alt.politics.democrats

robw wrote:
> I read the first one (nice right wing rag) and can tell you that the
> industry has changed even more since 1993.
>
> Giving equal time and making people accountable for what they say
> would not harm anyone's free speech. You only need listen to Rush or
> Hannnity for an hour to realise they are dishonest.
>
> Classic example:
>
> Rush takes a screened call from a liberal. Wanna bet that in most
> cases it's right up on a break? So the caller makes his point, and
> Rush makes his. Only problem is that the caller's mike has been
> killed and Rush gets to pontificate into commercial.
>
> Dishonest and who's free speech has been violated?
>
>
And accountability is what is sorely lacking in internet "sources" as well
as on talk radio. Any mass media source can be used to reinforce public
prejudices, and without accountability, it's dangerous. When you see people
at work and on the internet repeating the same mindless talking points that
originated from sound bites on talk radio, or from spew on some left or
right wingnut's website, you realize how powerful mass media can be.


> wrote in message
> news:vbo4r3pr2102gvtb7gog0fk3l3g3s97ho5@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:11:54 -0500, "robw"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not "proving" something from a source that can be edited.
>>
>> Can these cites be edited Mr Top Poster?
>>
>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm
>>
>> http://www.aim.org/publications/fairness-doctrine-special-report.pdf
>>
>>
>> I've now provided three cites and you've provided nothing except a
>> bunch of whining. Can you prove these cites wrong or not?