1 of 8
1
Right Wing Radio
Posted: 08 November 2008 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14

I’m sure most people are aware of Right Wing Radio shows.Mostly AM band.How often do you hear this stuff?How often do you encounter someone who’s an echo-box of this dreck.
Folks,this garbage must be criminalized.I know that it is in the constitution,it’s in the FCC guidelines.It is an exercize of free speech and press.
Loopholes must be found to muzzle these outlets.They engage in flat-out propaganda,which is laced with outright fabrications,innuendo,and hate and fear-mongering.Surely,somewhere,buried in the FCC,or in the laws of the constitution,there must be tools to eliminate this stuff.
Have you seen the damage it does?I’m speaking from an unbiased,objective point of view too.I’m not trying in this instance to counteract damage done to the left or liberals.
These programs have created thousands of robots.Uninformed people who are completely out of touch.
Objecting to this and saying that these people freely choose to listen to it,is not enough.Drug cartels are smashed and their members imprisoned for giving people things that they freely choose to do.
The actual damage these programs do is quantifiable and relevant.I thought it was illegal to broadcast lies?

[ Edited: 23 November 2008 06:51 PM by dougsmith ]
 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2008 01:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

Loopholes must be found to muzzle these outlets.

No, No, No! The First Amendment is absolutely fundamental and under no circumstances should ANY political speech ever be restricted or discouraged.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2008 01:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15755
Joined  2006-02-14

It’s not illegal to broadcast lies, Vyazma, and I agree with Chris that the First Amendment is paramount here. Censorship is not the answer. Speaking the truth is the answer.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2008 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
dougsmith - 08 November 2008 01:34 PM

It’s not illegal to broadcast lies, Vyazma, and I agree with Chris that the First Amendment is paramount here. Censorship is not the answer. Speaking the truth is the answer.

Well if speaking the truth is the answer,then where does that leave speaking the falsehoods?Accchh!I know we can’t muzzle people,the way the FCC did to certain other elements of radio.Afterall the FCC has a partisan appointed leader.And of course I know we live in a perfect society where advertisers have absolutely nothing to do with TV and radio content.
I know I’m banging my head against the wall here,in the face of rational people,who cite constitutional points.Even though the constitution is constantly bended and morphed to suit the needs of legislators and activist judges,as well as presidents.
I know it’s noble to place fair play in high regards.I like lofty ideas.I respect noble,egalitarianism.
Unfortunately,I see the unfair playing field that is set-up by corporate interests and conservative-christian based nazis.
To repeat,these radio shows are hindering progress.They are having a noticeable,relevant effect on the populations mind-set.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2008 02:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15755
Joined  2006-02-14

Vyazma, part of what we are concerned about just is the conscientious application of the Constitution. The separation of church and state. Freedom of the press. Freedom of religion. Secular democracy. You cannot get there by violating the Constitution itself.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2008 03:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
dougsmith - 08 November 2008 02:20 PM

Vyazma, part of what we are concerned about just is the conscientious application of the Constitution. The separation of church and state. Freedom of the press. Freedom of religion. Secular democracy. You cannot get there by violating the Constitution itself.

Doug,have you ever encountered,and spoken with someone who takes these radio shows to heart.I know your down there in New York,most likely in an acedemic setting.This is the prejudiced view I have of you.I find your incites to be always on the money,fair,and friendly.I don’t know much else,so I am being kind of narrow-minded in my view of you.When you leave work,do you go over to Queens,or cross over to Newark.Are you exposed to these people?I think there is a good possibility that you are.I am just curious as to whether you have actually interacted with these robots.I see you,through my “forums eye"as being in an Ivory Tower.
It’s one thing to sample an episode of Dr.Laura or Neil Bortz(sp?)but if you have ever interacted with them regularly,then I can’t see how any progressive person could possibly condone or defend the rights of these shows.
Don’t answer my questions pertaining to your daily habits.It’s not my business.Again,I believe you probably have or do interact with these folks.I just can’t fathom that you defend the rights to these shows.Please don’t be cross with my assumptions.I am not making any judgement about your character.Believe me,I wish I was in your position.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2008 03:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15755
Joined  2006-02-14

I think we’re speaking past each other, Vyazma. I am well aware of the damage that these shows produce. If you go back in history to the 1930s, Father Coughlin had a radio show that reached millions of people, and that spoke in favor of anti-semitism and european fascism. This is not a new phenomenon. Right-wing radio hacks like Rush Limbaugh, and Fox commentators like Ann Coulter, Hannity and O’Reilly are simply Father Coughlins for a modern audience.

We agree about the problem. The only question is what the solution should be. It should not be to throw out the Constitution.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2008 03:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

Vyazma, I have interacted with these people many times; my parents listen to Rush Limbaugh. And I am absolutely certain that we must not in any way intrude upon the freedom of speech. It doesn’t matter how wrong you think they are. So long as it does not constitute direct and immediate incitement to crime, it’s perfectly proper.

The reason why I want to protect their freedom of speech is that I want to protect MY freedom of speech. If it’s fair to muzzle them, then it’s just as fair to muzzle me when they’re in power. I don’t want to be muzzled. So I apply the Golden Rule and conclude that I want to protect their freedom of speech. It’s very simple reasoning, really.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2008 04:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
dougsmith - 08 November 2008 03:49 PM

I think we’re speaking past each other, Vyazma. I am well aware of the damage that these shows produce. If you go back in history to the 1930s, Father Coughlin had a radio show that reached millions of people, and that spoke in favor of anti-semitism and european fascism. This is not a new phenomenon. Right-wing radio hacks like Rush Limbaugh, and Fox commentators like Ann Coulter, Hannity and O’Reilly are simply Father Coughlins for a modern audience.

We agree about the problem. The only question is what the solution should be. It should not be to throw out the Constitution.

What then is the solution?The constitution doesn’t have to be thrown out,it could be amended.The Supreme Court could rule in favor of some class action concerning bias/truth in the media.
Another 4 years are going to pass.In this time,the propaganda outlets are going to be going full-tilt to destroy the gains made by the Democrats in this latest election.This electorate can easily be swung back by these propaganda outlets,if the new Administration falters in its promise for change and renewal.
I’m not being a Pollyanna here.(is that the right word-Pollyanna?)This is a real threat to the democracy that you are defending.
While outlets like The Daily Show are encouraging,I don’t see or here many proleteriates listening to Radio Pacifica.They aren’t listening to NPR for that matter.While these shows have great information,and can provide very useful knowledge for this group,they aren’t appealing to them.I don’t know if it’s because they are to soft-spoken,or they don’t provide enough sports coverage.Alot of these shows use big words,and can’t be understood by people.Why can’t the average Joe be enticed by Howard Zinn,or Chomsky?They are enticed by shouting,by name-calling,by chest-beating.
The vast majority of people love to hear bigotry!!The horde around the Mouthpiece of disenfranchisement.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2008 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

No, you can’t have the Supreme Court make a ruling that your political opinions are the only true opinions and that right-wing opinions are false and must not be expressed in public. You don’t seem to get the basic idea that you have no monopoly on truth. You and I both agree that Sarah Palin is a nitwit, but there are millions of Americans who think she’s wonderful. You seem prepared to declare that, because these people disagree with your assessment of Sarah Palin, they should be muzzled. OK, suppose we do that. What happens when all those other people elect Sarah Plain President (not very likely, but humor me)? Does Sarah Palin get to muzzle you?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2008 05:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2007-06-08

What about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2008 05:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

The Fairness Doctrine is conceptually fraught with constitutional dangers. The problem is the legal definition of content. What types of content constitute fair points of view regarding any controversy? What constitutes truth and what constitutes falsehood in political speech? What really brought the Fairness Doctrine to an end was the explosion of multiple channels of communication. There are now so many channels for publishing one’s thoughts that there is simply no need to insure that any single channel is fair and truthful.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2008 09:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  262
Joined  2008-06-13

While I have no use for the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world, I would be absolutely opposed to them being censored simply because we think they are ignoramuses.

Being able to say what we want is so fundamental to my democratic philosophy that there must be real and significant personal and/or public safety concerns to warrant censorship.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2008 11:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  633
Joined  2007-12-10

It’s a slippery slope to totalitarianism when you limit free speech.

 Signature 

Dan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2008 03:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  42
Joined  2008-07-01

My favourite quote ever ..........

“I deplore what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Vyazma, you need to chill out.

Everything we fight for depends upon Hannity (“Plump as a Manatee” - thank you John Cleese) and Limbaugh being allowed to spout their vicious tripe exactly as they want to and when they want to.

That should always be our most important core belief.

 Signature 

If I have seen less far, it is because of these giants standing on my shoulders

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2008 06:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14

I’ll “chill out” when I’m ready to chill out.Firstly learn to recognize agitational arguments when you hear them.Secondly,I inquired as to what recourse there was to combat false reporting in news/opinion/entertainment programs.
It appears as if most of you just broke out your can-openers,and served up a nice 6oz.portion of canned contrivances.Now dripping with 30% more cheese.What with your laudatory comments on Free Speech,and age ole’traditions.How sentimental!
I asked for any solutions to the problem of these radio shows.I didn’t ask for everyone to stand-up for the pledge of allegiance,and a brief discourse on the sacred rights of Free speech and press.Patronizers.

Schtumpy,what should ALWAYS be our MOST IMPORTANT core belief?I couldn’t really make a connection in your text.What’s a belief?So the Bill of Rights is a belief system?Great,that should make it easier to tear down.That’s a joke.I don’t want to tear down the bill of rights. :lol:

[ Edited: 09 November 2008 06:17 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 8
1