This article made me feel sad and angry to think our freedom of expression may end, along with so many other freedoms we've recently lost.


Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid charged today that liberal “media reform” activists, who expect a Democratic victory in the 2008 presidential election, plan to limit conservative access to the media and force stations to put more left-wingers on the air. Kincaid will report the details of the unfolding plan as he covers this week’s “National Conference on Media Reform” in Minneapolis. Kincaid’s preview of the conference can be found in the column “’Media Reform’ Targets Conservatives,” at Accuracy In Media - For Fairness, Accuracy and Balance in News Reporting. (http://www.aim.org).

“The ‘progressives’ are angry that since the deregulation of the media, beginning in the 1980s, the liberal media monopoly has been challenged,” says Kincaid. He notes that most of the Big Media remain liberal but that “progressives” are angry that talk radio and cable news have found a receptive audience for conservative programming. One of their new tactics, he reveals, is calling conservative programming “hate speech.”

Personally, I enjoy hearing different views on things so I don't become a robot programmed the way the media or government wants. I don't have to agree with everything I hear.

Do you think this can happen here in the 'land of the free'? Do you think it should happen just to prevent 'hurt feelings'?

How can we preserve our right to say what we believe? I'm worried and a little angry.:mad:

What do you say?

Accuracy in Media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_In_Media)


It commonly attacks what it sees as media bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States). Despite AIM's claim of political neutrality[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_In_Media#cite_note-aimfaq-0), it is frequently described by the mainstream media and other media watchdog groups as a conservative organization.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_In_Media#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_In_Media#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_In_Media#cite_note-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_In_Media#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_In_Media#cite_note-5)

Critics say AIM's attacks on the media seem to have little to do with actual misrepresentation or inaccuracies in media accounts. They assert that Irvine and AIM is quick to attack groups that do not fit in the group's ideological niche. Donald Graham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Graham), the publisher of The Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post), alleges that Irvine tends to "throw around accusations about people being communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)."[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
AIM has also been vigorously defensive of former Senator Joseph McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy), referring to his critics as "liars" and "communists," and defending his legacy, claiming that he never once fingered an innocent person in his accusations during the red scare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Red_Scare) he helped to fan. [5] (http://www.aim.org/guest_column/3911_0_6_0_C/)
The New York Times characterizes AIM as an often effective right-wing advocacy organization, "their criticism of television and the press is often provocative. But it is always tendentious. Accuracy in Media, to judge by its newsletters, finds television to be a hotbed of leftist propaganda.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_In_Media#cite_note-11)
So, yea, I guess they would be telling people that media is a "leftist" - that's their job.

?? I thought media's job was to fairly report a situation - not to label or take sides.

That would be the perfect situation but now we have "opinion" shows that are all spin.

The *media* is entertainment, wings. :) Television, radio, newspapers... all entertainment, and it has been that way for quite some time. Mostly, it has been dominated by right wing spin machines-now, I have sensed that it is going to turn around since the disgrace of Bush and the advent of Obama.

A person who wants to get non-propagadized information has to go online and get "facts" and opinions of educated, qualified people in order to form a relatively unbiased opinion. But, I think we all have a worldview that we like to use as a framework.

As choux says, unbiased opinion is a myth.
Everything that has ever been written is pretty much biased, the only people who could present an unbiased opinion are people who don't care, and someone who doesn't care would not bother presenting an opinion would they?
What I find interesting, is that "free speech" isn't as prevalent as people think. Freedom of speech isn't in the Australian constitution, and I have heard that america is still in a state of emergency left over from ww2 which can legally suspend peoples rights to freedom of speech.

Yes, and in the end, the consumer decides what shows stay on the air, unless they receive government funding like Public Broadcasting does.
The reason there is less liberal talk shows, they can't keep the advertisers, if they could get more, there would be more of their talk shows.

