What constitutes conservative "talk" in this country is frightening propaganda and getting worse and more filled with absolute hate for the other. Exposing kids to, not two sides of an issue, but pure hate is abusive. It's a lot like a cult.

Bill Clinton used the word "hate" in his speech.

I wonder how many opinion makers know what's going on in the recesses of hate radio and the Internet.

Would they be aghast at knowing the kind of language -- the slurs, the calls for violence, the Goebbel-ish and sly twisting of minds -- that is poisoning America?

How many people in positions of influence know, for example, that a swath of functioning adults believe with all their hearts today that food stamps are going to be cancelled after the election and a wave of "hip hop" city folk are coming to the suburbs for "mass rape" and lootings and unspeakable violence?

How can it be that in the INFORMATION age, there is such widespread ignorance?

There are those who would call it "hateful propaganda."

to race-hatred?

and more than a few wedgies to get the Tsars to step down and hand over power.

A child shouldn't be exposed to that sort of violence.

...a signer of the Declaration of Independence, I'm not going to argue that there is no place for rebellion against tyranny and despotism. But that's different from blind hate -- hate that is deliberately fomented through lies and ignorance.

Don't you think?

People have the right to make their own decisions on what ideology they teach their children. I don't want the government involved in that regardless of the political agenda in question

How about a campaign of enlightenment? A campaign by enlightened people?

Criminal laws are enforced by government.

I hope you aren't suggesting censorship as a solution.

I myself am very leery of giving the government the power to determine which ideas are "proper," & which are not.

Read the thread, please.

That calls for government intervention. Do you think the parents in question would just accept their children being "enlightened"? They would consider it brainwashing and would fight it to the last ditch.

I am advocating a campaign of enlightenment. A campaign that we all can participate in. A citizens' campaign.

We ignore the mass propagandizing at our peril. To wit: the 16-year-old girl who called for the assassination of Obama on Twitter last night.

It is time for a discussion in this country about hate and ignorance.

In order to be productive, each side would need to respect the other side's viewpoint even if they didn't agree with it. I doubt that Maddow plays any better in a conservative household than Limbaugh does in a progressive one, so taking the position that the Right's message to their kids constitutes child abuse would not be a good way to start.

Some on this board could maintain a level of respect in such a discussion, but I doubt there would be many. I'm sure the same would be true on Free Republic. I've seen so many references to Nazi's, fascists and racists on this board that the terms have lost their impact - with that mindset, I don't see any productive discussion taking place with the Right.

The biggest problem I see is the lack of civility and respect in political discourse. We need to get that back, but I don't know how it could be done.

understand that calling for the assassination of the president is quite unlawful. She's entitled to think bad things about Obama or anyone else. Advocating murder, on the other hand, is a crime.

Every great cause has a campaign.

Public opinion can be swayed. The first task is conversation.

Should children be removed from homes teaching the 'wrong' ideology? As an atheist, I can imagine how that idea might come back to bite me in the ass. hard.

In a word, no.

Don't go to the extreme here. Gee.

I wonder why people's minds go to a totalitarian spectre.

I am not advocating any government involvement in lives.

I am merely asking if a propagandized child -- propagandized with hate and violence and ignorance -- has been victimized.

And if so, shouldn't the *village* be interested in illuminating this treatment of children?

When it is determined that children are abused, they are removed from the home. If we are misunderstanding your concept, what is your concept?

How do we address the fact that many many millions of children are being called to violence, to race hatred, to bitterness not seen here since the Civil War?

Isn't it our job as CITIZENS to talk about this??

Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword. It is notable that countries who sustained exceptional harm as a consequence of hate speech have legislated against hate speech.

I find myself remembering the Fairness Doctrine fondly.

And those are the tangents this conversation must take. I agree that we MUST counter bigotry with inclusiveness and ignorance with education. Short of a soapbox on the street corner (e.g., CurrentTV) I don't know how we counter the endless stream of hateful divisiveness that spews from AM radio. If god had any sense, he would have struck Limbaugh dumb instead of deaf, because Limbaugh doesn't listen to anything ever anyway.

1. We call it what it is. Name it. (We haven't done that here, yet. My first post asked what it is.)

2. We illuminate it through conversation. We talk about the problem.

3. We develop a public awareness.

The movement goes where it will.

I suggest that we have been talking about the problem for as along as I've been alive. I could list dozens of organizations and movements that not only talk, but act for change. And we are changing whether we like it or not. A large part of the vitriol is a response to that change. Some folks plain don't like it.

It might be a good thing for us to pause at this point to remember how far we have come.

Good idea. I personally don't know of any organizations that are talking about the effect of hate propaganda on America's children.

The first time I have heard the word "hate" assigned to the right by a prominent national figure was when Bill Clinton mentioned it the other night in his speech. Ed remarked on the use of the word.

Specifically that? I challenge you to substitute the word 'hate' with another word. Personally, I don't like the parallel.

Three out of the four are about propaganda in former totalitarian states.

Thank you for the insight, though. I didn't know there was a global effort to intimidate the speech of GLBT where their children are concerned.

..on the matter of conservatives characterizing the speech of GLBT parents as indoctrination.

As for the totalitarian-state nature of the first four Google hits I copied here, that wasn't my doing. I won't say that this kind of rhetoric isn't effective. I suppose, without evidence to the contrary, that it is. Maybe we should fight fire with fire as you seem to suggest. Speaking only for myself, I find their tactics reprehensible and choose not to engage in them.

I am not suggesting that we engage in propaganda.

