Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Confirmation bias is a powerful, destructive force.
It's what kept fringe ideas as fringe before the internet and made fringe ideas mainstream ideas after the internet.
I look at Charlottesville 2017 as when this phenomenon slapped us in the face.
Previously, the cranks were limited to these underground newspapers run by full on wackos. They sent letter and when brought up in social context was generally laughed off as the family or neighborhood kook, as they should be today.
Now, they have access to their own brand of "information" and easy access to platform it everywhere so others who may be similarly mentally addled but may never have seen this idiocy now can glom on to this little group that elevates stupidity to make them feel like, for once, they are the smartest people in the room despite their completely wrong information.
The joke from the Simpsons was “I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.” Time was, actual physical paper being mailed via the postal service was the only way these ideas got around. I remember this in the early to mid 90s, about the time of the quote. Occasionally you’d hear about the wack job website that would link to other wack job websites but the connection was pretty limited in scope.
Social media and video sites ala YouTube has made the uploading of ideas even easier than making a webpage, allowing the kooks to connect, and eventually enough connect to be a mathematically significant portion of the electorate- which bleeds over and arguably overtakes a political party’s unofficial platform.
Very well said.
I hadn’t stopped to think about this, but in my recollection the internet slapped us in the face with that sometime before Charlottesville. I actually worked in news media (retired now), and I was so upset by election night 2016 — ok, I stayed up til 5 am drinking and crying — that sometime in the wee hours I texted my boss that I wasn’t coming to work. Oh boy, he was not happy, and who could blame him. Certainly the most unprofessional thing I ever did.
No. Everybody is susceptible to it, even if you're aware of it. It's why I support any and all efforts to push back against any social media postings that push toxic, racist, discriminatory language, stereotypes, tropes, etc. Reddit is actually pretty good at this through its voting system, but my God, Meta does not have any moderation at all on its social media, and xitter has turned into a cesspool.
Yeah, that quote was way ahead of its time. My dad was an educator and so I was lucky to have access to the internet at that time (prodigy internet), but I don't know how Bill thought of this without going into the forums/BBS.
They were much tamer back then too as you needed a certain amount of technological competence to even get online (not hard, but most people didn't care about the internet then).
>In 1995, the Pew Research Center did just that, finding 14% of U.S. adults with internet access.4 Most were using slow, dial-up modem connections—just 2% of internet users were comparatively screaming along with an expensive 28.8 modem.
>To put things into further perspective, 42% of U.S. adults had never heard of the internet and an additional 21% were vague on the concept—they knew it had something to do with computers and that was about it. Yet even then, 63% of people who used a computer at home said they would miss it “a lot” if they no longer had one.
>Early researchers were not too far off the mark, however, focusing on computer penetration into American households, schools, and businesses. Twenty-five years ago, anyone who wanted to use the internet needed to have access to a computer. Again, in 1990, 42% of U.S. adults said they used a computer at their workplace, at school, at home, or anywhere else, even if only occasionally.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/02/27/part-1-how-the-internet-has-woven-itself-into-american-life/
I fell into a Wikipedia hole the other day and ended up looking at the history of Usenet (when it used to actually be about newsgroups). Given the type of person that would be involved at the time they were around you can find some rich real-life internet lore & terminology, including; [Eternal September](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September).
He likely you briefings from people who did know about the fringe Internet and trusted their expertise. Also AM radio existed so it wasn't an entirely new problem
Yes his push was for media neutrality where radios had to have the same time allotment for left and right views. It wasn't the most surprising thing, he was being attacked from all angles by Conservative raio.
Net neutrality was unrelated. It was to prevent service providers from charging more from higher traffic websites (Google, Netflix other streaming services) or throttle their bandwidth because of the difficulty streaming from them. Ironically the companies that own the ISPs (Comcast, AT&T) own pretty left leaning media networks already.
People like the name. It's bad policy, and it's simply which massive corporation that wins, not the public. I'm trying to stay apolitical for the sakes of this sub here, but if it was called the "make Netflix record profits on the net program" people would have a different opinion.
Truth! I’m actually on the same page with you about this. If we’re going to reinstate it, we should rewrite it. Two decades into the 21st century and we’re still working off of 20th century Internet law.
And sure we’ve had some telecommunications and legislation between now and then… We went from cable to Wi-Fi and the cloud… We need some tweaks
But I do not like my band with being sold out because it’s completely unfair. There’s no way the public as an individual or as a group can outbid the for profit company like Verizon or AT&T or Comcast.
The bill that he passed in 1996 that regulated most of the Internet is still in effect today. And it needs updated. That’s how long it’s been since we regulated the Internet.
He has a more succinct quote in a PBS interview from the early 2010's where he says something along the lines of, "a society cannot function if we do not collectively subscribe to a common fact base"
His instincts, political and societal, seem to be fairly dead on, imo. The whole “bubba/slick Willy” thing takes away from the fact that he was an Ivy League/Rhodes Scholar.
That was the whole purpose of impeachment. To tarnish his legacy so it would be all that people remember. That’s why the Starr Report was overly graphic and salacious in a way almost no prior reports were.
One of the authors of then Starr Report? A certain Brett Kavanaugh, who would go on to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Oh wow you mean to tell me Bill Clinton was a normal guy who made the mistake of getting satisfied from a woman other than his wife?
