The 'Tailored' News Experience by Righteous9

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The 'Tailored' News Experience

POSTED BY: RIGHTEOUS9
UPDATED: Sunday, October 24, 2010 10:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 438
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, October 24, 2010 7:01 AM

Piggybacking this off of the Juan Williams controversy...

There isn't much room in politics these days for a non-partisan issue to exist. This is an attempt to create one, kind of.

Here is one thing that I think both liberal's and conservatives can agree on. The other side has control of the media, its motivations are nefarious, its interests special, and its listeners, brain-washed sheeple.

While the devil might be in the details as to which of us is actually correct or whether we are both wrong,we can probably all agree that we are choosing the news we listen to based upon our ideologies. I might watch FOX here and there for a laugh, or to gag at their methods, but if I want to trust the news I'm getting I'll listen to Olberman or Maddow.

I'm willing to gamble that there is a recipricol feeling on this matter from those on the right. That's fine and dandy. We can both get our news from whomever we want to. This is America by God, and its our right to be misinformed. More power to the half of our populace that is being led to the river of cool-aide, and lapping it up without a second thought.

Except that we supposedly live in a democracy/republic, where an informed populace is neccesary to effective, constitutioal governance. We can't afford to have this many wrong headed people making policy with their votes, can we?

But then we all do and should have the right to vote. The question I put to you, is should we all be entitled to being fed back our own filtered version of the truth as we already know it? Should news distributors be allowed to present world events from morning to night, through a blue or red lens?

Of course I'm not talking about mandating a message. No side can agree on what the right message is, and something like that would be horribly abusable, or simply atrophying to political thought.

What I am talking about is something akin to the Fairness Doctrine. That doctrine, while seeming pretty toothless to me, set out guidelines for carriers of the news, charging them with the responsibility of giving time to controversial perspectives. This seems to have been done with the appreciation that the airwaves were limited and public, and I know that the area gets grayer when it comes to mandating cable(though cable has been run through our streets at the consent of government-satelite still circumvents that technicality).

I am greatly concerned with the lack of middle ground we find ourselves with these days, our inability to identify with half of the people who we are supposed to look at as our fellow Americans. This phenomenon, while not at all new, seems to be driven almost entirely by a partisanship in the news and opinion we let ourselves receive. The focused nature of the messages, and their sheer ability to proliferate everywhere does make this a different time though.

I think it would be good for both sides, and America as a whole, if there were more debate on TV and in any media, and more of a standing opportunity to rebuttal points being made on any given program. As such, I think there should be legal guidelines, not on what you can broadcast or print, but on what you must do in order to legally label your paper, or your station, News(parody aside of course). If an informed populace is the active ingredient in democracy, then I think laws could and should be made in the interest of that ideal.

I don't know what those guidelines should be exactly, and my concerns do go a long way to making any such laws problematic:

Who gets to speak, when. If somebody does news on Fred Phelps, does that mean he gets free air-time to come on and defend himself? Seems like he would love that. If he doesn't have that right, then how are we drawing the line? Are green party activists, and anarchists and tea partiers(not that they have to worry), to be considered fringe by the regulatory authority, and thus not entitled to time for their views? Not that most of those groups get any air time now though, so I'm not sure how regressive any such law would be.

I suspect that the stance of republicans and libertarians, and probably the anarchists on this matter is that such regulatory meddling is not wise, even though Republicans, and especially tea-baggers, seem to think this country is going to hell in a handbasket because of liberals, who are being fed communist manifestos through the airwaves in order to pacify them and America for the coming jihad.

I would put the question to conservatives then, if you truly believe that liberals own the air-waves, that their message is full of lies, and that the result of those lies is the near destruction of our nation, why wouldn't you see as paramount, the need to make sure the truth gets to that other 40 percent of the population? Why wouldn't you see as good policy something that demands of its news that it be news, at least in its obligation to be cross-examined?

I think this topic will probably break party lines a bit, so hopefully I'll learn something from those who have an opinion on the matter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 24, 2010 7:58 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Over here in the UK we have an 'impartiality' requirement for television news, and a regulatory body to enforce it; I posted a thread about it not a while ago, as it was actually news to me: http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=44767

The broadcaster is mandated to present both sides of any issue, and give facts not opinion (Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation are bitterly against it - read into that what you will).

Quote:
I would put the question to conservatives then, if you truly believe that liberals own the air-waves, that their message is full of lies, and that the result of those lies is the near destruction of our nation, why wouldn't you see as paramount, the need to make sure the truth gets to that other 40 percent of the population? Why wouldn't you see as good policy something that demands of its news that it be news, at least in its obligation to be cross-examined?

I suspect many conservatives wouldn't trust any kind of regulatory body, they're used to feeling victimised by a 'liberal media bias', and this sense of victimisation would transfer over to a media regulator that perhaps might come down more heavily on FOX than on other networks...

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 24, 2010 8:58 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

right, I imagine that would be a valid concern for both parties, as in the way politicing in churches has been selectively investigated by the IRS(I think it was the IRS).

I figured that this would be why libertarians and anarchists would most distrust such a body, but not neccesarily republicans. If their conclusions as to the state of media are correct, then those piping from the left are so obviously at fault, that it would be easy to generate enough attention to the issue if they didn't clean up their act. They would be in violation of FCC regulations, a body whose members are peopled by the party in charge,which half the time is the republicans.

I would like the guidelines or mandates to be so straight forward that there isn't much room for interpretation on the part of an agency, but I'm not sure how possible that is. Who gets to say that the conservative MSNBC puts on to "clear the air" isn't "really" a conservative? Maybe he's a puppet for the left made to make conservatives look bad, or intended to extremify the conservative view-point...etc.

Maybe its as simple as letting the other side determine who they believe speaks on their behalf, but I'm still not sure who specifically, or what specific group, would be the authority to make that judgement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 24, 2010 9:16 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
I would put the question to conservatives then, if you truly believe that liberals own the air-waves, that their message is full of lies, and that the result of those lies is the near destruction of our nation, why wouldn't you see as paramount, the need to make sure the truth gets to that other 40 percent of the population? Why wouldn't you see as good policy something that demands of its news that it be news, at least in its obligation to be cross-examined?

That's what I've always wondered; if the "Fairness Doctrine" would guarantee equal time to both sides of an issue *on the liberally-biased airwaves*, then why WOULDN'T the conservatives want it? Why do they fight so vehemently against it?

Could it be that the airwaves AREN'T as liberal-biased as we've been led to believe?

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 24, 2010 10:23 AM

DREAMTROVE

Olberman or Maddow are just as much cretin tools as Hannity and Beck. I don't have any use for any of them. I trust Al Jazeera more that I trust MSM. That said, I don't trust Al Jazeera. I'm even suspicious of Alex Jones. I think he might be part of the conspiracy.

Niki just mentioned Jon Stewart. He's reasonably trustworthy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE