Should political shows carry disclaimers?

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.

 

The correct answer is YES. It would be great for the country.

 

It could mean a huge drop in support for the Republican Party. Is that so bad?

 

How would it do that?

 

Yeah like Keith Olbermann. Remember that guys facts? His own ilk had to get rid of him. But to answer the post. No, you are supposed to be smart enough to know when you are watching political entertainment versus real news. That goes for both sides. If you are not smart enough to know then you shouldnt vote and all of our problems will be solved.

 

No since they are opinion shows. Anyone who takes them at their word are probably to stupid to understand a disclaimer anyways.

And they do try their harderst to get their facts straight, albeit in a twisted way. This is because their opposite opinion shows are all too happy to play clips of them straight up lying.

 

Well, where do we draw the line, though? The mainstream media has the same attitude; "never let the facts get in the way of a good story." It's more about ratings than truth a lot of the time.

We already have laws that protect people from defamation. If you can prove that what is being said is inaccurate and hurting you, you've got the law on your side. But you might be setting a dangerous precedent here. If two people use two different sources and report two conflicting sets of facts, what happens then?

 

No broadcaster is honest.

They preach to their listener or viewer with a specific agenda. If they didn't, they wouldn't retain those who lap up that they want to hear and not what they ought to hear. FOX is a prime example of the right and MSNBC of the left.

If it's facts you want, spend 24 hours a day on doing your own research and throwing out the trash.

- - - Updated - - -

No broadcaster is honest.

They preach to their listener or viewer with a specific agenda. If they didn't, they wouldn't retain those who lap up that they want to hear and not what they ought to hear. FOX is a prime example of the right and MSNBC of the left.

If it's facts you want, spend 24 hours a day on doing your own research and throwing out the trash.

 

How would this be one-sided? Everyone accusing Republicans of being racist/sexist/homophobic/bigots/greedy/etc. would have to use the same disclaimer.

 

The Republican Party gets tens-of-millions of votes from the viewers of Fox News and the listeners of the conservative radio talk monopoly. If they are told they are not being given facts, they might stop relying on these sources of misinformation.

 

Anyone with common sense knows that Rush Limbaugh's comments lack even internal logic. Yet he is the thought leader of the Republican Party! And his millions of listener DO vote!!

 

What planet are you from if you think Rush Limbaugh is telling the truth? His arguments are devoid of logic. You don't even have to know the facts to realize he is lying.

 

Decisions would made by researchers, historians, linguists, psychologists, and other scientists, etc. It would cost some money, but save a fortune in the long run. And help restore democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

Facts are facts, and easy to prove in most cases.

 

You've got to use some common sense here. Everyone who couldn't back up their "facts" would run the disclaimer. Others wouldn't. Shows that accuse Republicans of being racist, etc. would have to present their evidence. God knows they wouldn't have a problem producing it!

- - - Updated - - -

You've got to use some common sense here. Everyone who couldn't back up their "facts" would run the disclaimer. Others wouldn't. Shows that accuse Republicans of being racist, etc. would have to present their evidence. God knows they wouldn't have a problem producing it!

 

I tend to agree with this fictitious character... Anyone disagree?

 

Interesting idea, course they would all be so generic it would be like the south park warning before every show I suppose

 

I like this one

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...-tweets-not-intended-to-be-factual-statements

 

Yes and every leftist politician out theresould have to carry a disclaimer stating that I will continue to spoend money on things that don't work.

 

And what's to keep these people honest? You're slipping into an appeal to authority here which stands to do nothing but defend conventional wisdom - be it right or wrong.

And thank you for proving my point. Their interpretation of racist might not actually be racist at all. Considering that the Republican party on the whole believes in treating everyone the same regardless of race. If someone's definition of racism is simply not adhering to political correctness and racial double standards, then it would be them that needed to wear the disclaimer since it makes no logical sense to call someone racist who treats everyone the same.

 

"Disclaimers" would only begin to make an appearance if progressives could figure out a way to sue a media personality for hyperbolic opinions or factual errors, while leaving their media fellow travelers' ability to express hyperbolic opinions and factual errors unmolested.

 

You've not just got Talk Radio who'd be screwed....


there was a whole cable "news" network that would have to disclaim itself, with its "skewed polls" and "Romney landslides".

 

Good stuff!

 

Shows able to back up their "facts" wouldn't need to carry the disclaimer. They could advertise that they don't, and attract listeners who want honest information.

 

Excellent! Very fitting.

 

Any examples? Or didn't Rush elaborate?

Krugman warned Obama that the stimulus was too small to be really effective, if that's what you're referring to.

Massive spending is the only way out of a Republican Depression, if history is a guide.