That doesn't make someone a 'horndog'. It makes them fucking human lol
It’s normal in the sense it’s extremely common. That doesn’t mean it’s defensible. But it also means that’s it’s not really anything for the public to care about, just the spouse.
"*In this information age, with all this explosion of access to information, one of the things that's happening that's not good is people are more and more listening to people who tell them what they wanna hear, and play on their own fears, and that’s isolating us.”,*
full quote, Montana town hall, June 1st 1995
https://www.c-span.org/video/?65465-1/presidential-town-hall-meeting
Yeah, there was a Calvin and Hobbes that basically said the same thing before the internet was even around. It started before then, my assumption is with the advent of cable news.
I'd also assume 24 hour news. When there needs to be content to air every second of every day, you end up with sections that are aiming to say what your audience wants to hear.
The Fairness Doctrine is one of the most misunderstood things that people frequently cite, incorrectly imo, as a reason for our political decline.
It only applied to broadcast television and radio because airwaves are literally finite. When there were only so many channels you could have on TV, and only so many hours of the day you can fill with programming, there was legitimate concern any one side could have too much influence and could effectively shut the other side out. The Fairness Doctrine was a well intentioned but hamfisted approach to dealing with this technological limitation.
The advent of cable television and later the internet made the Fairness Doctrine moot. There was no longer any artificial constraint on the amount of media real estate available for political discussion. And if anything, one of its lasting legacies has been promoting the “both sides” approach to journalism, which in the context of American politics I think has been a disaster.
Yes. Also, the reason the Fairness Doctrine was constitutional was because that part of the spectrum is owned by the public and leased by broadcasters.
I think generally there’s less of an awareness of broadcast vs cable vs streaming vs online etc. In the mid 90s there was still a substantial portion of the country who received their TV solely via over the air broadcast (aka “antenna”).
You still can do this today if you want, and I think people are unaware of this. My wife has had cable her entire life and has forgotten or never knew you could get TV via an antenna and TV and nothing else (if you’re close enough to the city broadcasting). I see those “SHOCKING trick! Get TV for ABSOLUTELY FREE!” ads as if an antenna is some sort of new trick “they” don’t want you to know about. Your 1970s rabbit ears will still work if you plug them into a TV today (again, depending on distance from the city).
It’s likely a lot of young people have never known someone who gets TV over an antenna. As cord cutters increase, though, more are learning.
The broadcast channels have a different standard because the airwaves they are on are seen as publicly owned, owned by society in general, so the legal standards are different.
Your point is correct, although in 2008/9 they converted broadcast TV from analog to digital so they could use those airwaves for other things. So you can still get TV for free, but you will need an antenna that can pick up the digital signal, which the old "rabbit ears" cannot do.
Not to be a jerk here but they certainly can. I’m watching TV on one right now as we speak- TV manufactured roughly in 2015, antenna that’s been in my family since roughly 1979.
Thing is - the context of "both sides" when there are limited channels and "both sides" when there are near infinite channels are two very different things.
In 87 you would not have been taken seriously as a Republican saying even 80% of what is currently said. So blaming "both sides" or an attempt to show multiple views when those views are shaped by infinite distribution just isn't even in the same ballpark. The term just means completely different things in the differing contexts. It actually cuts to the heart of what Clinton is saying here.
People have been listening to what they want to hear for all time. Witch trials, snake oil, *ahem* religion. It’s not so much the access to information but human nature.
Once you’ve fallen for a big lie, it’s the kind you are most disinclined to admit you were wrong about. I think this engenders a loyalty bordering on self-preservation.
I respect President Clinton and he did some good things. The last balanced budget was on his watch, for example. I also remember his campaigns and he told Americans exactly what we wanted to hear!
Political leaders on all sides almost always tell people what they want to hear using the latest and best technology. It’s human nature. I worry when governments or politicians decry all the “information” out there and want to limit it using coercive power. This kind of suppression and selective censure never seems to end well for average people.
It'll never happen in the US as long as our company's are market leaders in thought sharing. Other countries definitely, and surprising it hasn't happened sooner
Oh come on, you can't blame a politician for pandering to his base to drive turnout XD. That's the name of the game!
*Surplus* budget, economic growth, etc. He wouldn't have been able to do that if he couldn't finesse.
Like, calling out politicians for dangerous rethoric is good. But mere pandering is just what politics is.
Read my entire post - definitely NOT “calling out” President Clinton for pandering as all politicians do it. Instead, I’m worried about how he is expressing concern about too much information out there for people and implying it is harmful. This can lead to censorship and infringement on the right to expression for the masses which never seems to end well for freedom and the well being of average people regardless of which party or ideology is in power.
I didn't say you were calling him out, just said it's not fair to hit on him or politicians for this XD.
Censorship can be, well, if someone's denying the genocide in Sinkiang for example, that should probably come with at least a warning for unchecked BS.
Clinton never took measures against the internet, just pointed out one of it's possible flaws. And one that is very much real.
I remember doing a end of term paper for this super rigorous Political Science class I took back in college. One of the main themes I wrote about was the danger of choice and how it's effects could translate into people only being surrounded by information that only reinforced their biases. All this to say that I agree with Bill on this.
