something tells me the smart people in our gvt are quietly turning the tables on Putin. Some really bad asses in cov. ops.
-
Hope you are right. Also hope there are enough cuz that crazy man-child is putting lots of traitors in our govnt.
会話の終了
新しい会話 -
-
-
Because we have freedom of the press in the United States.
-
Foreign govt ownership of broadcast outlets has long been barred. Private foreign ownership has been restricted. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fcc-approves-foreign-ownership-nprm/145190 …
-
There is no license transfer involved in the transaction, thus the FCC need not approve the acquisition.
-
Understood. My point is that press freedom is not without restrictions in the public interest & foreign ownership has been a major factor.
-
This short article refers to Sputnik "taking over an FM radio frequency." What does that mean exactly?
-
If it means full control over programming 24/7, does it matter who the licensee is? Has licensee become a "representative" of foreign govt?pic.twitter.com/wnSjA0ZzJj
-
Posting a law from 1934 grants us little understanding of the rules today. The article in question stated the FCC's decision and reason.
-
That law remains in effect. As far as I know, no amendments have altered 310(a)(2). I am questioning the FCC's reasoning.
会話の終了
新しい会話 -
読み込みに時間がかかっているようです。
Twitterの処理能力の限界を超えているか、一時的な不具合が発生しています。やりなおすか、Twitterステータスで詳細をご確認ください。