I actually don't want anchors pretending to be in the middle of anything, nor do I need them to be popping up on the other side of the world or wherever there's a disaster or a crisis of some kind; all it seems to prove is that the network has oodles of money it can waste at the drop of a hat.  Send the reporters, yes, but what does an anchor standing in the rubble of a tornado actually do to advance the story?  

Why do I get the feeling sometimes that someone like Brian Williams, for all his multi-million dollar salary, is really just Walter Mitty trying to make all his fantasies come true?  I don't think he's braver/stronger/smarter just because he's on the scene of a plane crash or a flood - or a war.  It may be that the rationale is, "look what lengths we're willing to go to to bring you the news," but to me it has a feel of, "why do the reporters get to have all the fun while I'm stuck her on a TV set?"

No, I don't want reporters or anchors trying to be part of the story - just tell me what the fk is going on, and leave yourself out of it.

We want our anchors to be everywhere, to be impossibly famous, globe-trotting, hilarious, down-to-earth, and above all, trustworthy.

If music has an echo chamber KW is in it, too clueless to realize most of the population doesn't care what he thinks about anything.  I like his music, but it's a stretch to call him a genius, especially when Beck is in the conversation, IMO.  

As far as I know, the only person that has ever said KW is a genius is KW, and Beck last night.

He was a Vietnam combat vet who was never right after the war...alcoholism, depression, abusive, the whole nine.  She had to leave him, but always loved him.  

The sh*t this poor woman has to suffer...her other son is in the federal pen right now.  And a very sick mother to care for.  

Imagine using Google, and instead of getting two clearly defined ads for each search, they just list them as results, regardless of usage or popularity or fit, they push results based on whom paid them.

EXCEPT, it's not a search engine, it's your provider, like Comcast steering you through the internet based on revenue they receive.  Unlike Google, which you can choose not to use, when the provider does it, you don't know it.

To an extent it's already being used, certain sites, like copyright infringers are blocked by most providers.  The difference now, is you know when they are doing it, without net neutrality you won't.  It's bad for consumers in that we don't have, if you will, 'free will' when surfing.

And while no one is talking about it, a provider like Comcast, could essentially filter results beyond commercial, like political.  It's the next logical step from filtering commerce, to filtering their agendas/politics.  

Comcast is pushing to end net neutrality, big time, and the right is taking their money and getting on board.

Some excerpts:

Q. What's the problem?
A. Most people get their high-speed Internet access from only a few telecommunications giants - Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, and Charter. The very few other smaller guys often have to rely on the big guys to serve their customers. When we send or receive data over the Internet, we expect those companies to transfer that data from one end of the network to the other. Period. We don't expect them to analyze or manipulate it. And for a while, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had protections in place to prevent broadband providers from doing just that.

In January 2014, however, a federal court said the FCC had overstepped its bounds. But, while it also said that the FCC could impose new and potentially even stronger rules, the FCC has signaled that it may instead propose that Internet service providers be allowed to charge content providers for a faster conduit to consumers. That would effectively kill a major component of net neutrality.

[...]

Q. So what exactly is "net neutrality," and what would it do?
A. Network neutrality means applying well-established "common carrier" rules to the Internet in order to preserve its freedom and openness. Common carriage prohibits the owner of a network, that holds itself out to all-comers, from discriminating against information by halting, slowing, or otherwise tampering with the transfer of any data (except for legitimate network management purposes such as easing congestion or blocking spam).

Important Fact: Common carriage is not a new concept - these rules have a centuries-old history. They have long been applied to facilities central to the public life and economy of our nation, including canal systems, railroads, public highways, and telegraph and telephone networks. In fact, common carrier rules have already been written into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by Congress; they just need to be applied to broadband Internet communications by the FCC.

Now, if -- like the AOLs of yore -- the broadband provider is also providing information, tools to access the Internet or various types of multi-media content itself, it has the First Amendment right to control that content. Just providing "dumb" pipes meant to move data from user to user, however, is quintessential common carriage.

[...]