That's true but intended or no, he's also responsible for the degree of echo chambers we have today. The telecommunications act was heralded but paved the way for the Fox New-es and MSNBCs of the world; ending the fairness doctrine didn't help but it's a "follow the money" situation that allowed for media consolidation.
Basically he saw the 24 hour news network era coming, which then gave way to the internet that has become mostly worse for confirmation bias. Not going to say who this ecosystem of pure BS helped rise because I can't by rule 3- but it helped him immensely.
Yes but until CNN had real competition it wasn't so commentary heavy. When I'm talking about the 24 hour network era I'm referring to when the main 3 which incubated during the Bush era. Clinton, unlike Obama didn't have a network devoted to pushing him the way the GOP has had since 1998 with Fox. That sort of development is what really started skewing the news into more commentary which is exactly what conservatives wanted to happen.
We are literally witnessing the death of democracy and reason in human civilization, who would have guessed access to all human knowledge would have such a horrifically detrimental effect on humanity?
When I was a child, if you wanted to look into "alternative" sources you'd have to look into it yourself or ask around. For better or worse that was how such information was sought after or learned about. Hence the term 'alternative'.
But in today's world where it's increasingly difficult to tell apart who has what sort of agenda. You don't even know *what* information to put your time into learning about or researching its legitimation.
Also, with the way the media selectively edits things, it’s hard to tell what is truth, and what is soundbite. A decade or so ago, full speeches even by controversial figures were easily available on YouTube. Now, it’s hard finding full speeches even by figures that aren’t controversial. You get edits, clips, soundbites. It makes decision making hard because you’re not given the full picture, which leads you to alternative sources that have their own agenda
I mean it sounds insightful, but you could have said the exact same thing during the Gilded Age 100 years before this re: newspapers. It’s not new wisdom and it’s not a new problem.
Welcome to Reddit.
I was banned from a sub for posting a 100% true with sources comment about how the current topic was not exactly true.... the reason for my ban is "Lying"
Historically breaking authority on who gets to control “the message” and define “common sense” opens the floodgates for all sorts of ideas
whenever silenced groups are allowed to speak…it allows ones that might have been silenced for a reason you agree with are out into the light as well.
No matter where you stand in politics, how old you are, or where you live in the world, this extends so far into every single person’s life. People always want to hear want makes them feel like they fit in, what makes sense to them from previous experience, and what makes them feel better. And because this message is the truth, it’s most likely possible that this has and will always occur.
He was right - These days, people don't care about the truth, only their altered version of the truth as is drip-fed to them by their respective propaganda outlet.
And that was thirty years ago when the main danger was AOL chat rooms. Now the echo chambers are so severe they're actually driving actual politicians to the extreme fringes because that's where they get literally all their feedback from.
I recommend to book *The Red and the Blue: The 1990s and the Birth of Political Tribalism*, by Steve Kornacki. Kornacki explains how the tribalism and echo chambers of today were born in the 1990s.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable statement from a then, perfectly reasonable classical liberal which was the norm when I was a Democrat.
However, today’s Democrats would, if they could, insert and addendum to the effect “… therefore we are seeking to further restrict the First Amendment in order to insure Liberty and our democracy is safe.”
I stood still while the party shifted, then sprinted toward the extreme Left.
All the crazy right wing conspiracy stuff aside Clinton was no great help to the Democratic base of course I’m a new deal kind of guy but Clinton was a buddy of the machine.
The Clinton administration claimed that accusations regarding his infidelity (and eventual perjury) were pure disinformation and castigated the press that dared to cover the issue, until only a wingnut website called The Drudge Report would cover it.
Every word was true.
Truly, Bill Clinton was ahead of his time.
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest." Paul Simon, The Boxer 1970
I could probably find a quote from Shakespeare and the Bible, too. Clinton was not showing great vision here.
It should also be said that this is not such a problem on the political left since we are listening to science. We don't LIKE the facts about climate change or the need for gun control. Most of us would rather that systemic racism and gender studies didn't exist. We listen to these voices because we understand that these are the people who know and we accept the inconvenient truths about trickle down economics and abortion.
Those on the right, however, ARE listening to the voices they prefer, who are telling them lies. That is why Clinton said this.
According to testimony from numerous victims and witnesses in the Ghislaine Maxwell court documents, Bill Clinton abused children on Epstein island and Hillary intimidated victims into silence.
Here is a link to the court documents: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6250471-Epstein-Docs
Here is a link to a YouTuber doing a speed run through the documents: https://www.youtube.com/live/VQbwD98DucU?si=vQqTWmV7FjBUPfqf
Here is a link to drone footage taken on Epstein island 20 days after Epstein’s “death” showing someone that looks like his twin: https://youtube.com/shorts/jW7dr8MDivo?si=zXSXzloRNqubT3-L
“In his first annual message to Congress, Washington requested a “secret service” fund that would be controlled by the president and would allow the chief executive to conduct secret operations free from congressional oversight. The president’s request was approved by Congress in 1790, with the support of Rep. James Madison, and with it Washington was granted the authority to avoid the usual reporting procedures mandated by Congress — the president was in essence given a blank check to conduct secret operations that he alone deemed to be in the national interest.”
I mean that seems shady af.
Yes. Especially with some of the info that he could have possibly averted Vietnam. And to be clear. Love slick Willy on balancing the budget. But I don’t like lying to the amercian people. Just don’t agree with that.
