HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » SHOULD POLITICAL SHOWS CA...

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:27 AM

SHOULD POLITICAL SHOWS CARRY DISCLAIMERS?

SHOULD POLITICAL SHOWS CARRY DISCLAIMERS?

Should political radio and TV shows that can't stand behind the accuracy of their “facts” be required to carry disclaimers?

Free speech rights of the stations' owners would be maintained while protecting the public from the election-fraud effect of broadcasts that intentionally or carelessly distort the information that listeners rely on to make voting decisions.

Our top-rated local radio host once let it slip that the motto in talk radio is “Don't let the facts get in the way of the show,” yet, a large percentage of listeners take what they hear as gospel!

Requiring broadcasters to be honest, or admit that they aren't, would go a long way toward fixing the problems of our country and electing officials that represent the people rather than those who benefit from what has become the norm in broadcasting over the past thirty years.

13 replies, 1026 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply SHOULD POLITICAL SHOWS CARRY DISCLAIMERS? (Original post)
JEFF9K Jan 2013 OP
dorkulon Jan 2013 #1
Jamaal510 Jan 2013 #10
Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #2
JEFF9K Jan 2013 #4
Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #5
JEFF9K Jan 2013 #8
RKP5637 Jan 2013 #3
zbdent Jan 2013 #6
JEFF9K Jan 2013 #7
agentS Jan 2013 #9
JEFF9K Jan 2013 #12
FleetwoodMac Jan 2013 #11
JEFF9K Jan 2013 #13

Response to JEFF9K (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:32 AM

1. Just put a sticker on your radio: "Most of what comes out of this device is bullshit."

TV and computer, too. Anyone who believes anything without checking it out for themselves is a fool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:31 AM

10. Which is why Fox News and RW talk radio have been so successful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEFF9K (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:35 AM

2. I would not want the government or corporate executives determining what the facts are

There are lots of liars on the air these days, but on the other hand truth tellers are often accused of lying. I would hate to see a totally fact based presentation have to put up a disclaimer saying the material might be false when in fact it is all true. If they could come up with a fair system in which only the liars had to put up the disclaimer I would be for it, but because I don't see how such a system could be developed in a fair manner I don't think this would work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:47 AM

4. SYSTEM

The FCC would hire statisticians, historians, psychologists, linguists, researchers, etc. to make the determinations. In most cases it would be easy. The dishonest broadcasters and their fans would complain about the cost of hiring these people, but in the long run it would save the country a fortune.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEFF9K (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:52 AM

5. Do you not see the potential for abuse here?

Don't think for a second that the government is going to appoint neutral fact finders. Can you imagine what would happen if the Republicans were in charge of the FCC and got to choose the researchers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:29 PM

8. it can be done

I think it's worth a try. At least every show could carry a disclaimer warning people that the show is entertainment and not to be trusted for making voting decisions. Then maybe waivers could be received for shows with air-tight proof of honesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEFF9K (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:41 AM

3. YES, Fictional Bullshit! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEFF9K (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:53 AM

6. I've noticed that many radio stations carrying "liberal" shows

often broadcast a disclaimer saying that the views of the program do not necessarily reflect that of the station, management, or sponsors.

However, I have NEVER heard such a disclaimer before Rush Limbaugh's show on the local RW ... sorry, AM station ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zbdent (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:23 PM

7. TYPE OF DISCLAIMER

I'm talking about a disclaimer as to the truth of what is being said. Shows that could support their "facts" wouldn't have to carry it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEFF9K (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:13 AM

9. Like the cigarette smoking or Paint huffing package ads

"Warning: Listening to this drivel can be hazardous to your health. Symptoms include: screaming at the radio, hating minorities you've never met in places your ass has never been to, failed marriage, obsessions with firearms, proclivity with believing any bullshit anyone says on said drivel program. If you exhibit warning signs, such as: agreeing with Republicans, arguing with restaurants about the immigration status of the employees, and/or wishing for the halcyon days of your childhood in the 50s, then see a psychologist or Stephanie Miller immediately."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agentS (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:19 PM

12. yes

That should be taken into consideration!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEFF9K (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:13 AM

11. Grassroot activism

To be honest, I would rather have activists, scholars, or even the average joes calling these liars out, by writing, blogging, vlogging or tweeting their lies.

I find it much more effective. Too often, people just ignore these sociopaths, and allow their brand of misinformation to take root and fester within their target demographics.

Disclaimers don't work. Otherwise, no one would've bought Lunesta:
And I would've quit smoking a long, long time ago.

Examples:

• The 935 lies of George W. Bush: http://web.archive.org/web/20080330011841/http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard
• The Lies of Rush Limbaugh: http://web.archive.org/web/20120307223008/http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
• 42 Stupid Alex Jones Predictions :

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:23 PM

13. good, but ...

... but in the meantime so much damage is being done. Getting the toothpaste back into the tube can be nearly impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread