Re: True of posts, too.
heathcliffe
location: woods
listening to: silence
registered: 2008.11.18
posts: 956
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
While some posts here might border on anger-mongering--I'm not sure just what you have in mind--they nevertheless stand to be refuted as quickly as one having an opposing view reads the offending post.
That's healthy because one side can't dominate the discussion. That's the way it used to be on public broadcasting. To prevent an opinion or report from getting away with erroneous information, the station was obligated to provide an opposing view, to furnish a platform for dissent.
But, as I have written before, Pres Reagan did away with what was called the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. It was either that year or the next that Rush Limbaugh began his EIB broadcasting career. Soon there followed station after station gobbling up Limbaugh's un-challenged points of view.
To make this brief, hatred is far more easily mustered among listeners when only one viewpoint is heard incessantly, day after day on the radio or on TV, than when a moderating view is required to be heard. Things don't get out of hand as they have today.
I won't charge the far right or progressive one-sided broadcasts with responsibility for what happened in Arizona, but I know that they've played a part in generating the hatred one needs to commit such a heinous act. I agree with those who call for a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/113240299.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciatkEP7DhUsl
H
heathcliffe
(view)
While some posts here might border on anger-mongering--I'm not sure just what you have in mind--they nevertheless stand to be refuted as quickly as one having an opposing view reads the offending post.
That's healthy because one side can't dominate the discussion. That's the way it used to be on public broadcasting. To prevent an opinion or report from getting away with erroneous information, the station was obligated to provide an opposing view, to furnish a platform for dissent.
But, as I have written before, Pres Reagan did away with what was called the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. It was either that year or the next that Rush Limbaugh began his EIB broadcasting career. Soon there followed station after station gobbling up Limbaugh's un-challenged points of view.
To make this brief, hatred is far more easily mustered among listeners when only one viewpoint is heard incessantly, day after day on the radio or on TV, than when a moderating view is required to be heard. Things don't get out of hand as they have today.
I won't charge the far right or progressive one-sided broadcasts with responsibility for what happened in Arizona, but I know that they've played a part in generating the hatred one needs to commit such a heinous act. I agree with those who call for a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/113240299.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciatkEP7DhUsl
