|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 10/26/2004 : 08:28:34
|
I firmly believe that the rise of Right Wing radio is repsonsible for a great deal of the shift of US public toward the radical right. I believe it is in large part the work of manipulation via misinformation and deception.
Lately I've heard from several sources claims that the dissolution of the Fairness Doctrine made the rise of right wing radio possible - it essentially allowed hours of biased political editorialization to be broadcast to millions of people to the exclusion of any ballancing argument. The rationalization for abolition of the Fairness Doctrine was that there were enough independant stations that they should ballance each other out. But in practice, those who listen to talk radio generally only listen to a single station and for the most part, the only view that has been using this medium is the right wing. There hasn't been any ballance at all, and even if there was, people wouldn't get the ballancing view anyway.
I have family who've been indoctrinated by right wing radio. Since I don't listen to it and I only talk with them at family gatherings, I've literally witnessed this huge shift to the right in their political views. I've seen the manipulation and the deception working first hand. It's effect should not be underestimated. Right wing radio has become a huge, unbalanced propaganda machine that has fueled the decline of American Democracy. And it's rise was enabled by the removal of the Fairness Doctricn. Anyone disagree? What have I missed here?
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2004 : 08:41:23 [Permalink]
|
| ^what he said 100% |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2004 : 14:34:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Lately I've heard from several sources claims that the dissolution of the Fairness Doctrine made the rise of right wing radio possible - it essentially allowed hours of biased political editorialization to be broadcast to millions of people to the exclusion of any ballancing argument. The rationalization for abolition of the Fairness Doctrine was that there were enough independant stations that they should ballance each other out. But in practice, those who listen to talk radio generally only listen to a single station and for the most part, the only view that has been using this medium is the right wing. There hasn't been any ballance at all, and even if there was, people wouldn't get the ballancing view anyway.
I don't know much about the fairness doctrine but it sounds like it was infringing on free speech rights. Why should any independant radio station be forced to air programming they do not want or agree with. There are balanced left wing stations but they do not draw the audience that right wing stations do. Why should the government tell anybody what they should program as long as its not obscene?
quote:
I have family who've been indoctrinated by right wing radio. Since I don't listen to it and I only talk with them at family gatherings, I've literally witnessed this huge shift to the right in their political views. I've seen the manipulation and the deception working first hand. It's effect should not be underestimated.
Maybe your family and other conservatives just have different opinions than yours. I hear alot from liberal people that if you are conservative then you cannot be thinking for yourself. Because if you did you would have to be a liberal because they are always right. Utter nonsense. Everybody thinks for themselves, some aggree with radio talk shows and some do not. To hear a balancing view, listen to Al Franken. (Although he also supresses the whole truth).
quote:
Right wing radio has become a huge, unbalanced propaganda machine that has fueled the decline of American Democracy. And it's rise was enabled by the removal of the Fairness Doctricn. Anyone disagree? What have I missed here?
Are you saying that you want the government to regulate what radio stations must program? Sounds like that could fuel the decline of our freedoms. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2004 : 15:24:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are you saying that you want the government to regulate what radio stations must program? Sounds like that could fuel the decline of our freedoms.
Exactly! It's the same as when government tries to regulate what women do with their bodies. The result is a huge decline in freedom.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2004 : 15:28:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why should the government tell anybody what they should program as long as its not obscene?
Because the airwaves are public property.
And if you see fit to limit obcenity, then why is Rush still on the air? I find his dishonesty to be obscene. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2004 : 17:37:16 [Permalink]
|
I agreee, chaloobi.
The Fairness Doctrine was repealed by the Reagan administration. So what does that tell you about the "why"?
The number of airwaves available on which to broadcast is finite: that is, there is a limited number of them. Further, as Dude said, they belong to us and are "loaned" to the broadcasters--who are required, by law, to operate in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
Print media is different because in theory, anyone can publish a newspaper (in theory, of course.) But not anyone can use public airwaves.
The Fairness Doctrine repeal was the beginning of the end of public acountability of broadcasters. Now more than ever, it's all about the Benjamins.
JMO. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2004 : 18:07:02 [Permalink]
|
Add the fact that almost all broadcast outlets are owned by a fairly small number of large corporations, who's motivation is profit and audience share, and you can easily see why our media doesn't ever bother to report shit like the poisoning of our freshwater and the incredibly high levels of mercury found in the fish.
It's just not "news" unless it involves gay marriage, faking veitnam war wounds, blowjobs, Michael Jackson, or some guy killing his young wife.
I may have said this before, but we have a tabloid media. It's all about who can sell the most advertising. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2004 : 06:33:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
I don't know much about the fairness doctrine but it sounds like it was infringing on free speech rights. Why should any independant radio station be forced to air programming they do not want or agree with. There are balanced left wing stations but they do not draw the audience that right wing stations do. Why should the government tell anybody what they should program as long as its not obscene?
Yes, the major argument against the FD was the free speach issue. However, keep in mind the FD did not LIMIT anyone's speech, ever. It merely required MORE speech - the opportunity to rebut partisan political arguments by opposing opinions. The intent was to avoid the brainwashing effect you get when you listen to the same opinion over and over again, every day, unchallenged. When mass media came out, it was obvious what a powerful and dangerous tool it could be to sway public opinion one way or another and the FCC took steps to ensure this would not happen. Well, Reagan thought he knew better and guess what, he was wrong.
quote:
Maybe your family and other conservatives just have different opinions than yours. I hear alot from liberal people that if you are conservative then you cannot be thinking for yourself. Because if you did you would have to be a liberal because they are always right. Utter nonsense. Everybody thinks for themselves, some aggree with radio talk shows and some do not. To hear a balancing view, listen to Al Franken. (Although he also supresses the whole truth).
You know, the change in the family views was startling. I shit you not, my father's rather sudden jump to the extreme right in his political opinions coincided with the local AM radio station - which he'd been listening to since before I was born - started carrying Rush Limbaugh every day. At first I couldn't figure out what the hell was going on. He'd suddenly become this alien and I didn't know Rush's program was on that station yet. Believe me - the change was sudden and startling.
quote:
Are you saying that you want the government to regulate what radio stations must program? Sounds like that could fuel the decline of our freedoms.
I believe the FD was a good idea - a necessity. "The pen is mightier than the sword." That phrase was coined before mass media via the EM spectrum and really referred to the communication of ideas to mass audiences, I assume, via newsprint. Well, radio in particular makes news print look harmless by comparison. I don't think any speech should be limited - just balanced and expanded. Opinions expressed on radio and tv should be balanced by oposing POVs. There is absolutely no threat to personal freedom in this - unless it's the freedom to brainwash by the million that you're thinking about. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/27/2004 06:35:06 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2004 : 11:59:48 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote:quote:
I hear alot from liberal people that if you are conservative then you cannot be thinking for yourself. Because if you did you would have to be a liberal because they are always right. Utter nonsense.
Absolutely correct, Robb. Don't know where you're finding the lots of "liberal people," but if you're reporting their statements accurately, they're idiots to be avoided.
There are extremists of all sorts, Robb. By the above, I would say you've found some liberal extremists, who should not be taken as being representative of the norm. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2004 : 13:52:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Don't know where you're finding the lots of "liberal people," but if you're reporting their statements accurately, they're idiots to be avoided.
I admit thay most of the liberal people I speak of are my own family. They tend to be real left leaning and I am the only one that I know of that is religious or conservative in my family. My generalization of most liberals probably was not founded in any fact. I should have said most liberals I know.
quote:
There are extremists of all sorts, Robb. By the above, I would say you've found some liberal extremists, who should not be taken as being representative of the norm.
I agree. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