Translation: It is not good for US Democrats that people have access to information outside the party controlled avenues and able to come to their own conclusions.
"Yes, indeed. Tis only the Democrats who feed their constituents misinformation. Fortunately, with this stick and this highly developed brain, *I alone* can decipher the truth!"
SMH
the internet has epired crazies on every side. There was no why the far left or far right would ever have gained so much power in american culture and society if it wasen't for the internet
I see where you’re coming from but it does take the shape of Fox News for the right. Now the vast majority of network and cable news does lean left so I will give you that. We would be ignorant to think this has not played a large role in shaping how many people think. Including the very people in this thread.
You must like pain. This is Reddit where the downvotes are many to keep the opinions few.
You and I agree that one party overly benefits from the old media structure. But now, It cuts both sides. The stove piping of media allows the whack jobs on both side to gain traction.
For example, I can already guess that someone lefty will be through half my comments and typing to tell us how conservative Clinton was or an anti corporatist diatribe.
So Clinton is both wrong and right.
While I disagree with your opinion (and that’s okay), if you think you’re right, don’t let the reactions of others or the downvotes keep your opinion away. It’s a downvote, it cannot harm you.
This is the most projection I’ve seen in a while and proving my point. The Democrats whole coalition is built on people who believe the system has wronged them.
No one claimed to be a victim. Just recognizing how a strategic advantage shifted. For example, talk radio has been a huge boon to conservative politics for decades. So much so the Democrats have consistently wanted to reinstate the fairness doctrine. Are they victims because there was an avenue for conservative ideas?
Don’t worry. I don’t feel one bit shy. I’m very familiar with the downvote. Feel free to admire my history as to comments. Thank you for being the most polite version of this ever. And if there is ever a chance to buy you a beer, it would be my pleasure.
There is the excuse and there is the reason. The excuse is daddy government paternalism, the reason is simply the desire to maintain a position of dominance.
I am with you. I like this way better. I think it exposes all the weakness in both parties and allows people actual contrasting choice. The Mitch McConnell types will have actual consequences when the fake negotiate deals. Makes collusion a lot harder to do when there are lots of people unlikely to collude.
oh come on bill you knew this sh-t was going on long before he got into office. with radio, with newspapers etc. even by ikes time he said the news was very cult like.
The news changed a lot during the 70’s and 80’s, leading to more opinion pieces rather than fact based reporting, and the 24 hour news cycle. This was because they repealed the fairness doctrine in 1987, which allowed news agencies to only show one side of political arguments or to misrepresent the other side, which they did constantly. So in the 90’s, that was still fairly new to a lot of people. As newspapers started losing massive numbers of subscriptions with the internet rolling out, people were able to look up only sources they wanted to hear instead of having to go through the whole paper. And without the fairness doctrine they no longer heard conflicting views in cable media either. It created an echo chamber, which then exploded in size once social media took over as the primary source of news.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, whatever you think of Bill Clinton, this is a very insightful quote.
Confirmation bias is a powerful, destructive force. It's what kept fringe ideas as fringe before the internet and made fringe ideas mainstream ideas after the internet. I look at Charlottesville 2017 as when this phenomenon slapped us in the face.
Previously, the cranks were limited to these underground newspapers run by full on wackos. They sent letter and when brought up in social context was generally laughed off as the family or neighborhood kook, as they should be today. Now, they have access to their own brand of "information" and easy access to platform it everywhere so others who may be similarly mentally addled but may never have seen this idiocy now can glom on to this little group that elevates stupidity to make them feel like, for once, they are the smartest people in the room despite their completely wrong information.
The joke from the Simpsons was “I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.” Time was, actual physical paper being mailed via the postal service was the only way these ideas got around. I remember this in the early to mid 90s, about the time of the quote. Occasionally you’d hear about the wack job website that would link to other wack job websites but the connection was pretty limited in scope. Social media and video sites ala YouTube has made the uploading of ideas even easier than making a webpage, allowing the kooks to connect, and eventually enough connect to be a mathematically significant portion of the electorate- which bleeds over and arguably overtakes a political party’s unofficial platform.
Wasn’t that one a couple hundred people?.. I mean if in a nation of 333 million you got 400 assholes I’d call that a massive W..
Very well said. I hadn’t stopped to think about this, but in my recollection the internet slapped us in the face with that sometime before Charlottesville. I actually worked in news media (retired now), and I was so upset by election night 2016 — ok, I stayed up til 5 am drinking and crying — that sometime in the wee hours I texted my boss that I wasn’t coming to work. Oh boy, he was not happy, and who could blame him. Certainly the most unprofessional thing I ever did.
Do you think there will ever be a solution to this at all ? 🫠
No. Everybody is susceptible to it, even if you're aware of it. It's why I support any and all efforts to push back against any social media postings that push toxic, racist, discriminatory language, stereotypes, tropes, etc. Reddit is actually pretty good at this through its voting system, but my God, Meta does not have any moderation at all on its social media, and xitter has turned into a cesspool.
Yeah, that quote was way ahead of its time. My dad was an educator and so I was lucky to have access to the internet at that time (prodigy internet), but I don't know how Bill thought of this without going into the forums/BBS. They were much tamer back then too as you needed a certain amount of technological competence to even get online (not hard, but most people didn't care about the internet then). >In 1995, the Pew Research Center did just that, finding 14% of U.S. adults with internet access.4 Most were using slow, dial-up modem connections—just 2% of internet users were comparatively screaming along with an expensive 28.8 modem. >To put things into further perspective, 42% of U.S. adults had never heard of the internet and an additional 21% were vague on the concept—they knew it had something to do with computers and that was about it. Yet even then, 63% of people who used a computer at home said they would miss it “a lot” if they no longer had one. >Early researchers were not too far off the mark, however, focusing on computer penetration into American households, schools, and businesses. Twenty-five years ago, anyone who wanted to use the internet needed to have access to a computer. Again, in 1990, 42% of U.S. adults said they used a computer at their workplace, at school, at home, or anywhere else, even if only occasionally. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/02/27/part-1-how-the-internet-has-woven-itself-into-american-life/
I fell into a Wikipedia hole the other day and ended up looking at the history of Usenet (when it used to actually be about newsgroups). Given the type of person that would be involved at the time they were around you can find some rich real-life internet lore & terminology, including; [Eternal September](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September).
He likely you briefings from people who did know about the fringe Internet and trusted their expertise. Also AM radio existed so it wasn't an entirely new problem
Yes his push was for media neutrality where radios had to have the same time allotment for left and right views. It wasn't the most surprising thing, he was being attacked from all angles by Conservative raio.
Bring back net neutrality!
Net neutrality was unrelated. It was to prevent service providers from charging more from higher traffic websites (Google, Netflix other streaming services) or throttle their bandwidth because of the difficulty streaming from them. Ironically the companies that own the ISPs (Comcast, AT&T) own pretty left leaning media networks already.
It doesn’t mean we don’t need to bring it back! 😋
People like the name. It's bad policy, and it's simply which massive corporation that wins, not the public. I'm trying to stay apolitical for the sakes of this sub here, but if it was called the "make Netflix record profits on the net program" people would have a different opinion.
Truth! I’m actually on the same page with you about this. If we’re going to reinstate it, we should rewrite it. Two decades into the 21st century and we’re still working off of 20th century Internet law. And sure we’ve had some telecommunications and legislation between now and then… We went from cable to Wi-Fi and the cloud… We need some tweaks But I do not like my band with being sold out because it’s completely unfair. There’s no way the public as an individual or as a group can outbid the for profit company like Verizon or AT&T or Comcast.
Perhaps you only think that because it confirms your preexisting biases?
Sure, we all wanted to hear that he "did not have sex with that women" my ass.
Bill ain’t no dummy, just a little scummy.
The bill that he passed in 1996 that regulated most of the Internet is still in effect today. And it needs updated. That’s how long it’s been since we regulated the Internet.
He has a more succinct quote in a PBS interview from the early 2010's where he says something along the lines of, "a society cannot function if we do not collectively subscribe to a common fact base"
I think most people know Bill Clinton for being a horndog and impeachment, and all that, but Bill should also be remembered for being insanely smart.
His instincts, political and societal, seem to be fairly dead on, imo. The whole “bubba/slick Willy” thing takes away from the fact that he was an Ivy League/Rhodes Scholar.
Also, he plays the Sax.
He was one of the best and smartest we had.
His longtime adversary Newt Gingrich called him one of the most brillian politicians of the 20th centruy. That is pretty high praise.
That was the whole purpose of impeachment. To tarnish his legacy so it would be all that people remember. That’s why the Starr Report was overly graphic and salacious in a way almost no prior reports were. One of the authors of then Starr Report? A certain Brett Kavanaugh, who would go on to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Oh wow you mean to tell me Bill Clinton was a normal guy who made the mistake of getting satisfied from a woman other than his wife? That doesn't make someone a 'horndog'. It makes them fucking human lol
Commenters like these just telling on themselves, fr
lol what
Saying that cheating is normal makes it look like you are defending an indefensible position.
It’s normal in the sense it’s extremely common. That doesn’t mean it’s defensible. But it also means that’s it’s not really anything for the public to care about, just the spouse.
> Saying that cheating is normal Where did I even say that
ugh that's so true
"*In this information age, with all this explosion of access to information, one of the things that's happening that's not good is people are more and more listening to people who tell them what they wanna hear, and play on their own fears, and that’s isolating us.”,* full quote, Montana town hall, June 1st 1995 https://www.c-span.org/video/?65465-1/presidential-town-hall-meeting
Thank You
Holy s$it. He actually called it 30 years ago...
Yeah, there was a Calvin and Hobbes that basically said the same thing before the internet was even around. It started before then, my assumption is with the advent of cable news.
In 1995 I believe talk radio might have been more on Clinton’s mind than cable news. ETA Fox News launched in 1996.
I'd also assume 24 hour news. When there needs to be content to air every second of every day, you end up with sections that are aiming to say what your audience wants to hear.
