Originally posted by TheAftermath
Originally posted by Nightflyer28
I really don't see a problem with bringing back a requirement that if you have commentators discussing a controversial, complex issue, you should
include someone to provide an opposing viewpoint, rather than just a steady stream of one point of view only.
If Limbaugh can't handle actual debate rather than spewing without opposition, that's hardly impressive. Any idiot can just babble on for a few
How about the freedom of a privately owned radio station to air what they want?
Honestly, I don't give a good goddamn what the radio station owner wants.
I want the citizens of the United States to have both sides
of the important issues, so they can weigh both sides' arguments and information,
and make informed, educated decisions on issues that will determine the direction the country goes. And surprise, I don't care if the conservative
ends up with a better argument than the liberal, so long as both sides are represented. And if the station owner doesn't like it, tough titty.
Because the needs of the people of this country as a whole should supersede the politics of one guy with a station and an agenda. That's why there
are laws about how many stations in one area one guy can own - to prevent him from having a monopoly on the dissemination of ideas.
There's a word for countries in which only one side's point of view gets airplay.... hmmmm.... what was that word.... Well, if I can't think of it,
I'm sure you can...
The basic point is, people in a free country are able to influence their reps with votes, with input, etc.
They make their decisions largely according to what they feel will be best for themselves, their families, and the country as a whole (I would
If people are well-informed about the issues facing them and their reps, they can make decisions based on the facts, and odds are, more often than not
those decisions will be good ones.
If they are misinformed on the issues, either through their own lack of effort/interest, or the active efforts of others pushing claims, couched in
pleasant terms or scary ones, depending on the intent, people will still make those decisions based on what they believe is best.
The thing is, you've probably heard the old computer saying, "Garbage in, garbage out." Well, it applies to people as well. If you're being
misinformed, deceived about an issue, and what you're being told gives you the impression that deciding this or that will benefit you, there's a
good chance it won't. It will only benefit those pushing the agenda.
Now, you may believe that your side is the right side, but if you're only getting one side of the issues, how do you know? You don't. And that's
what I'm talking about.
Wanting to hear someone tell you, "Yes, you're right, this is good, see, you agree with me, so I'm right" is nice, but if you're wrong, and the
only people you ever hear are wrong or lying, then you're pretty much screwed, get me?
Jefferson, clever guy he was, wrote a few things that still hold true.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government"
"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a
moment to prefer the latter."
Sensing a trend here?
He's talking about the importance of a well-informed people to a free country. Now, what do you think a misinformed people are needed for? Because
I'm pretty sure it's not a free country.