... Radical right are feel-good hatemongers. That is why right wing shows have been more popular... NO ONE WANTED TO HEAR THE TRUTH, Chuck, they just wanted to hate who they were told to hate. :)

Those days are going to be over soon, I hope. Time for Americans to grow up; no more hiding from real life in ignorance and fear.

We all should take responsibility for the information we are fed. We should not just sit back and accept it, if the media says something, we should check it with other sources before swallowing it, and listen to all sides of the story if possible. There is a similar problem with music. The radio mostly just plays the mainstream hip hop/ pop stuff, when there is plenty of much better music out there, but people just want to swallow what is fed to them directly, no matter how mindless and how sexist the music can be, instead of actually seeking out the right music for them.

I gave up watching, reading and listening to media "stories" of both the right and the left when the media made an ar$e of itself with Watergate. Stuff like "when Nixon traipsed off to China"... It is almost impossible to relate the truth when a person's words and time are limited by full page ads and commercials. I can't believe that so many intelligent people quote the newspaper or the local news. The facts have become a progressive soap opera which I would like to rent later, laugh and watch without the commercials.

I shot my TV months ago. My wife was quite upset because I didn't take it outside first. Now, I just read Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. They say history repeats itself and I am finding that to be true. At least I now know what to expect.


Volume One - A Reckoning
Chapter VII: The Revolution

WITH THE YEAR 1915 enemy propaganda began in our country, after 1916 it became more and more intensive, till finally, at the beginning of the year 1918, it swelled to a positive flood. Now the results of this seduction could be seen at every step. The army gradually learned to think as the enemy wanted it to.
And the German counter-action was a complete failure.
In the person of the man whose intellect and will made him its leader, the army had the intention and determination to take up the struggle in this field, too, but it lacked the instrument which would have been necessary. And from the psychological point of view, it was wrong to have this enlightenment work carried on by the troops themselves. If it was to be effective, it had to come from home. Only then was there any assurance of success among the men who, after all, had been performing immortal deeds of heroism and privation for nearly four years for this homeland.
But what came out of the home country?
Was this failure stupidity or crime?

There is rumors of reinstituting the so called "Fairness Doctrine".
Fairness Doctrine (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm)

Back when there were only 3 networks if someone did an op-ed on line the network was compelled to allow a counterpoint .

With the many options available to obtain information that is no longer needed and those who attempt to revise it are only doing so for punitive reasons. They want to fix the fact that liberal radio and televison does not get the same ratings as their conservative counterpart.

Instead of letting competition work they want to impose broadcast selection on the media.
This is an issue that has come up before since the doctrine was repealed in the 1980s .I do not think it will go anywhere ;but then again... there are plenty of Repubulicansalong with almost all the Democrats who were mad that the public was mobilized to defeat the Comprehensive Immigration reform last year (including John McCain) who would love to see a legal muzzle on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

How can we preserve our right to say what we believe? I'm worried and a little angry.:mad:

What do you say?
Your right to say what you believe is not in danger. Don't worry. Be happy.


??? I thought media's job was to fairly report a situation - not to label or take sides.
The media's job is to get as many people as possible to pay attention to it so that they can charge advertisers more money for delivering more eyeballs. It's important to understand that the only thing that matters to them is that you pay attention, not whether you approve or disapprove, agree or disagree. Disapproving attention is worth just as much to them as approval is, so stoking controversy is their stock-in-trade. If you really want to strike a blow against them, ignore them completely. If you aren't willing to do that, don't complain about what they serve up.

I'm old enough to know that conservative talk shows ARE the "balance". I well remember the time when all that was available was what the media wanted us to hear, and most of the media was owned by few ultra rich left leaning families. In spite of the "lack of balance" that they decry, Obama would be nowhere were it not for the puff job that the media gave him starting with his face on the cover of Time magazine.

Your right to say what you believe is not in danger. Don't worry. Be happy.