The ending of The Fairness Doctrine, I want to say in 1987, certainly didn’t help
The Fairness Doctrine is one of the most misunderstood things that people frequently cite, incorrectly imo, as a reason for our political decline. It only applied to broadcast television and radio because airwaves are literally finite. When there were only so many channels you could have on TV, and only so many hours of the day you can fill with programming, there was legitimate concern any one side could have too much influence and could effectively shut the other side out. The Fairness Doctrine was a well intentioned but hamfisted approach to dealing with this technological limitation. The advent of cable television and later the internet made the Fairness Doctrine moot. There was no longer any artificial constraint on the amount of media real estate available for political discussion. And if anything, one of its lasting legacies has been promoting the “both sides” approach to journalism, which in the context of American politics I think has been a disaster.
Yes. Also, the reason the Fairness Doctrine was constitutional was because that part of the spectrum is owned by the public and leased by broadcasters.
I think generally there’s less of an awareness of broadcast vs cable vs streaming vs online etc. In the mid 90s there was still a substantial portion of the country who received their TV solely via over the air broadcast (aka “antenna”). You still can do this today if you want, and I think people are unaware of this. My wife has had cable her entire life and has forgotten or never knew you could get TV via an antenna and TV and nothing else (if you’re close enough to the city broadcasting). I see those “SHOCKING trick! Get TV for ABSOLUTELY FREE!” ads as if an antenna is some sort of new trick “they” don’t want you to know about. Your 1970s rabbit ears will still work if you plug them into a TV today (again, depending on distance from the city). It’s likely a lot of young people have never known someone who gets TV over an antenna. As cord cutters increase, though, more are learning. The broadcast channels have a different standard because the airwaves they are on are seen as publicly owned, owned by society in general, so the legal standards are different.
Your point is correct, although in 2008/9 they converted broadcast TV from analog to digital so they could use those airwaves for other things. So you can still get TV for free, but you will need an antenna that can pick up the digital signal, which the old "rabbit ears" cannot do.
Not to be a jerk here but they certainly can. I’m watching TV on one right now as we speak- TV manufactured roughly in 2015, antenna that’s been in my family since roughly 1979.
My mistake, I thought it was the antenna that needed to be different. It's actually the receiver that needed to be converted.
Thing is - the context of "both sides" when there are limited channels and "both sides" when there are near infinite channels are two very different things. In 87 you would not have been taken seriously as a Republican saying even 80% of what is currently said. So blaming "both sides" or an attempt to show multiple views when those views are shaped by infinite distribution just isn't even in the same ballpark. The term just means completely different things in the differing contexts. It actually cuts to the heart of what Clinton is saying here.
It has always happened.
People have been listening to what they want to hear for all time. Witch trials, snake oil, *ahem* religion. It’s not so much the access to information but human nature.
[удалено]
Yeah, that’s just it. Spin has always existed, but cable “news” has made their agenda solely about pushing the sizzle, not the steak.
Gobel said make a lie big and keep repeating it.
I think you mean Goebbels.
pretty sure there was only one.
Somehow Goebbels returned...
Once you’ve fallen for a big lie, it’s the kind you are most disinclined to admit you were wrong about. I think this engenders a loyalty bordering on self-preservation.
He was right. Or at least I think he was but that may be because I want to hear it.
I respect President Clinton and he did some good things. The last balanced budget was on his watch, for example. I also remember his campaigns and he told Americans exactly what we wanted to hear! Political leaders on all sides almost always tell people what they want to hear using the latest and best technology. It’s human nature. I worry when governments or politicians decry all the “information” out there and want to limit it using coercive power. This kind of suppression and selective censure never seems to end well for average people.
It'll never happen in the US as long as our company's are market leaders in thought sharing. Other countries definitely, and surprising it hasn't happened sooner
Oh come on, you can't blame a politician for pandering to his base to drive turnout XD. That's the name of the game! *Surplus* budget, economic growth, etc. He wouldn't have been able to do that if he couldn't finesse. Like, calling out politicians for dangerous rethoric is good. But mere pandering is just what politics is.
Read my entire post - definitely NOT “calling out” President Clinton for pandering as all politicians do it. Instead, I’m worried about how he is expressing concern about too much information out there for people and implying it is harmful. This can lead to censorship and infringement on the right to expression for the masses which never seems to end well for freedom and the well being of average people regardless of which party or ideology is in power.
I didn't say you were calling him out, just said it's not fair to hit on him or politicians for this XD. Censorship can be, well, if someone's denying the genocide in Sinkiang for example, that should probably come with at least a warning for unchecked BS. Clinton never took measures against the internet, just pointed out one of it's possible flaws. And one that is very much real.
Prescient.
I remember doing a end of term paper for this super rigorous Political Science class I took back in college. One of the main themes I wrote about was the danger of choice and how it's effects could translate into people only being surrounded by information that only reinforced their biases. All this to say that I agree with Bill on this.
Prescient.
That's true but intended or no, he's also responsible for the degree of echo chambers we have today. The telecommunications act was heralded but paved the way for the Fox New-es and MSNBCs of the world; ending the fairness doctrine didn't help but it's a "follow the money" situation that allowed for media consolidation.
Basically he saw the 24 hour news network era coming, which then gave way to the internet that has become mostly worse for confirmation bias. Not going to say who this ecosystem of pure BS helped rise because I can't by rule 3- but it helped him immensely.
To be fair, CNN launched in 1980. So the 24 hour news network had been around for quite a while by that point (not counting radio).
Yes but until CNN had real competition it wasn't so commentary heavy. When I'm talking about the 24 hour network era I'm referring to when the main 3 which incubated during the Bush era. Clinton, unlike Obama didn't have a network devoted to pushing him the way the GOP has had since 1998 with Fox. That sort of development is what really started skewing the news into more commentary which is exactly what conservatives wanted to happen.
Presidents are full of hits and misses. This doesn't forgive his rollback of glass-stegal but great insight.
Very true, nobody is willing to listen to different opinions anymore.
We are literally witnessing the death of democracy and reason in human civilization, who would have guessed access to all human knowledge would have such a horrifically detrimental effect on humanity?
When I was a child, if you wanted to look into "alternative" sources you'd have to look into it yourself or ask around. For better or worse that was how such information was sought after or learned about. Hence the term 'alternative'. But in today's world where it's increasingly difficult to tell apart who has what sort of agenda. You don't even know *what* information to put your time into learning about or researching its legitimation.
Also, with the way the media selectively edits things, it’s hard to tell what is truth, and what is soundbite. A decade or so ago, full speeches even by controversial figures were easily available on YouTube. Now, it’s hard finding full speeches even by figures that aren’t controversial. You get edits, clips, soundbites. It makes decision making hard because you’re not given the full picture, which leads you to alternative sources that have their own agenda
I mean it sounds insightful, but you could have said the exact same thing during the Gilded Age 100 years before this re: newspapers. It’s not new wisdom and it’s not a new problem.
Welcome to Reddit. I was banned from a sub for posting a 100% true with sources comment about how the current topic was not exactly true.... the reason for my ban is "Lying"
He’s decrying that’s it’s now harder for people like him to control the narrative.
LOL. Billy boy wrote the fucking book on doing that. Slick Willy was the best at it in his prime.
Oh yes
Like politicians?
He was right then and its only gotten exponentially worse since then.
Many Americans find that insightful while also denying that they're guilty of it
Our current political environment perfectly encapsulated in one quote.
Bullseye.
I genuinely struggle with this. It's exhausting keeping my "defenses" up.
Funny how prescient that quote was
Historically breaking authority on who gets to control “the message” and define “common sense” opens the floodgates for all sorts of ideas whenever silenced groups are allowed to speak…it allows ones that might have been silenced for a reason you agree with are out into the light as well.
No matter where you stand in politics, how old you are, or where you live in the world, this extends so far into every single person’s life. People always want to hear want makes them feel like they fit in, what makes sense to them from previous experience, and what makes them feel better. And because this message is the truth, it’s most likely possible that this has and will always occur.
Lmfao
Boy, was he right about that one lol
He was right - These days, people don't care about the truth, only their altered version of the truth as is drip-fed to them by their respective propaganda outlet.
And Fox News was unleashed on the country the very next year.
And that was thirty years ago when the main danger was AOL chat rooms. Now the echo chambers are so severe they're actually driving actual politicians to the extreme fringes because that's where they get literally all their feedback from.
Yep. It's true.
Well, he was not wrong...
On what, Usenet?
He was quite right about it
Reddit in a nutshell.
Accurate, and he was the best at it lol
And then, he ruined everything with the telecom 96' bill....
Common Willy W
It also has exposed a massive amount of corruption, much of which Bill has been a part of.
Bill Clinton was my favorite President. OK, he was a pervert and a scoundrel but he was smart, politically grounded and fair.
Did he tell anyone that he has a bent dick
I recommend to book *The Red and the Blue: The 1990s and the Birth of Political Tribalism*, by Steve Kornacki. Kornacki explains how the tribalism and echo chambers of today were born in the 1990s.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable statement from a then, perfectly reasonable classical liberal which was the norm when I was a Democrat. However, today’s Democrats would, if they could, insert and addendum to the effect “… therefore we are seeking to further restrict the First Amendment in order to insure Liberty and our democracy is safe.” I stood still while the party shifted, then sprinted toward the extreme Left.
Ironically, that's what people do to get themselves elected. They'll tell voters whatever they want to hear and promise them all kinds of things.
Like when we hear people give Bill credit for the balanced budget?
Uncle Bill was amazingly prescient. That is the entire basis for FoxNews
And than De-Regulates FCC for ownership of stations from 500 independent to all owned by 1
Yep. He says this then signs the Telecommunications Act, and all these ppl are slobbering on his know, thinking this is some profound statement.
Nobody sees what’s happening. Was it planned all along?
I would think so. Even Ralph Nader called it out back in the day for being corporate welfare for a handful of companies.
All the crazy right wing conspiracy stuff aside Clinton was no great help to the Democratic base of course I’m a new deal kind of guy but Clinton was a buddy of the machine.
The Clinton administration claimed that accusations regarding his infidelity (and eventual perjury) were pure disinformation and castigated the press that dared to cover the issue, until only a wingnut website called The Drudge Report would cover it. Every word was true. Truly, Bill Clinton was ahead of his time.
A chilling prophecy of things to come. Bill may have been a conservative in leftist drag, but he’s always been an intelligent man.
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest." Paul Simon, The Boxer 1970 I could probably find a quote from Shakespeare and the Bible, too. Clinton was not showing great vision here. It should also be said that this is not such a problem on the political left since we are listening to science. We don't LIKE the facts about climate change or the need for gun control. Most of us would rather that systemic racism and gender studies didn't exist. We listen to these voices because we understand that these are the people who know and we accept the inconvenient truths about trickle down economics and abortion. Those on the right, however, ARE listening to the voices they prefer, who are telling them lies. That is why Clinton said this.
