RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (1/16/2009 7:00:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
Less right wing stuff ... has tended to fail in the marketplace.


       Depends on the media, Phil.  Talk radio and daytime television are going after completely different audiences.  Look at the difference in the commercials. The "you are owed" school of thought pretty well dominates the market segment that lives on the couch. 



Sanity -> RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (1/16/2009 7:03:45 AM)


Happy Friday mystery lady, whoever you are... [;)]



Owner59 -> RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (1/16/2009 7:58:44 AM)

Talk radio is where right wingy stuff thrives(presently).It`s not anything like music radio or college radio,the papers or TV.

It`s like a train wreck or clown act that`s entertaining b/c of it`s over the top/bombastic/rabble rousing content.

It`s political pornography,character assassination and since 9/11,bigotry against Arabs and Muslims.It`s where republicans go and receive most of the ridiculous theories and notions that we hear repeated.


Some examples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH6GqgqR5A4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68KfsDiYBq0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpUxxls8iiE

The song Rush played (many times)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZyPaivOARM&feature=related

Rush on Michael J Fox  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THcVQOcJDEM

The audience wants red meat and blood on the floor and Rush and the rest deliver it daily.It`s the controversy and "sexy story"thing that sells soap on talk radio(presently).

Anyone referring to the "fairness doctrine" is primarily talking about the talk radio market.It`s there,where this paranoid obsession lives and feeds.Check out the last vid.

But it`s a meaningless point because the market is what`s tempering this political pornography.

The market is sifting away from the political "Jerry Springer Show" and is selling more soap to more center and progressive audiences, all on it`s own.The fairness doctrine isn`t even neccessary.But there will always be a right-wing orientated segment of the market. that we be served.

It`s almost thought of by some as conservative territory or the property of the right,(but soap sellers(advertisers) don`t really care about the content as long as they sell soap.They`ll buy ad time on center,center left programing all the same).


This guy will give anyone interested,a psychologist`s eye view of the mindset and paranoia of talk-radio and it`s listeners.
This is where all the "fairness doctrine"(something non-existent) malarkey comes from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDHILDpIqos



kittinSol -> RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (1/16/2009 8:02:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Happy Friday mystery lady, whoever you are... [;)]



Now, I'm jealous of tulip [&o] .



lronitulstahp -> RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (1/16/2009 8:35:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Happy Friday mystery lady, whoever you are... [;)]



Now, I'm jealous of tulip [&o] .
fait accompli....[:)]
xo...kittin



Sanity -> RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (1/16/2009 8:41:18 AM)


Ladies, ladies... I'm sure some way to make everyone happy is not only a possibility, but also something that could be very beautiful to behold... [:)]

But perhaps we should get a room before the Moderator joins in with her own unique style of kink... which unfortunately, not everyone can appreciate.

Hmm?



philosophy -> RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (1/16/2009 8:42:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArticMaestro

Would that mean if someone were to say for example, " Hitler was a great guy and a shining example of the best of Humanity.  The Jews were dogs and deserved to be exterminated" (trying to be as offensive as possible), a statement would have to follow that Genocidal Nazism is a valid ideological choice.  There is no objective proof that Genocide is bad."?


.....sometimes i think people don't actually read my posts. Following the logic i laid out, such a piece suggesting that Hitler was a great guy would not be followed by a disclaimer that agrees with the piece. It wouyld state the counter position. A statement saying that many find Nazism an abhorrent ideology and that Genocide is illegal in pretty much every juridstiction world-wide. 'A' for partisanship, but 'E' for comprehension i'm afraid.

quote:

Or would there have to be some sort of Legally empowered Governemnt body that would decide which statements are true and protected and those that are not? 


...already exists, it's called the courts. Call someone a murderer, get sued for libel and...bingo!......there's your legally empowered Government body.

quote:

You produce a show, then send it of to someone to be reviewed, and edited with the proper disclaimers, then it is is sent back and can be broadcast.   You are fucking kidding right.....


....welcome to freedom of speech, you are by definition not going to like everything people have to say.

