and when you read the wording and language of the fairness doctrine...it affects broadcasters...i'm just saying it is a well known fact that unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) a large section of society gets their news from those two
|
|
|
|
They both won Peabody Awards which are given out annually to media sources and are highly prized in the world of journalism. Apparently, some people consider them news media...
"Daily Show's Jon Stewart Wins Top Journalism Award Friday April 8, 2005 Jon Stewart, comedian and host of Comedy Central cable show ,The Daily Show, won a prestigious Peabody Award yesterday for his coverage of the 2004 presidential election. The George Foster Peabody Awards are given annually by the University of Georgia Journalism & Mass Communications department for excellence in the electronic media. The awards are widely respected within the TV and radio industries as recognition of high-quality journalism. Jon Stewart has famously given comedic voice to liberal frustration over Bush Administration missteps and hypocrisies, and today's conservative political climate, both on The Daily Show and in his bestselling book, "America - a Citizen's Guide to Democratic Inaction." Said Stewart in reaction to this honor, "All of us at 'The Daily Show' very much appreciate the Peabody Committee's recognition of our work. Because this is the first time we've ever released a statement, we'd also like to, just for the hell of it, categorically deny all charges and say that we find them both scurrilous and without merit." Despite being a comedian, Stewart is a leading liberal political voice in the US today. Tom Goldstein, a UC Berkeley communications professor told the New York Times, "Jon Stewart is an extraordinarily important phenomenon. The truth can be told in many ways---journalistically, through satire---and he does a briliant job of expressing the truth his way." |
|
|
|
Would Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert be held accountable under a fairness doctrine?
|
|
|
|
I may be mistaken but I don't think even Obama supports the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.
|
|
|
|
I am one of the biggest proponents of free speech, and I agree that any regulation or law that takes away individuals right to freely express their opinions without slandering or committing libel is unconstitutional.
In a perfect world any corporation, media outlet, and news wielding individual would objectively report both sides of each issue allowing the viewers to decided for themselves what to believe. However, this world has never existed. Since Hamilton spoke through the "Gazette of the Unites States" and Jefferson through the "National Gazette", people (specifically powerful individuals) have tried to influence public opinion through the "news". Is this wrong? Is this a bad thing? Perhaps not. Perhaps we should start taking more responsibility ourselves in finding out the truth behind the events and issues. We live in much different times from that of Hamilton and Jefferson or even the time of origin of the Fairness Doctrine. Between the internet, television, magazines, newspapers, radio, smoke signals, lights shaped like bats in the sky and even word of mouth, I believe that we have plenty of sources to figure it out for ourselves. And you should know I am "liberal", so I understand your disappointment when you hear about how "FOX News" "accidently" labels Mark Foley as a Democrat. It is plain as day what they are doing. Is it unfair...yes. Unconstitutional, no. There is no way to prove that it wasn't a mistake. (Plus we have Jon Stewart...he'll clear that up.) I realize I am rambling...What am I trying to say? It truly is a slippery slope when you let bureaucrats decide what is fair, true, and honest. These are all things that we must decipher for ourselves. I guess we just have to live by that old saying, "Don't believe everything you hear/read/see? |
|
|
|
Topic:
Hope
|
|
Far be it from me to rain on everyone's "Hope" inspired exhilaration or to dampen what is without a doubt one of the most meaningful events in our nation, but there are a few things I think worth mentioning about this election. There can be no doubt now that America has experienced a proud moment. Electing an American of color to the presidency is not without powerful significance and provides a moment of great national reflection. It has been said however that President-elect Obama's victory on Tuesday night was an expression of how far we've come and a sign that perhaps the pitch of national racism has finally died down (if not out.) Perhaps, but there is a non-sequitur inherent in such thinking. To believe that President-elect Obama was elected because of a lessening of racism is easy enough to say and feel because he won. The question that lingers however is what would it have meant had he lost? Would an Obama loss have indicated entrenched racism or would it have been explained away using alternative but slightly less accepted reasons? If race truly does not matter as it pertains to electing people to high office then while I think it worth pointing out the cultural, social, and historical significance of President-elect Obama's victory, what truly matters should not be left out: That his being elected was because the majority of people in this nation felt that he was the best person to hold office--not in spite of his race and not because of it, but simply because of the "content of his character." Personally, I hope for that day, for the day when we simply don't consider race when deciding who we feel best qualified to run the nation (or any other institution open for election.) As for the sense of hope people feel, this is an emotion I simply do not share as it relates to politicians, regardless of party or mission. I have hope in my family, in my faith and in those people for whom I care. I have hope in random acts of kindness, both shown and received and I have hope for our nation, not because of government but in spite of government. Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address said the following: "I repair, then, fellow-citizens, to the post you have assigned me. With experience enough in subordinate offices to have seen the difficulties of this the greatest of all, I have learnt to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man to retire from this station with the reputation and the favor which bring him into it. Without pretensions to that high confidence you reposed in our first and greatest revolutionary character, whose preeminent services had entitled him to the first place in his country's love and destined for him the fairest page in the volume of faithful history, I ask so much confidence only as may give firmness and effect to the legal administration of your affairs. I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts." Jefferson grasped that it was much easier to enter office "loved" than to leave office being offered the same good will. Hope in politicians is dangerous in that even the best politician is human first, a political operative second. I believe hope should be reserve not for our leaders but for the system of government our leaders are charged with upholding. Our Republic can and has endured many hardships. It has thwarted some influences better than others but we should never allow ourselves to forget the role of elected officials is to preserve and protect that which our country was built upon. This is not a plea for religion or secularism, not for idol worship or unfounded disdain of elected leaders. It is simply a reminder that we are the government, we have no King and we don't answer to our leaders--they are charged with answering to us. Therefore, I find hope in the people of this nation, the people who on a daily basis commit themselves to bettering your life and mine. No matter the profession they have chosen or the amount of money that they earn, the hope I find is in counting on them, believing in them and trusting my fellow citizen to remember some wise words: "Any government powerful enough to give you anything is powerful enough to take anything away. Sorry for the book--I wish everyone a great weekend. -Drew truly enlightening and well said sir |
|
|
|
I hear what you are saying. Hateful words, comments and etc. are never fun.
In my experiences with politics, liberal and conservative are fluid terms that mean something different for each person who decides to identify themselves with one or the other. A Conservative in English government for example would probably be a member of the U.S. Democratic Party simply because their political spectrum is more left than ours. The two terms cover a broad spectrum of ideals and political ideas. So I guess what I am trying to say is that though people reserve the right to call themselves liberals and conservative much the same as people can call themselves "Christian", "American", and even "Caring". Its is not my place or anyone else to identify anyone as one or the other. If you think you are a conservative, you may be. If you call yourself a liberal, go ahead. Simply because we don't agree on every issue doesn't mean its not true. |
|
|
|
dolly dagger - hendrix...wait just finished now its Having a Blast - Green Day
|
|
|