Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Propaganda Must Be Stoped In order To Move Forward

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 09:36 PM
Original message
The Propaganda Must Be Stoped In order To Move Forward
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. For starters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Oreilly is so full of shit I had to cut him off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Me too but you're a in minority
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. As must the ambiguous posts !!!!
:think:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Not so on main street media
Edited on Sat Jan-24-09 10:01 PM by bonito
we've learned to ignore.

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. One man's propaganda
is another man's 9/11 Was An Inside Job theory.

Or woman.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. The Fairness Doctrine, where money talks the truth is silenced
Edited on Sat Jan-24-09 10:16 PM by bonito
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 Committees 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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. What about it?
Are you claiming that there are no alternatives to right-wing talking heads?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Of course there are alternatives for those who look for it
But not for the average msm viewing citizen don't you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #14
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Ah, it was Mc Caine
The balance doesn't have to be specified, just presented for the public to decide that's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Sorry, you've lost me
It was McCain? What was McCain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. That's the problem that needs to recognized
and addressed and not so difficult to comprehend, Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. I've noticed. Disturbing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. "Eight years . .. no . . . more like four decades . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep 17th 2014, 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC