The Propaganda Must Be Stoped In order To Move Forward

[bonito]

This is the one major issue that has to be dealt with it's been the foundation and operational procedure for the last eight years and it WILL undermine every step along the way forward if it's not put in check.

Just calling it as I see it, and hope it's addressed.

[Ken Burch]

1. Er, whose propagand, and regarding what?

I appreciate you speaking out, but if you're going to "call it as you see it", you need to tell us what IT is.

[bonito]

4. For starters

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/ there's more

[RC]

8. Oreilly is so full of shit I had to cut him off.

[bonito]

13. Me too but you're a in minority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

[marmar]

2. As must the ambiguous posts !!!!

:think:

[bonito]

5. Not so on main street media

we've learned to ignore.

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/

[sandnsea]

3. One man's propaganda

is another man's 9/11 Was An Inside Job theory.

Or woman.

:shrug:

[NeedleCast]

6. Hooray Fascism!

Man, this place has been full of threads calling for silencing of anyone who disagrees with us.

Do you really not think about what you're asking for?

[bonito]

7. The Fairness Doctrine, where money talks the truth is silenced

In the 110th Congress (2007-2009), where Democrats hold a majority of both Houses, no legislation to restore the Fairness Doctrine has been introduced.

In 2007, Senator Norm Coleman (Republican of Minnesota) proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that forbade the FCC from "using any funds to adopt a fairness rule." <32> It was blocked, in part on grounds that "the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction".

In the same year, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 was proposed in the Senate by Senators Coleman with 35 co-sponsors (S.1748) and John Thune (Republican of South Dakota) with 8 co-sponsors (S.1742) <33> and in the House by Republican Representative Mike Pence of Indiana with 208 co-sponsors (H.R. 2905).<34> It provided that

the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).<35>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[NeedleCast]

9. What about it?

Are you claiming that there are no alternatives to right-wing talking heads?

[bonito]

11. Of course there are alternatives for those who look for it

But not for the average msm viewing citizen don't you know?

[NeedleCast]

14. That's not the fault of the talking-heads

or the media outlets that choose to broadcast them.

The fairness doctrine, from what I've read about it, essentially prevented most media outlets from airing "controversial" information from either side. Which, in effect, limited their usefulness. If ditto heads want to sit around fapping it to Rush or O-liely, that's their prerogative. You can't force education or awareness on people. They just resent you for trying in most cases.

Not to mention the fact that its just not that hard to find left programing. Keith, Rachel...not hard to find these shows.

[bonito]

15. No

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable, and balanced.

It's all there.

[NeedleCast]

18. I'm well aware of what it is

but what it did was usually not what it was designed to do. Further, it didn't really specify in what way a balance was to be achieved.

Ultimately, even re-introducing the Fairness Doctrine isn't going to make right-wing talking heads go away, and its not likely to make the 20%'ers who supported Bush to change their minds. They'll keep watching Rush and I'll keep watching Keith.

[bonito]

20. Ah, it was Mc Caine

The balance doesn't have to be specified, just presented for the public to decide that's all.

[NeedleCast]

21. Sorry, you've lost me

It was McCain? What was McCain?

[stillcool]

16. What alternatives are there?

there are so few news services in this country, and they are as untrustworthy as the people on the tv screen. It is so easy to manage perception. One story on the net sky-rockets a false-hood into concrete reality.

[bonito]

17. That's the problem that needs to recognized

and addressed and not so difficult to comprehend, Thanks!

[stillcool]

19. it's truly amazing..

there's a big frigging world out there, and it's getting harder and harder to find credible information about what's going on out there, even on the net. Seems like one step forward and a flying leap backwards.

[RC]

12. Why is the truth so antithetical to the Right?

Is it because they are reality challenged and have no idea of how bad things would be for them if they every got everything they wanted?

[emilyg]

22. I've noticed. Disturbing.

[defendandprotect]

10. "Eight years . .. no . . . more like four decades . . .