The media's job is to get as many people as possible to pay attention to it so that they can charge advertisers more money for delivering more eyeballs. It's important to understand that the only thing that matters to them is that you pay attention, not whether you approve or disapprove, agree or disagree. Disapproving attention is worth just as much to them as approval is, so stoking controversy is their stock-in-trade. If you really want to strike a blow against them, ignore them completely. If you aren't willing to do that, don't complain about what they serve up.


There it is there.

http://www.ilovebonnie.net/tinfoil-hat.jpg

You only need tin foil hats to keep the aliens from bombarding your brain with unwanted information or orders to do something you wouldn't normally do. There is not a hat in the world that can block out Hannity and Colmes. You have to shoot your TV.

For everyone's information... some* facts*... so right wingers can skip this since you only like lies. Lol

These are the issues of real Liberals...

1. Constitutional amendment to ban capital punishment.

2. Gun control in cities.

3. Equal rights for all Americans including homosexuals

4. Etc.

SEE, **NONE** OF THE MSM ARE LIBERAL!!

They range from rabid right wingnuts, to **Moderate**.

THE MSM IS OWNED BY SIX MAJOR CORPORATIONS( LIKE DISNEY); CORPORATIONS WITH A RIGHT WING AGENDA, certainly not left! Some facts to rattle your cages. :)

Gee I am so sick of right wing liars and propagandists after all these years. :)

I agree with karma. They are trying to brainwash us into buying foxtel.

Thanks everyone. I actually don't watch or listen to any 'talk shows' but I certainly want to preserve our rights to broadcast them. Hopefully, our politicians will still allow us choices after the next president comes into the white house. Losing personal freedoms increase quickly after the first one slides by without complaint.

Losing personal freedoms increase quickly after the first one slides by without complaint.That's already happened I'm afraid.

purplewings agrees: Now wait a minute. If we can't believe the news media, how are we supposed to know what's going on around us? I can see my own neighborhood but I can't see the rest of the world. I need accurate reporting.I'm not saying you can't ever believe them, just that you need to be aware of what drives them in order to accurately interpret what they put out.

I don't trust for one second that the information I get is accurate. Even if it is based on facts too often commentary is weaved into the narrative . Unfortunately that is the reality .The only cure is to assume that reporting does not tell the whole story ;and to have sufficient freedom of speech and options for consumer to filter the news themselves. If not ;then you are consigned to accept the forgeries that Dan Rather presented as authentic proof.

The remote is the best invention to man since the wheel. Don't have to move to put on cartoon network. Did you know the Mickey Mouse club has a new song?

Everybody is a shock jock, and its about ratings. This is America and our dreams are built on money, and its no different if your conservetive, liberal, or radical. What do you think would happen if all the talking heads would have to get real jobs? Or worse yet, real opinions, who would pay for that?

My grand daughter and me, learn more from Dora the Explorer, than Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, or Lou "boohoo" Dobbs.

Accuracy in Media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_In_Media)

So, yea, I guess they would be telling people that media is a "leftist" - that's their job.

NK, if the message is true what difference does it make who the messenger is? Goggle "restore the fairness doctrine" and tell us what you find. Liberal congressman have made it no secret they want to restore the fairness doctrine (http://www.aim.org/press-release/media-reform-activists-target-conservatives/) which is anything but fair and has no place in a free nation.

Hurray for you Steve. Fairness in reporting is important - especially now. Of course it's been pretty one-sided for many years already and will continue if no one cares.

For everyone's information....some* facts*.....so right wingers can skip this since you only like lies. lol

These are the issues of real Liberals...

1. Constitutional amendment to ban capital punishment.

2. Gun control in cities.

3. Equal rights for all Americans including homosexuals

4Gee I am so sick of right wing liars and propagandists after all these years. :)

Exactly!

1. There are some crimes so brutal and senseless that capital punishment is the only appropriate punishment. A needle is far kinder than being slashed to death, for example.

