When Ron Davis copied my Boycott Hate Radio Sponsors suggestion over at CHATTER, unleashed a flurry of emotional responses. A boycott seems like a most reasonable and civilized response to hate radio. The ability to look at both sides of an issue, and express our viewpoint without having attack dogs loosed on us, is what sets us apart (or used to) from the totalitarian regimes we have battled in two world wars and the focus of our current war on "terror".
To quote Gandhi "Let us not become the evil that we deplore".
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I'm sure the discussion will continue tonight, 7:00 PM at the Patton Alley Pub. Hope to meet you!
Welcome to the group Betty B. Once Ron posts about you, you become a higher traffic area. The comments were very intense at times but that is what happens. I agree that we should keep it more civil and less yelling and name calling.
Let's look at this from the other end:
Say that a liberal has a local morning talking-head show in the Springfield market, and a bunch of conservatives get upset and decide to boycott HIM (or her).
Would the liberal show hosts' supporters have cause to be upset?
Well Anonymous, should that actually happen, in the interest of fair play, you cons need to give us about a 20 year pass, so we can catch up with you. Incalculable damage has been visited on the national psyche by year after year of abusive language from the likes of our home boy Rush. I would actually like to hear someone talk about the issues that so desparately matter to each of us in a thoughtful way.
anon asks: "Would the liberal show hosts' supporters have cause to be upset?"
Not if the liberal show host had been spewing the hate and vitriol which are the standard fare of so many conservative talk radio shows.
The point, dear anon, is to have rational discussions of important issues, not empty heads shouting talking points.
Betty B., thank you for attempting to shine a light of reason on this insanity.
Then it needs to be coming from BOTH sides... civility, that is.
And, personally, I'd rather hear news with NO slant... left OR right.
Anonymous#2, I'm working on another post on media bias. Look for it in the next day or two.
If I may...
Being not a RepubliCrat, I see "media bias" firsthand... most media ignores third-party politics. You have to squint and have a quick eye, to see the election-night coverage show ALL challengers. (General, not primary, unless there's a third-party primary battle, which seems to be rare.)
On the subject of (for instance) radio shows: If it weren't for Neal Boortz, and a few local-market libertarian-flavored shows, we would be at an even greater disadvantage. My arugment against the Fairness Doctrine is, thus: It wouldn't require ALL points of view, but merely those of liberal vs. conservative. Some of us don't fit so easily into those molds.
Hope that made sense... the coffee wore off a long time ago. ;)
Actually, the Fairness Doctrine required "opposing points of view." There was nothing in the language or in FCC rulings that indicated that meant only Republican and Democrat.
Post a Comment