SHOULD POLITICAL SHOWS CARRY DISCLAIMERS?

[JEFF9K]

SHOULD POLITICAL SHOWS CARRY DISCLAIMERS?

Should political radio and TV shows that can't stand behind the accuracy of their “facts” be required to carry disclaimers?

Free speech rights of the stations' owners would be maintained while protecting the public from the election-fraud effect of broadcasts that intentionally or carelessly distort the information that listeners rely on to make voting decisions.

Our top-rated local radio host once let it slip that the motto in talk radio is “Don't let the facts get in the way of the show,” yet, a large percentage of listeners take what they hear as gospel!

Requiring broadcasters to be honest, or admit that they aren't, would go a long way toward fixing the problems of our country and electing officials that represent the people rather than those who benefit from what has become the norm in broadcasting over the past thirty years.

[dorkulon]

1. Just put a sticker on your radio: "Most of what comes out of this device is bullshit."

TV and computer, too. Anyone who believes anything without checking it out for themselves is a fool.

[Jamaal510]

10. Which is why Fox News and RW talk radio have been so successful.

[Bjorn Against]

2. I would not want the government or corporate executives determining what the facts are

There are lots of liars on the air these days, but on the other hand truth tellers are often accused of lying. I would hate to see a totally fact based presentation have to put up a disclaimer saying the material might be false when in fact it is all true. If they could come up with a fair system in which only the liars had to put up the disclaimer I would be for it, but because I don't see how such a system could be developed in a fair manner I don't think this would work.

[JEFF9K]

4. SYSTEM

The FCC would hire statisticians, historians, psychologists, linguists, researchers, etc. to make the determinations. In most cases it would be easy. The dishonest broadcasters and their fans would complain about the cost of hiring these people, but in the long run it would save the country a fortune.

[Bjorn Against]

5. Do you not see the potential for abuse here?

Don't think for a second that the government is going to appoint neutral fact finders. Can you imagine what would happen if the Republicans were in charge of the FCC and got to choose the researchers?

[JEFF9K]

8. it can be done

I think it's worth a try. At least every show could carry a disclaimer warning people that the show is entertainment and not to be trusted for making voting decisions. Then maybe waivers could be received for shows with air-tight proof of honesty.

[RKP5637]

3. YES, Fictional Bullshit! n/t

[zbdent]

6. I've noticed that many radio stations carrying "liberal" shows

often broadcast a disclaimer saying that the views of the program do not necessarily reflect that of the station, management, or sponsors.

However, I have NEVER heard such a disclaimer before Rush Limbaugh's show on the local RW ... sorry, AM station ...

[JEFF9K]

7. TYPE OF DISCLAIMER

I'm talking about a disclaimer as to the truth of what is being said. Shows that could support their "facts" wouldn't have to carry it.

[agentS]

9. Like the cigarette smoking or Paint huffing package ads

"Warning: Listening to this drivel can be hazardous to your health. Symptoms include: screaming at the radio, hating minorities you've never met in places your ass has never been to, failed marriage, obsessions with firearms, proclivity with believing any bullshit anyone says on said drivel program. If you exhibit warning signs, such as: agreeing with Republicans, arguing with restaurants about the immigration status of the employees, and/or wishing for the halcyon days of your childhood in the 50s, then see a psychologist or Stephanie Miller immediately."

[JEFF9K]

12. yes

That should be taken into consideration!

[FleetwoodMac]

11. Grassroot activism

To be honest, I would rather have activists, scholars, or even the average joes calling these liars out, by writing, blogging, vlogging or tweeting their lies.

I find it much more effective. Too often, people just ignore these sociopaths, and allow their brand of misinformation to take root and fester within their target demographics.

Disclaimers don't work. Otherwise, no one would've bought Lunesta:

And I would've quit smoking a long, long time ago.

Examples:

• The 935 lies of George W. Bush: http://web.archive.org/web/20080330011841/http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard
• The Lies of Rush Limbaugh: http://web.archive.org/web/20120307223008/http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
• 42 Stupid Alex Jones Predictions :

[JEFF9K]

13. good, but ...

... but in the meantime so much damage is being done. Getting the toothpaste back into the tube can be nearly impossible.