Liberal ideologists, suppressors of dissent?

The BBQ Pit
1

Okay, it’s ignorance-fighting time here at the ol’ Staight Dope.

First of all, I should preface my questions with the admission that I haven’t been keeping up with the following issues that closely and I have no idea whether or not they’re true or not…I’m merely looking for answers.

In a conversation with my brother the other day (a guy much further to the right than I am), he expressed his concern over an Obama victory as it (in conjunction with a Democrat-controlled Congress) would most certainly bring about the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. This in an effort to silence Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity and Fox News. He also fears that an effort is underfoot by Democrats to introduce legislation to repeal right-to-work laws, this because all but one right-to-work state voted Republican in the last two elections.

Now, to me the first seems patently unfair, as I believe that liberal ideology is already supported and espoused whenever possible by Hollywood (i.e., movies; broadcast television (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) news programs plus many of its other programs; all entertainment and fashion magazines (both men’s and women’s), plus Time and Newsweek; the nation’s large newspapers, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, etc., etc., plus cable news channels such as CNN and MSNBC.

So, given that I feel that almost anytime a person encounters information from print, film or television sources, it has either a liberal slant or outright support, and with the only real non-liberal to right-wing information coming from talk radio and Fox News, it is unfair bordering upon outright government suppression of dissent for the Fairness Doctrine to be used to silence the conservative voice.

And as you might have already guessed, I believe it is also unfair, and blatantly unscupulous, for politicians to attempt to override the will of the voters of the 22 or so right-to-work states so as to benefit their side in upcoming elections.

So, what say you, liberals and conservatives of the Straight Dope? Are such moves afoot, and if they are do you support or oppose them?

2

Ignorant conservatives - buncha whining pussies?

Apparently four years of total majority wasn’t enough to make the country a jesus-devoted paradise.

Waaaaaaaaah!

-Joe

3

Uh . . . so your brother is a whackjob conspiracy theorist, and you want us to prove him wrong? What proof has your brother offered that he’s right?

4

It’s funny, I could have sworn this place was dedicated to fighting ignorance. So I give you a chance and pose a couple of questions about issues I’m ignorant about…and these are the answers I get?

5

S.A. … hm. How to put this gently and respectfully?

If the only news you’re getting that isn’t contaminated with “liberal bias” is in talk radio and Fox News, maybe the problem isn’t with the news-sources. Maybe your filters and confirmation bias are straining out consensus opinion and argumentation from the mainstream, or at least from people who would have authoritative info on a given situation.

Worth consideration?

6

He’s conservative.

7

…that you think that the media is slanted to the liberal side across the board (with the minor exceptions of talk radio and Fox). Other than that, nothing in your OP bears any relation to reality and should be treated appropriately.

8

Perhaps, but that’s not what the thread’s about. How about an answer instead?

9

The main effect of repealing the fairness doctrine was to predictably turn most of the media into a propaganda tool for the right. The media reports what and how it’s owners want it to, and it’s owners are primarily a bunch of large, right wing, Republican run corporations. The “liberal media” is a pure myth, originally created to silence criticism of Ronald Reagan.

As for Obama, I expect that he’ll do what Democrats always do; cave in and give the Republicans what they want.

10

Dude. You have no idea how this works, do you?

If you’re going to put forth some outlandish whacko “theory” and take as proof of its validity the fact that no one even gives it enough credence to engage it seriously, then what you’re doing is *spreading *ignorance, not fighting it.

Here’s me: Pluto is made of cheese and tampons. Prove me wrong.

You: Uh, shyah, you’re retarded.

Me: Aha, you haven’t proven me wrong, so I must be right!

11
12

You gave this question 11 minutes and then decided the answers were all going to be inadequate?

13

In the Pit, no less.

14

hijack

I just found an interesting political historical analysis today. When I stumbled upon this passage I immediately thought of you, Starving Artist, because it fits in with your assessment of how the U.S. has changed over the last several decades. But I have to go to bed right now. I will maybe start a new thread on it later so as not to hijack this one… I am excited; I think it could generate a lot of positive and thoughtful political discussion.

/hijack

15

Liberal media! Liberal media!

16

Why yes, I’m all for telling conservatives they can’t talk about conservatism anymore. Bring back the laws of lèse majesté! Anyone who disses Saint Obama gets put on the rack!

Come on.

Yes, there are probably self-professed liberals who would love to cancel Rush’s show and ban Coulter’s books on the basis that they’re a pair of festering assholes. Certainly I know people who think all religion should be banned. I also know people who would very happily convert every last man, woman, and child to Christianity or sentence them to death by fire.

People are crazy. Mostly, however, they are fragmentedly crazy and can’t keep a decent committee together to save their lives.

And there’s about as much likelihood of a liberal government forcing conservative pundits off the air for being conservative as there is of me growing a dick, so.

17

Dude, here’s your answer: by your own admission, you haven’t been keeping up, you feel and you believe. None of that’s rigorous enough to count as meaningful dissent, per se. It’s just pussyhurting.

I haven’t been keeping up, but I feel and believe that George W. Bush deliberately refused to follow up on the murderers of innocent American citizens because it would have fucked up his personally profitable business deals with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, I feel and believe (while conceding my lack of keeping up) that pretty much everyone who voted for him in 2004 knew this, weighed it against the probable price of gas following any significant action, and supported him on the strength of supporting their lifestyle. I feel and believe they oughta hang for treason, myself, but I’m not sure I could pull the trap, being liberal. Ya see, I haven’t been keeping up, and just reacting from my gut and a couple of rumours floating round wouldn’t be an appropriate grounds of judgment, for any matter I took seriously. Maybe that’s the diagnosis. You can squawk all the weak support you can for the flimsiest of cases because ultimately it doesn’t matter to you, all that much.

I’m sorry I took you seriously enough to assume you were just a dude with a blind spot, such as we all can get. You’re just a meat tape-recorder.

18

Right to work laws are state statutes and can’t be repealed at a federal level. I can’t find anything suggesting that Obama opposes them or has said anything about them at all.

He does support the Employee Free Choice Act, but as near as I can tell it does not conflict with so-called “right to work” laws. I’m not positive about that, though. The EFCA gives workers a right to organize and prohibits striking workers from being fired. Right-to-Work laws prevent membership in a union to being a condition of employment. I don’t see a necessary conflict there, but I admittedly don’t know much about it.

19

I don’t have a problem with reintroduction of the fairness doctrine. It only applies to broadcast licensees, anyway, so it would have no effect on O’Reilly, Hannity, and Fox News, et al., unless O’Reilly and Hannity have radio shows.

You might feel that way- although how fashion magazines are somehow leftish I can’t possibly imagine- but the media simply isn’t biased. Hell, TIME runs more conservative editorial pieces than liberal ones in pretty much every issue.

The Taft-Hartley Act has been in effect for nearly 60 years, and nobody has really tried to repeal it since Lyndon Johnson.

Anyway, right-to-work laws are not necessarily “the will of the voters”. Only ten state constitutions include right-to-work provisions; the other 12 (13, if you include Indiana) states have right-to-work enshrined in statute only- meaning that the laws were passed by state legislatures on behalf of business interests, not by popular referenda.

In any case, the repeal of Taft-Hartley would not affect state right-to-work laws.

New (hypothetical) Federal legislation prohibiting state right-to-work laws are unlikely to pass Constitutional muster, particularly given the current makeup of SCOTUS.

Personally, I have no problem with right-to-work laws as long as there is accompanying legislation prohibiting employers from discriminating against unionized employees or banning unions- something like the Employee Free Choice Act.

It took me 20 minutes to type all that shit. Patience, grasshoppah.

They can for employers engaging in interstate commerce- ie., all of them.

ETA: SA, your brother is way too gullible- but you probably knew that already.

20

The Fairness Doctrine means what, precisely, in the era of satellite TV, satellite radio, and the Internet? They might lose some of their grip on AM radio? Big loss, that. Gigantic blow to the conservative media empire. Rush and O’Reilly will hardly be able to get their message out, and will have to resort to carrier pigeons that can only fly in circles because they lack left wings.