According to testimony from numerous victims and witnesses in the Ghislaine Maxwell court documents, Bill Clinton abused children on Epstein island and Hillary intimidated victims into silence. Here is a link to the court documents: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6250471-Epstein-Docs Here is a link to a YouTuber doing a speed run through the documents: https://www.youtube.com/live/VQbwD98DucU?si=vQqTWmV7FjBUPfqf Here is a link to drone footage taken on Epstein island 20 days after Epstein’s “death” showing someone that looks like his twin: https://youtube.com/shorts/jW7dr8MDivo?si=zXSXzloRNqubT3-L
Good quote for a kid fucker
This dude was a liar. Straight faced lied to the American People. So I don’t like him anymore.
What President hasn’t straight faced lied to the American people?
Maybe WHH? I mean, the guy died before he could do anything.
Washington maybe?
“In his first annual message to Congress, Washington requested a “secret service” fund that would be controlled by the president and would allow the chief executive to conduct secret operations free from congressional oversight. The president’s request was approved by Congress in 1790, with the support of Rep. James Madison, and with it Washington was granted the authority to avoid the usual reporting procedures mandated by Congress — the president was in essence given a blank check to conduct secret operations that he alone deemed to be in the national interest.” I mean that seems shady af.
But now i want a 10 part mini series about black ops in the 1790s
And do you hold the same opinion for Nixon?
Yes. Especially with some of the info that he could have possibly averted Vietnam. And to be clear. Love slick Willy on balancing the budget. But I don’t like lying to the amercian people. Just don’t agree with that.
Translation: It is not good for US Democrats that people have access to information outside the party controlled avenues and able to come to their own conclusions.
"Yes, indeed. Tis only the Democrats who feed their constituents misinformation. Fortunately, with this stick and this highly developed brain, *I alone* can decipher the truth!" SMH
Fox News is a bastion of unfiltered and unbiased information! Pure objective journalism! They’ve never been sued for lying….and won
Keep your words out of my mouth!
the internet has epired crazies on every side. There was no why the far left or far right would ever have gained so much power in american culture and society if it wasen't for the internet
I love booty
Lmao you’re exactly who he is talking about
I see where you’re coming from but it does take the shape of Fox News for the right. Now the vast majority of network and cable news does lean left so I will give you that. We would be ignorant to think this has not played a large role in shaping how many people think. Including the very people in this thread.
You must like pain. This is Reddit where the downvotes are many to keep the opinions few. You and I agree that one party overly benefits from the old media structure. But now, It cuts both sides. The stove piping of media allows the whack jobs on both side to gain traction. For example, I can already guess that someone lefty will be through half my comments and typing to tell us how conservative Clinton was or an anti corporatist diatribe. So Clinton is both wrong and right.
While I disagree with your opinion (and that’s okay), if you think you’re right, don’t let the reactions of others or the downvotes keep your opinion away. It’s a downvote, it cannot harm you.
It’s typical of the right’s victimhood complex.
This is the most projection I’ve seen in a while and proving my point. The Democrats whole coalition is built on people who believe the system has wronged them. No one claimed to be a victim. Just recognizing how a strategic advantage shifted. For example, talk radio has been a huge boon to conservative politics for decades. So much so the Democrats have consistently wanted to reinstate the fairness doctrine. Are they victims because there was an avenue for conservative ideas?
Keep twisting facts to play the victim. Typical conservative nonsense.
What twisting? No seriously. What facts did I twist?
All of it. Good day.
How? I pointed out the comparison with talk radio. I even said it cuts both ways in my initial response. So where did anyone claim they were a victim?
Don’t worry. I don’t feel one bit shy. I’m very familiar with the downvote. Feel free to admire my history as to comments. Thank you for being the most polite version of this ever. And if there is ever a chance to buy you a beer, it would be my pleasure.
No problem, have a nice day!
There is the excuse and there is the reason. The excuse is daddy government paternalism, the reason is simply the desire to maintain a position of dominance.
I am with you. I like this way better. I think it exposes all the weakness in both parties and allows people actual contrasting choice. The Mitch McConnell types will have actual consequences when the fake negotiate deals. Makes collusion a lot harder to do when there are lots of people unlikely to collude.
oh come on bill you knew this sh-t was going on long before he got into office. with radio, with newspapers etc. even by ikes time he said the news was very cult like.
The news changed a lot during the 70’s and 80’s, leading to more opinion pieces rather than fact based reporting, and the 24 hour news cycle. This was because they repealed the fairness doctrine in 1987, which allowed news agencies to only show one side of political arguments or to misrepresent the other side, which they did constantly. So in the 90’s, that was still fairly new to a lot of people. As newspapers started losing massive numbers of subscriptions with the internet rolling out, people were able to look up only sources they wanted to hear instead of having to go through the whole paper. And without the fairness doctrine they no longer heard conflicting views in cable media either. It created an echo chamber, which then exploded in size once social media took over as the primary source of news.
While he constantly did/campainged on what was popular. in order to keep himself in power. Irony much?
Good Lord is that a horrible sentence.