Q. What can be done to preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet?
A. The FCC can still protect the Internet. The agency was not blocked outright by the January  court decision from enforcing network neutrality principles. It was blocked from doing so because it had classified broadband carriers as "information services" as defined in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. However, that classification never made sense; broadband carriers always fit much better under the law's definition of "telecommunications services." To remedy this, all the FCC has to do is reclassify Internet carriage as a "telecommunications service," which would automatically subject online communications to common carrier protections. Unfortunately, it has instead said it will propose a rule allowing companies to pay for access to a fast lane to deliver content to their customers. That's still not the end of the story, however. The public will have the opportunity to weigh in before, according to media reports, the FCC votes on the new rules at the end of 2014.

Do you suppose they want you to pay Netflix for movies, or might they prefer that you go with Time Warner On Demand?

Even though you're paying them for "fast" internet access, which should mean that you as the customer are covering the cost to download stuff to you regardless of from where that stuff comes, do you think TWC, if there aren't any laws or regulations preventing it, could resist the temptation to give their On Demand service priority over Netflix, so that you get a much more positive viewing experience with the former, which pays them even more of your money on top of your cable modem bill, or with the latter, from which they get no additional revenue?

There is a case to be made for some discrimination based on the type of traffic--if email goes through a few milliseconds more slowly and streaming video is given priority over it, you probably wouldn't even notice, whereas the other way around you might when your video starts buffering.

The problem is when the ISP decides to prioritize one stream of streaming video (especially if they have a financial interest in it) over another one.

If Internet Service Providers could be divorced from content providers, and collusion between the two prohibited, it wouldn't be as much a problem.

I remember when you could not own your own phone and when Private Automatic Branch Exchanges (PABX), small telephone exchanges designed for business use, had to be owned by the telephone company and leased by the business. The Carterphone decision in '68 started the break up which spun into the Feds deregulation and break up of Ma Bell.

All of the advances we see come from these events which turned loose the engineers and manufacturers.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provided jet fuel for the industry.

The supposed fear is that the "little guy" will get trampled by the "big guy."

It is the counter view and almost exactly the polar opposite of Media Matters.

Il see your Right Wing Lunacy and raise you Left Wing Propaganda.  

When it finally melted, I realized someone broke my back window to get at some speakers.

The government of France recently issued a widely mocked graphic demonstrating ostensible warning signs of radicalization, which suggested that abrupt diet or lifestyle changes are correlated with proclivities for violent extremism.

I dunno.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is coordinating and funding the lawsuit, says that the veteran's status is a non-issue. And even if it were, there are other plaintiffs in King V. Burwell whose standing -- the legal term for the right to bring a lawsuit -- is not contested
.
"We examined this issue at the outset of the litigation," CEI general counsel San Kazman said in a statement on Saturday.

Neither King nor Douglas Hurst, another co-plaintiff who also served in the military, was ever enrolled in a veterans health program, Kazman said. And Obamacare regulations specify that only individuals who actually enroll in a veterans health plan are treated as "eligible" for them under the law, he said.

"Therefore, since neither Mr. King nor Mr. Hurst had even enrolled, neither was `eligible' for veterans health care," Kazman said. "Further, there are also non-veteran plaintiffs in this case whose standing is uncontested by the Department of Justice, and so the veteran status of two plaintiffs is of no legal consequence in any event."

King filed an affidavit in the court proceedings in which he said that he was not eligible for any government health program or employer-sponsored health insurance.

And when is the same praise coming for the other 99.99999% of black people who don't talk 'jibberish' or wear shorts Czahor's objects to.

FYI, this is the a warning on his webpage:

READER ALERT: PLEASE AVOID THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS IF -- you're a white liberal who feels guilty for being white; your stomach gets queasy when discussing racial differences; or, finally, for fear of being called a "racist" you awkwardly use the term "African-American" when speaking with (or near) black people. (No, really, I understand: I'm offended when people call me "white" instead of the more-racially-sensitive "Scottish-English-Polish-German-American".)

When I first started out in political campaigns, I had a highly-regarded mentor who believed that good campaign staff / managers were seldom seen in public and never heard. If anyone is to put his foot in his mouth publicly, he'd tell me, let it be the candidate himself, and not you.

That was sage advice back then, and it still is. If Ethan Czahor enjoys publicity and notoriety, then he should run for public office himself. Otherwise, he's in the wrong business.

All I've ever wanted in a news presenter is the illusion that what they're presenting has been verified as accurate and that they present enough context that the content rings true.  MacNeil-Lehrer and its current Glen Ifill/Judy Woodruff incarnation were the best I've seen here in America.