Few people are going to agree with both Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore.....but, i'd hope, most people accept that both have a right to their opinions.



kittinSol -> RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (1/16/2009 8:57:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Ladies, ladies... I'm sure some way to make everyone happy is not only a possibility, but also something that could be very beautiful to behold... [:)]

But perhaps we should get a room before the Moderator joins in with her own unique style of kink... which unfortunately, not everyone can appreciate.

Hmm?



Hmmmmmmmmmm, I just sighed. Let's make sure there aren't any journos eavesdropping behind the walls: I hear tulip is seriously loud, and I'm not that desperate to prove the point that the press should be free to report on absolutely everything [8D].



ArticMaestro -> RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (1/16/2009 11:29:53 AM)

So any statement that involved a law would be judged in the light that the law is allways correct.  For instance since Gay Marriage is illegal (in most places, just like Genocide),  an attempt to argue Gay Marriage is good, would be exposed to thousands of lawsuits, over whether or not the disclaimer was proper and covered everything?    Which the advocates of GM would have to pay to defend against.   Or any media that gave a voice to an advocate of Gay Marriage.  

I just don't get it Philo.   As you are saying this it would apply to movies and TV (Micheal Moore), as well as radio.  The computer?  Why wouldn't it. 

It seems like passing a law opening Rush And Moore to hundreds of thousands of Lawsuits would silence them.  It would be a massive supression of Speech and the flow of Ideas.  We could sue each other over this chat...

It would either open the gates for untold numbers of lawsuits over virtually everything, or it require the setting up of a gate keeping media board, which would defacto be a censoring board.


I hope the Democrats are dumb enough to push through.

Its a right of free speech, not a right to be listened to.



rulemylife -> RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (1/16/2009 12:20:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArticMaestro

So any statement that involved a law would be judged in the light that the law is allways correct.  For instance since Gay Marriage is illegal (in most places, just like Genocide),  an attempt to argue Gay Marriage is good, would be exposed to thousands of lawsuits, over whether or not the disclaimer was proper and covered everything?    Which the advocates of GM would have to pay to defend against.   Or any media that gave a voice to an advocate of Gay Marriage.  

I just don't get it Philo.   As you are saying this it would apply to movies and TV (Micheal Moore), as well as radio.  The computer?  Why wouldn't it. 

It seems like passing a law opening Rush And Moore to hundreds of thousands of Lawsuits would silence them.  It would be a massive supression of Speech and the flow of Ideas.  We could sue each other over this chat...

It would either open the gates for untold numbers of lawsuits over virtually everything, or it require the setting up of a gate keeping media board, which would defacto be a censoring board.


I hope the Democrats are dumb enough to push through.

Its a right of free speech, not a right to be listened to.


Just out of idle curiosity, have you ever actually read what the Fairness Doctrine requires?

Because it sounds like you're just spouting what Rush and O'Reilly have told you is the truth.

After all, they're really honest, straightforward guys who have no vested interest in the matter to keep their ratings up.



ArticMaestro -> RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (1/16/2009 3:39:16 PM)

I am not aware that there actually is a specific bill of what the fairness doctrine would entail.  I asked any supporter of it to explain to me, what it would actually do, and how it would work.  Philosophy is the only who responded. 

Rule my life, If you would like to educate me (and everyone else who has the wrong idea of what the law would do), I would be very appreciative. 



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (1/16/2009 3:57:45 PM)

So the fairness doctrine will correct this how? Do you believe that offensive thoughts and comments should be regulated?

Let's see if you can answer either one or both of these questions directly. You often do not answer my questions directly, and some you have ignored all together.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The audience wants red meat and blood on the floor and Rush and the rest deliver it daily.It`s the controversy and "sexy story"thing that sells soap on talk radio(presently).




gman992 -> RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information (1/20/2009 12:18:22 AM)

Sometimes security is a necessity. For instance, back during the Clinton years, the administration had an excellent way of tracking Bin Laden. They were intercepting signals from his satelitte phone. Until one day, the Washington Post said that Clinton Administration was tracking Bin Laden because of signals from his satellite phone. Guess who turned off his phone and never used it again after he read that article?

Besides, the press really doesn't care about finding the truth, they only care about glorifying themselves. The FBI and the Congress knew more about Watergate then Woodward and Bernstein ever did.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625