Skip to main content

View Diary: RedState jumps yet another shark (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's part of the problem.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, sinlady, Lashe, henna218

    I can't even figure out how this is supposedly showing bias. If this isn't fictional, it's basically some guy pointing out that the Republican leadership is filled with sleazeballs. That doesn't take bias to see, does it?

    •  sure it is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timroff, steve davis

      If you work in the news media, you're not supposed to demonstrate any political agenda.

      CBS will discipline this person, and correctly.

      •  It's a valid point, but who on EArth (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson

        is this guy, and who on Earth is he sending the e-mail to? There's no greeting, no close, nobody in the "to" line.

      •  Since when? (0+ / 0-)

        Since 1987, that isn't true.

        Brit Hume is a pathological liar. Pass it on.

        by slippytoad on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:14:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  Reagan's FCC guts Fairness in Media Act (0+ / 0-)

            Which used to require that any political commentator had to be actually balanced by someone from the opposition.  Rush Limbaugh went on the air right after that.

            Brit Hume is a pathological liar. Pass it on.

            by slippytoad on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:40:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It was a bad law. (0+ / 0-)

              I prefer the First Amendment to judicially-enforced centrism.

              •  Not necessarily (0+ / 0-)

                I like the First Amendment as much as the next guy, and I respect it along with all the other Amendments. However, these are our PUBLIC airwaves, and it is not too audacious of us to ask that they not be used (indeed, abused) to bamboozle us. When someone comes into my house, I feel quite justified to ask them to step outside if they want to smoke.

                I suppose the "public ownership of airwaves" may be considered a technicality, but I would point out that the use of airwaves is exclusive. That is, if Channel 13 chooses to exercise its First Amendment right to lie about Clinton's approach to terrorism, nobody can broadcast on that channel pointing out how Bush really screwed the pooch instead. Sure, another channel could broadcast this information, but there is a very limited number of these channels. That adds a restriction beyond what is in place for, say, printed word or just shouting off a soapbox on an intersection. Granted, there is a financial barrier to entry to all mass media channels (cost of a print press for paper or a transmitter for radio/TV), but in case of the broadcast media there is also an issue of limited number of channels available.

                So if I have a choice to read New York Times instead of Washington Times, or pick up LA Times if I don't like either, there are far fewer choices in the broadcast medium. That is why controlling the way in which the broadcast spectrum is used is not a bad proposition.

                (-3.50, -5.23) Spam is G-d's revenge for all our prayers

                by mgoltsman on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 10:18:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  except . . . (0+ / 0-)

                  . . . if you don't like the choices in the broadcast spectrum, you can get your news elsewhere.  The Internet really renders this all moot, no?

                  •  Internet is just a better newspaper (0+ / 0-)

                    With or without the Internet, the broadcast spectrum is unique in both its power and its exclusive use model. And that is why it makes sense to regulate speech in broadcasting in the interest of the public, more so than in print or on the Internet.

                    The root of the problem, though, is corporate ownership of the media. With all news and commentary reduced to infotainment, simulcast nationwide from two or three sources, even the fairness doctrine would be reduced to rabid drooling morons barking at each other. With the current model, you have one rabid drooling moron barking at the camera. Not much changes, either way, news competes directly with Jerry Springer...

                    (-3.50, -5.23) Spam is G-d's revenge for all our prayers

                    by mgoltsman on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 11:28:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

                Powerfully.  The fallout of gutting Fairness in Media has been a toxic media environment in which all kinds of horribly biased information has been just showered on the public, and it has utterly ruined the culture of political civility I very clearly recall growing up in.  At the very least it kept people like Limbaugh marginalized.  The extremism, dishonesty, and nastiness now pervading our body politic is the root cause of why Republicans were able to take power in 1994, and why our nation has suffered so much as a result since.

                Brit Hume is a pathological liar. Pass it on.

                by slippytoad on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 12:37:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (165)
  • Community (76)
  • 2016 (49)
  • Environment (48)
  • Elections (46)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • Culture (41)
  • Republicans (40)
  • Hillary Clinton (34)
  • Climate Change (33)
  • Media (33)
  • Education (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (29)
  • Labor (28)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Law (25)
  • Congress (25)
  • Science (24)
  • Spam (24)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site