So, you would trust Rush Limbaugh to give a fair and honest airing of an issue, adequately representing an opposing view?
Is it true that Nazism was a form of Socialism?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
So, you would trust Rush Limbaugh to give a fair and honest airing of an issue, adequately representing an opposing view?
If Limbaugh were required to provide an honest airing of an issue, I'm sure he could or he could learn. Because if he didn't, the radio companies which broadcast his program would have their licences revoked. Whether I trust him or not isn't the issue; it's irrelevant. Under the Fairness Doctrine he either produces a fair and honest airing of the issues or he doesn't. And if he doesn't, the stations which broadcast his program boot him off the air or they lose their licences. Under the Fairness Doctrine he is either fair and honest or he isn't. It really is that simple.
But who's to decide the honesty and fairness of the presentation?
My personal opinion is that news reporting should be objective with all the facts. Commentary, on the other hand, not so much. Your opinion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
News reporting should be objective and honest with all the relevant facts. Commentary should be fair and balanced. Both sides should have a fair chance to air their commentary, and you see that in the mainstream media. You don't see that on Fox News, One America, or Republican, i.e. right wing, radio.
you don't believe CNN, MSNBC, ABS, Hufington Post, etc don't pull on their liberal strings when reporting?
I don't. I've seen no indication of that whatsoever. CNN has a penchant towards sensationalism, but they do report all the facts. And they try to be fair and balanced. MSNBC airs openly conservative programs like Morning Joe which is hosted by Joe Scarborough who is about as right wing as you can get. But also hosts programs like Rachel Maddow who is quite liberal. But even so, unlike right wing media, Maddow doesn't publish fake or false news and she honestly presents the other side. I don't know who ABS is. I read Huffington Post and they have never not been truthful in their published material. They uphold high journalistic standards.
CNN, ABC,the majority of MSNBC, are rightwing biased - solidly. Huffington Post is an aggregator site, and employs no professional journalists. It was founded in part by Andrew Breitbart, with corresponding attitudes toward "truth" vs "revenue" - a position which ensures its basic friendliness to corporate interests in general.
The more objective the news reporting, the farther to the "left" it will be ranked by the standard surveys in the US.
That is why the Wall Street Journal - whose readers have real money riding on its reporting - ranks as "leftwing" in surveys of its news reporting, despite being extremely rightwing (in those same surveys) on its editorial pages.
That is why Scientific American ranks as "leftwing" in most such surveys as well.
It would seem that people are sensing a "bias" in the reporting, which probably explains the survey results.
I don't read it and have no opinion about its politics.
I had a subscription years back before the online experience. I don't recall any feeling about it's political leaning.
I believe people are starting to learn they can't take at face value what they see on television. Moreover, read the article and not just the headline. In our world of instant information people have become consumers of soundbites, which places us at a disadvantage.
Exactly. Sober and conscientious and honest reporting of physical facts and historical or political events is felt as a leftwing and/or "liberal" bias by the majority of Americans, and described that way by all major public evaluators of news media except the overtly "left" and/or "liberal" ones.
No, they aren't. They are learning to take for granted the rightwing authoritarian framing of all issues (as imposed by the corporate ownership of 90% of the American news feed) as the context within which they evaluate what they see on TV.
Look at the OP, here. From an historical fact based or event evaluating point of view, it's crazy talk - the great capitalist industrial base of the German economy in the 1930s was world famous, its opposition to socialist governance rooted in generations of conflict and hostility with the trade union movement. What the Nazis did to the trade unions is recorded event: http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/today-in-labor-history-nazis-destroy-unions/
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...errod-brown-says-hitler-stalin-and-mubarek-a/
So how is it that something like the OP can exist in the public discussion, in the US? How is it that simply posting a timeline of the recorded doings of the German government during the Third Reich and a factual description of the industrial organization that supplied and supported Germany's war effort up to and during WWII, is a "left" response to the OP?
Last edited:
Yes. Reality has a well-known liberal bias. Look at the liberal climate, which continues to warm despite denials by right wingers. Or liberal strains of pathogens, which continue to evolve resistance to antibiotics despite right wing demands to "teach both [creationism and evolution] and let kids decide." Or the state of the Trump administration, with its contradictory announcements, disgraced appointees resigning and concern over Trump's denials over his contacts with Russia.
Thus, objective reporting on what is actually happening with respect to those topics is seen as biased. A truly unbiased (i.e. not helpful to either side) news outlet would have to avoid reporting on such topics altogether.
Both excellent bits of advice.
Transcript or forget it. Nobody should have to sit through those things and extract the various places they turn to bs, and then try to get some video-hypnotized wingie to bear down on a chain of reasoning, on a science forum.
certainly you're not obligated to watch or appreciate. The beauty of the internet is that everything is optional, just like turning off the television.
(1) You know, if it's not important enough to you to put in some effort to explain your point, why should your point be important to anyone else?
(2) Lazy SEO is lazy SEO.
I could rehash what others can say more eloquently than myself. Honestly, could I have said it better than the gentlemen in the above videos? Also, I believe video a much more impressive method for conveying an idea than simply throwing out some text. I mean, I've seen your posts and find myself yawning midway before I give up and moving on to the next post. The video option is available, so I use it. Again, I am twisting no ones arm.
I commissioned two videos for this site. They're short. However, they convey a very simple idea that really is relevant in these odd days.