28
Aug
What’s the Right Response to Hate Speech in the Media? (Audio)
In this edition of the Your Call with Rose Aguilar on KALW-FM in San Francisco, featuring Shock Jocks author Rory O’Connor, we try to define the line between appropriate and inappropriate statements on the airwaves. What exactly qualifies as hate speech? And when hateful words go viral online, do broadcast regulations still matter?
As anyone ever heard the old saying: Sticks & stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me? I’m one of those individuals who strongly believes in the First amendmentand I been around over 75 years. It’s none of my business what people think of me! Limbaugh, Beck and anyone else have the right to speak out even though I don’t support either one of them.
During my lifetime I’ve lost a lot of individual freedom over the years because of activists and groups who speak out and supported by politicians to pass laws. They believe if they don’t like something, no one else should either! America was once the land of the free but that seems to be changing daily and we are in fact will lose even more!
We all have prejudice! Just like Israel currently criticizing Sweden for their Newspaper entry whereby it was indicating Israel was removing organs and selling them on the market. That bent hell out of the PM. Yet, in NJ, there is ongoing investigation where a couple of Jewish & other individuals are under indictment over the issue of organs!
August 28th, 2009 at 9:59 amThe answer to hate speech is incredibly simple. It is something the hate speech shock jocks tremble at when it is mentioned. It is called the Fairness Doctrine. Look it up, it passed in 1947 and kept the media honest until the deregulation of broadcasting in 1987 by then President Reagan. The de-regulation of broadcasting was payback to big media interests that gave to his campaign and administration in the ’80’s.
August 29th, 2009 at 4:31 amBasically if you said something on your FCC licensed station that was hateful, false, dishonest etc. against a person or organization, that person or group could petition the satation for what is called “equal time” You would be given the same exact amount of time at the same time of day as the offending speech to give the opposite response in defense. Picture this, Limbaugh or Beck says something and the next day on their program they must give the offended individual or organization equal time to answer back. Their programs would fold as Dr. Frankenstein said in the movie “Young Frankenstein” - “like a bunch of broccoli.
Interesting times. Some believe that the “activists” have lead the U.S. down a path to fewer civil rights because of increased regulation while you so aptly point out that deregulation has allowed the liars and hategongers to flourish. Deregulation also contributed to the current economic collapse. Maybe Ted Kennedy said it well, “We have the best government that money will buy.”
August 29th, 2009 at 6:36 amIt’s that simple — to keep hate speech honest — rebuttal. Lie and hate are generally transparent — without correction they can take traction. The fairness Doctrine is essential — do it now and the world will become a more hospitable palace within a year — not to mention the cost of most everything will be reduced.
August 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pmThe change I’ve noticed in Talk Radio and the evening cable news shows is quite plain to me. Hate Speech sells advertising. Fox News runs clips of Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and our beloved Keith Olberman. In turn MSNBC runs clips of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Bortz, Bill’O the Clown, and on and on. Radio does the same thing. Only this media seems to be where the inflamatory remarks are “born” and TV then is used to follow up.
It’s a ploy to grow the listening audience. It’s much like the 10:00 local news…. teaser after teaser to keep you watching.
It’s becoming almost soap opera like. Beck says “X” and then “coming up we have X’s response”. Followed by “You don’t want to miss this”.
Then they throw in the politicians for their take. That makes me wonder. Just what is their “take” $$’s or exposure.
The airwaves have become like the deadly car wreck with bodies litterally strewn throughout the scene for hundreds of feet. After a whiile, you have to look, because that’s all anyone you may know is talking about. So, you tune in, and the media say to their advertisers, hey look we picked up a million more people, so advertise more!
I believe the “Righties” are much more gullable to the drivel of hate speech and fear mongering. However, on the other hand, what if the major news networks had covered the “debate” over the objectoion for the invasion of Iraq, like they cover constantly the Tea Baggers and the Anti- Healthcare Deathers and the Obama Birthers?
They didn’t, and therefore we have the Iraq war. Which by the way, we knew then and it’s been repeatedly proven, the objectors were correct and the sellers were wrong or lying.
Viewership went way up for cable news during the “Race to War”, I beleive the Corporate Owned Media saw their next new money maker over healthcare reform. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are all collectively writing the script.
Anyway, that’s how I see it.
August 30th, 2009 at 5:09 amThe airways are owned by the public, aren’t they? Isn’t there some responsibility to reflect public views? Surely we ALL aren’t Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck devotees? I’m not! Where’s MY voice being represented on these public airways?
August 31st, 2009 at 6:51 am