Uh, no, and I don’t agree that that is the allegation. It’s not that she does not indicate at all that JM’s views are at odds with with the vast majority of authorities on the subject. It’s that Oprah gives it extremely short shrift. A perfunctory reading of a very brief disclaimer, in the midst of a sizeable chunk of time devoted to presenting and gushing over JM’s contentions, and painfully lacking any rebuttal when there’s so much reasonable rebuttal to be had, hardly shows any sense of fairness or balance. While we may not know with certainty just what Oprah’s personal views are, I think we can fairly say she’s pushing one perspective vigorously while giving precious little acknolwedgement (as in virtually none) to any dissension.
EXACTLY.
Even the most retarded “reporter” who is trying to be “fair and balanced” gives both sides a roughly equal “share”.
Oprah took the side most VERY likely to be TOTALLY wrong 95 percent of the time and 99.9 percent of her “weight” (heh) and the tiny bit left to other (most very likely right) side.
Honestly, I dont know which is worse. Is Oprah that stupid, or that calculating for ratings and popularity?
Of course Oprah, Rush and anyone should be entitled to present their point of view.
The thing is, that television is not a free market. This limits the view point to one side. On every issue there is not only one side, but two sides, sometimes more, a lot more.
When people restrict your ability to present your point of view it’s problematic, especially in a medium like TV.
The free market works best PROVIDED it’s in a free market. TV is not a free market. There are only so many TV stations in a market. There can’t be anymore. If I have a billion dollars I can’t open a TV station in Chicago, 'cause all the licenses are taken.
When a TV is granted a license BECAUSE it’s in a business, where there is not free markets, they were originally required to act responsibly. Presenting one side of an issue is not responsble. Pretending to present both sides of an issue is not repsonsible.
For instance, on the TV show “The View.” Often, quite often Elisabeth makes a point. A lot of times she is right, but the woman simply does NOT have the mental capacity to back this up. So using Elisabeth to represent a convervative point of view, does give conservatives a voice, but when that voice lacks any brain power, or ability to express themselves enough, it is, in effect, is even worse, because it’s crowding out people who could make the same point effectively.
Because the airways belong to the people, not business, when a business uses a public airway it must use that in the best interest of ALL people it serves. Since the Reagan Era with deregulation, we have seen this.
Where we had multiple viewpoints we now only have THE SAME viewpoint, just presented in a different order.
So do Oprah and Rush have a right to say whatever they want? Of course, even if it’s ridiculous, but the radio and TV stations that air their shows, have a public requirement (via their FCC TV/Radio license) to make sure any program they choose to carry presents a view that serves the public, not just panders to it nor just to make money.
Jon Stewart has taken this position as well.
Answering directly to the OP, yes people in the position of Oprah or Rush do hold a position of responsibility. I would hazard they are viewed by many (stupidly) as a child would view their parents.
As a parent would you deliberatley give wrong, unbalanced, potentially dangerous advice or information to your kids?
Opting out as “entertainers” is not valid, because you are not presenting yourselves merely as entertainers, Oprah etc presents themselves as people that make reasoned and well researched presentations.
If she represented herself as pure entertainment value (like Jerry Springer for example) then give her a pass. By representing herself as a “whosaid” she should hold herself to a higher standard of truth.
Yet, ironically, Jon Stewart’s show has more logic and truth in it than either Oprah’s or Rush’s show.
Personally, I have no problem with Oprah, Jon Stewart, Rush or the Slap Chop guy endorsing whatever they want.
However, rather than the stupid boilerplate disclaimer at the beginning of each show (well, Rush’s show at least- “the views expressed in this show are those of the hosts and callers”, etc.) they should really have a disclaimer saying, “hey, this is entertainment with some facts mixed in. Don’t blame us if we made some of it up” like they do before Jim Cramer’s show.
Free speech. Simple enough. If we all understand that x% is bullshit, when why do we worry? Is it in order to protect the people that aren’t smart enough to understand that? Why should we be worried about protecting stupid people? I’d vote to implement a national eugenics program before infringing on free speech.
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding regarding the role of free speech in our society. The point of free speech is to allow bad speech to be challenged by good speech, and that is exactly what the critics of Winfrey and Limbaugh are doing.
The whole point of our freedoms is to allow us to look at speech that is misleading or harmful and then challenge it. The principle of free speech is not about “so he’s lying and people are dying, meh, free speech.”
Speech is free because it can be used to persuade people to take right action or to avoid wrong action or to disregard other people’s speech.
Indeed, that’s the whole point of the Straight Dope, to use freedom of speech in order to replace wrong (ignorant) speech with right speech.
And, yes, we do worry about stupid people buying bullshit, because stupid people buying bullshit can influence our societies and our lives. That was what the whole eight years of the Bush administration was about.
My take on free speech is you can’t get in legal trouble for saying what you think (baring stuff like libel/slander/stock manipulation etc etc)
Any aspect other than that? Its up for grabs legally, socially, judgementally…
You can get in legal trouble for giving the impression that you are giving advice in a professional capacity. Look up the series of Pit threads from last month by, for and about Stoid for details.
thats NOT what I meant, and IMO you are being pendantic. When the founding fathers considered free speech, I dont really think they were considering/protecting poor legal or engineering or medical ADVICE.
You asked if there were other aspects to it. Anyway, why wouldn’t they have been? It’s still speech.
Look, Oprah has decided that it is okay to present an anti-vax POV herself or via her support of Jenny McCarthy. Let’s say Oprah has decided to do this for whatever reason she chooses:
-
She wasn’t really paying attention and didn’t realize that the data refutes the anti-vax scare machine completely
-
She knows about the science, but still believes what she believes - like a lot of folks in the world - Intelligent Design/Creationism anyone??
-
She actually doesn’t care either way, but knows that stirring up anti-vax stuff is good for viewership
Regardless of the reason, she is demonstrating that she still thinks showing anti-vax subject matter is something she wants to do.
What exactly can be done, on a legal basis or at least in a legal way, to stop her?
Scurrilous rumors about Steadman?
Forgive me if you found my post pissy. Because it was IMO. I should know better than to post when pissed. I have a real world situation, the kind where you are damned if you do and damned if don’t and its got me in a pissy mood. But thats more of a crappy excuse than a good reason for posting the way I did.
Back to the topic of discussion…
Well, when some of her “viewers” kids get polio (or whatever) then we can sic the lawyers on her and make the tabacco lawsuit look piddly in comparision.
So, then you agree that no one should limit their speech, because the mechanism exists to counter what they say? Good, we agree.
(You’re unnecessarily limiting the “point” and “role” of free speech/expression, however.)
No, we don’t. An individual bears the moral and ethical (and sometimes legal) responsibility not to spread misinformation, especially dangerous misinformation. Failing that responsibility sometimes should incur criminal liability, sometimes should incur civil liability, but always should prompt criticism and discredit. Those with correct information should attempt to correct the misinformation and to get the culprit to stop spreading it, through persuasion and other means.
I’m not limiting anything.
Yeah, you are. When you say, “The point of free speech is to allow bad speech to be challenged by good speech,” and then “The whole point of our freedoms is to allow us to look at speech that is misleading or harmful and then challenge it,” you’re severely limiting the intended purposes of free speech. You’re saying the only reason it exists is so that I can say, “You’re full of shit, and here’s why,” but it also exists so that I can express artistic intent, propose ideas, inform, teach, and communicate without fear that some fascist idiot is going to try to prevent me from communicating.