> Mass media needs the fairness doctrine back to take the carnival show out of the news. Social media is no exception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine ("The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.").
I would love to see MSNBC airing opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. They could have someone on to explain that Obama was putting undocumented immigrant children in cages, defend Hobby Lobby, etc.
> * I would love to see MSNBC airing opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.*
ME TOO.
Something that drives me nuts about the current political climate is that some people are so sure of their views on seemingly every hot topic. I think this is because of a complete lack of discussion of any opposing viewpoints, which I believe is fundamental to actually understanding an issue. If you refuse to consider why people think differently, how can you possibly engage with them? Isn't the goal of any sort of political activism to get more people to vote the way you do?
Unfortunately I don't think it would work out very well, given the current media machinery. I find cable news completely ridiculous as a whole, but the rare cases where they do bring in someone to discuss an opposing viewpoint are really something. (one that comes to mind was Fox having a "union leader" on sporting a full track suit, big cigar, and several giant rings on his hands like he was a Sopranos character.)
What a cynic way to look at things. Anti-war activists in the 60s didn't want people to think? Pro-democracy protests Warsaw Pact countries, in Hong-Kong? Anti-capitalist activists today, even vegan activists?
Go to a group of BLM or antifa activist protest and tell them you voted for Trump, see how that works out for you. Not all activists do not want you to think, but that doesnt change the fact that the majority are against it.
That is precisely the problem. The expectation is abnormal (for the modern age and standpoint of Enlightenment values) and harmful.
Look beyond the proverbial horizon of contemporary America, and see that in civilised societies, the appropriate response would be tolerance at the very least, possibly an exchange of minds in the form of inquiry or discussion.
It’s ridiculous for the very least response for all ideas to be tolerance when there are some ideas that shouldn’t be tolerated at all. For example racism , by any means, shouldn’t be tolerated. Activists against racism shouldn’t be expected to tolerate the very thing their advocating against.
This is shifting the goalpost/improper generalisation, did you notice? Grand³-parent was about going "to a group of BLM or antifa activist protest and tell them you voted for Trump".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine ("The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.").
I would love to see MSNBC airing opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. They could have someone on to explain that Obama was putting undocumented immigrant children in cages, defend Hobby Lobby, etc.