Log In | Register
U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in Congress, said Sunday the deadly shooting in Arizona should get the country thinking about what's acceptable to say publicly and when people should keep their mouths shut.
Clyburn said he thinks vitriol in public discourse led to a 22-year-old suspect opening fire Saturday at an event Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords held for her constituents in Tucson, Ariz. Six people were killed and 14 others were injured, including Giffords.
The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use 'better judgment.'
'Free speech is as free speech does,' he said. 'You cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and call it free speech and some of what I hear, and is being called free speech, is worse than that.'
Rep. James Clyburn wants to use the Tucson tragedy to call for the return of the Fairness Doctrine
Article Source: outsidethebeltway.com- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (21)
For years the debate of the Fairness Doctrine has raged, but this... using the Tucson tragedy to push this is just beyond lowness. Then to find out that his daughter is employed by the FCC, who would oversee this.....
Jim Clyburn aren't you supposed to represent the people of South Carolina and not shout fire when there isn't one?
- 2 votes
#1 - Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:08 PM ESTHow do you know the people of SC don't WANT the fairness doctrine? Are you God? Do you know the minds of his constituents? If they want it, he's representing their interests by pushing for it.
Z1P2, I am one of his constituents and allowed to express my opinion. Thank you for bringing that up.
So you are one of how many? And you think you know the minds of all the others because you think yourself God? Well you're not God. Thanks for understanding that the way you wrote that statement earlier is the height of arrogance and borderlining on blasphemy.
Oh the horror - trying to counter the endless pile of verbal vomit that goes unchecked every minute with some opposing viewpoints.
Good for Clyburn. Keep fighting the good fight.
- 3 votes
#2 - Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:32 PM ESTmadvargr, There is an endless variety of talk radio available on the AM dial. Room enough for all political points of view. To try and "balance" it unnaturally will just kill all talk radio and stifle voices. Let the market bear what the market will bear. If you do not want to listen to one opinion, change the dial manually.
#3 - Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:39 PM ESTThe Fairness Doctrine is a must and here's a brief why. Rupert Murdock has way too much control over the air waves because he OWNS the bulk of them or nearly so. His broadcasters are going to broadcast in a manner that satisfies him because he is the one who ultimatelyapproves the paychecks. The past 2010 General Election is an example, Palin is an example, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh... ...ALL DISTORT information a very perverse and diabolical way. A lot of real bad things are and have been happenning in our country. We need well inform, unbiased and factual information coming from everywhere. Not this twisted up crap. We need real solutions that are based upon the facts and NOT conjectures. Look around folks, this country is really screwed up. Where did most of this crap that has occurred originate from? Most (but not all), MOST of it came from Rupert Murdock's holdings. That's where.
- 2 votes
#4 - Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:46 PM ESTSarah Palin, Stephanie Miller, Rush Limbaugh, Ed Shultz are all paid political personalities. They do not hold office. They are as entitled to their opinions as you and I are. If the only reason you're supporting the Fairness Doctrine is to end free speech at least be honest about your motives.
- 1 vote
Thank you, Gypsywych, for bringing this to our attention. I will be mass mailing a memo to all Democratic Congress, Supreme Court, District Court, US & State Attorney Generals AND the current Democrat White House showing endorsement and support for the return of a MORE IMPROVED "Fairness Doctrine" as well as for more stringent "Truth in Advertising" and "Truthful News Media" legislations and regulations.
- 1 vote
MSNBC, CNN, CBS ... ... will be getting memos also. Wanna bet they will support this effort?
- 1 vote
You're welcome Tom! Be sure to mark your endorsement for repealing the First Amendment as well. Truth in Advertising, you know.
Say whatever you want, so long as its based on facts and not baloney. Not taking away the freedom of speech, but I am discouraging the 'lie' part of it. Lies and distortions and inflammatory and prejudiced media coverage ARE the cornerstones of corruption.
Re-read your #4 post Tom. You said specifically you wanted to shut down talk radio because you think that Rupert Murdock owns too many of them.
Your distortion is another man's opinion. The shows you referenced aren't meant to be NEWS, they are opinion based, and the shows themselves rely on ratings. If you don't like what's being said, don't listen. Change that dial.
Shutting them up because you don't like it, well that's wrong.
Nobody wants to shut down anything.
All we want is that if a conservative radio station gives 4 hours each for Rush, Glenn, Sean, Laura, Phil, Michael, Michael, Billo, Janet, Bill, Mark, Fred, Jay, Dennis, Hugh, Mark, Dennis, Jay, or Neil, you have to give equal time to those whose opinions differ.
You know, like fair...and balanced.
Nobody said talking heads can't keep shovelling their crap, just that someone be given equal time to explain why it is crap.
- 2 votes
Actually madvargr.... Tom did say exactly that.
Fair and balanced won't come from the Fairness Doctrine. Fair and balanced comes from what the market will bear. There are progressive talk radio shows on the radio airwaves, they sell advertising. Advertising brings in revenue, the show gets renewed. It works the same with conservative talk radio. So if you want fair and balanced, support the local talk radio show of your choice. THAT is fair, and balanced.
No, I do not want to shut down talk radio. We need to get 'civility with factual reasoning' back into the picture. It's the Propaganda part of it. The negative end of it. There are 'correct' answers to the problems as they are presented. Think of what can be done if we all cooperate AND NOT work against each other.
- 1 vote
How will the Fairness Doctrine do that Tom? Because what I'm hearing from you and madvargr is that you want the Fairness Doctrine back so you can drown out the "crap" you don't like.
How will the Fairness Doctrine bring civility back? How will the Fairness Doctrine get rid of propaganda on either side? Who's version of correct answer, Tom? Mine or yours?
Yes, there is a lot to be accomplished in this country. We do all need to work together. Trying to shut one side up isn't the answer.
Markets?
LOL
I like that you think the rise of right wing talk radio is solely due to market forces. THAT'S COMEDY.
I love how I'm supposed to allow the public discourse in my country be determined by a handful of extremely wealthy Ayn Rand acolytes. Did you catch my link above? There are consequences to unchallenged supremacy of one side's propaganda. Don't deceive yourself that it is about free speech - it is about programming a population with a reactionary viewpoint that apologizes for the economic rape of all of us at the hands of a very few.
Allowing alternative viewpoints in the public arena is the only way to ensure a vibrant and long lived democratic republic. It's a lot harder to demonize those you know first hand. Without a return to the Fairness Doctrine, the US doesn't have much longer.
I don't understand why you think allowing Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow equal time after Rush is taking away Rush's right to speech.
- 2 votes
Allowing alternative viewpoints in the public arena is the only way to ensure a vibrant and long lived democratic republic. It's a lot harder to demonize those you know first hand. Without a return to the Fairness Doctrine, the US doesn't have much longer.....
I don't understand why you think allowing Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow equal time after Rush is taking away Rush's right to speech
Given the fact that you know who Rachel and Ed are, I have to assume that they and their alternate viewpoints are out there on the airwaves to be heard. So pray tell how are their viewpoints being denied now? How are they not being allowed equal time? Please elaborate on how they are some how not allowed to speak.
You misunderstand me. I'm perfectly happy to give them all the airwave time they can handle. If Rachel or Ed want to get on WKRV 24/7, more power to them. If the radio station can pay them, if the advertising pays their salary I am sure there will be a progressive radio station some where who will take them.
What I don't agree with is forcing radio stations to divide up their programming in an effort to force balance. Legislating what programming and how it has to be programmed on a radio station is prohibitive of free speech.
Tell me, what happens if Conservative A wants to speak for 30 minutes on subject XXX. Well, he can't until the radio station finds Liberal B to also speak for 30 minutes on subject XXX. Do we really want to limit voices to be heard that way?
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