2. Why are libs afraid of honest people having guns? In Texas we have a right to carry law, and the crime rate has not gone up. If some sociopath comes into a restaurant where I am dining and starts shooting, I really hope there are at least a dozen armed citizens there.

3. I don't object to homosexuals having rights. I object to them calling what they have "marriage".

Don't you think that those who disagree with you just might be reasonably intelligent?

Duh, You missed the point, Galveston, the main stream media *DOES NOT SUPPORT* these issues.

The media is either right wing or Moderate, NOT LIBERAL, angry white guy who can't control himself.

****Quit lying**** in order to support your fantasies.

[QUOTE=magprob]I shot my TV months ago. My wife was quite upset because I didn't take it outside first. Now, I just read Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. They say history repeats itself and I am finding that to be true. At least I now know what to expect.[QUOTE]


"[T]he people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.. . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Hermann Goring; April 10, 1946

My problem is that I can still remember when everyone hung onto the Newscasts because it was all we had & we needed to know

Oliver Wendell Holmes said "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market"

I think it was with the advent of the television broadcast when those good ole days began. Before that the press was more like the founders envisioned as advocacy and not simply the dry reporting of news. Check out how the press was in their times. I have described the press of the 18th and 19th century as the bloggers of their day.

The problem with those good ole days when the 3 networks and the NY Slimes were the news of record was that there was no competition in the marketplace. It was the accepted truth because they told you it was .Not much different than the old Soviet Pravda if you ask me. When Walter Cronkite told us the war in Vietnam was lost (it was not ) we believed him and the anti-war movement went mainstream from that point on.

I think the news dissemination if not the presentation is much better now than then . The dinosaurs have proven themselves untrustworthy. Dan Rather manipulated and fabricated stories and presented them on prime time telecasts . It took the internet (those pesky people in the pajama media) to out his distortions. The NY Slimes has had a reporter(Jayson Blair) who faked stories .

The system is much better now because it is free and accountable to the market place. That is why the people in power are so hungry to slap controls on it. In 1985 The FCC ruled that the Fairness Doctrine had a "chilling effect" on speech;and the Supreme Court agreed ( Meredith Corp. v. FCC) .

There will always be bias in the presentation of the news .It was true then and it is true now . The question really comes down to this ; do we want the overseers to be the final arbiters of the truth ?

2. Why are libs afraid of honest people having guns?....

3. I don't object to homosexuals having rights. I object to them calling what they have "marriage".

I know I skipped #1 (I have no prob w/death penalty, just way it seems to be unequally, and freq unjustly applied)

2. Why do conservs always lump libs together. I'm a lib but fully believe in the Bill of Rights - all 10. And I believe in the right to defend myself - that's not one in which the state has a right to interfere. Firearms: the ultimate in feminine protection.

3. What the hell is wrong with 2 people committed to each other in a monogamous relationship, having the benefits the state gives to such partnerships? To deny it can only be discriminatory.

I know I skipped #1 (I have no prob w/death penalty, just way it seems to be unequally, and freq unjustly applied)

2. Why do conservs always lump libs together. I'm a lib but fully believe in the Bill of Rights - all 10. And I believe in the right to defend myself - that's not one in which the state has a right to interfere. Firearms: the ultimate in feminine protection.

3. What the hell is wrong with 2 people committed to each other in a monogamous relationship, having the benefits the state gives to such partnerships? To deny it can only be discriminatory.


The death penalty is a horror with so many who've served time & even been on death row only to be exonerated by DNA after years of their life is gone. How horrible to put someone to death and not be certain they are the truly guilty one.

People committed to each other deserve the same benefits as married people. I don't see a thing wrong with allowing them to marry either. It acknowledges their right to be on earth and part of society, just like everyone else. It's not even that big of a deal. Eventually there won't even be such a thing as marriage - just living together. Live and let live! As Ron Paul says: Let government stay out of our personal lives.