I am merely suggesting that we talk about hate and its effects on America's children.

I don't think it is *fire* to seek understanding and to speak truth.

I positively adore you. Your intentionally provocative OP gave rise to a really interesting conversation. Thank you.

I don't want to be one who says "Our side does it too," but we do engage in the hate. I apologize in advance for the source. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/06/secret-service-looking-into-delegate-who-said-wants-to-kill-romney/

Hate feeds on hate. Perhaps our best offense is to really love our enemies. Not original, I know.

Bill Clinton shamed me the other night. Despite all that he suffered at the hands of conservatives, he took the high road. He eschewed hate. He engaged in no revenge. He chose to do good in the world, and to cross over to model tolerance and respect.

I have not been as good as Bill. I am still angry about Bush, and I will always be angry about that. I still burn when conservatives attack the truth, or promote hatred and bigotry. There is still a universal truth in the world, and they do not respect it or their fellow humans.

And that is what made me think about the effects of continuing barrage of hate on children. I have never advocated violence or espoused government intervention in anyone's liberties. And I have never exposed a child to that kind of discussion. And I won't.

But I want us all to talk about hate in America. Isn't it time for us to stand against it? Isn't it time to stand for a luminous and clear way of getting along? Isn't it time for *that* path to be the goal? We can't get there without discussion.

So the question becomes, How? I believe that we have think tanks on both sides of the issues pursuing that particular golden chalice with unflagging effort. I do know that the pundits have exercised every available outlet to make me think, believe and vote in this way. And their disciples do believe ... I mean truly, truly believe ... that their own truth is the universal truth (facts be damned).

I agree that the continuing barrage of hate has changed us. We are polarized. We are fearful. We have shut down communication. Dialogue has been reduced to the "I know you are, but what am I" exchanges that have become so tiresome on the Sunday morning snews shows. So we tune into American Idol and let the pundits bloody each other. We disengage and we surrender to apathy or we huddle in our bunkers with our guns. Perhaps this is all by design.

I decided long ago that I will not change the world, but I can affect my small corner of it. So I will renew my ACLU membership and proudly carry the card on my person. I will continue to contribute to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Gay Pride, Act Up, UNCF and wish I could do more for the many, many organizations who work to affect change. I will model tolerance and love as my parents did. I will teach my grandchildren as best I can, as I did with my children. And I will, where I can, ask those who disagree with me (who are wrong, WRONG I tell you!) to consider another way of thinking, if only for a moment. Because that is what I can do.

I don't usually say things are anti-American but your idea is...

when/if republicans return to control some day would you want them to define progressive propaganda as child abuse...

NO discussion that seeks enlightenment is anti-American.

Absurd.

what do you think?

i said that in my initial reply

Progressives call for tolerance and community. Are you saying that Republicans would say it is child abuse to encourage tolerance and community?

where perhaps teaching your kids that having two mommies is ok would not be seen by some ultra conservatives as child abuse??

assassinating the president is not

A home where hate radio and/or Fox is constantly hammering children with racism, calls for violence, bitterness and divisiveness. Is that child abuse?

without getting into free speech issues at a minimum.

How exactly do you propose to deal with this? Other than what's already being done, such as the presence of outlets like this?

Plus, of course, the other side would say the same thing about the liberal propaganda.

I'm suggesting that we bring it to the national conversation. Maybe there is a less-loaded term than "child abuse". But if that term makes citizens think about it and talk about it, then that's at least a start in generating awareness.

There is no, none, nada possibility that right-wingers could accuse liberals/progressives of abusing children's minds. It would be pretty silly to accuse parents of polluting minds by urging them to be mindful of the earth, to be responsible for the elderly and the ill, to feed hungry children.

The right wing would argue, and do argue on a very consistent basis, that the liberals/progressives attack religion, Christianity, etc and in doing that, are abusing children and polluting their minds.

You have to realize that there are conservatives who truly believe that liberals are teaching their children murder is okay through the pro-choice movement and that sin is okay through the gay rights movement. For clarification purposes, realize that I'M not saying I believe this. But you know that there are right wingers who see us polluting children the same way we see them polluting children.

I'd suggest you rewrite your op.

Look.

We are talking about this.

Sometimes it takes a provocative statement to begin a conversation.

then you have to be prepared for people responding in a way that may not be conducive to thoughtful conversation. I think this thread is an example of that.

I see a discussion.

of abusing children's minds.

Having a glbt friend or relative babysit the kid. Traveling to another state to attend the wedding of a gay couple, playdates at single sex parent's homes..... the list goes on.

Then there is the problem of having people tell you how to raise their kids.

Kids are locked in closets, beaten, and verbally abused every day. THIS is the abuse to focus on.

Society can advocate against cruel treatment of children. There are laws, there are systems, there are protections.

At the same time, we citizens can talk about the effects of racialism, of calls for violence, of hatred on our children.

I agree with what I think you're saying - a house where children are raised believing that hate is truth are going to have trouble shaking those beliefs as they get older. Hate begets hate.

I don't think you want to call it child abuse though since it connotes, as others have pointed out, government intervention, taking away kids, etc.

But you are correct in that a citizen campaign of enlightenment or education would do wonders to help ensure that future generations are shaken from the biases and hate that previous generations carry.

Calling it child abuse does get the attention of citizens, though, as demonstrated on this thread.

You have understood the concept. A citizen campaign of enlightenment.

If many grounded and centered Americans knew the kind of hateful cesspool that is aimed at America's children daily, they would be astonished. Those of us who monitor the right know about it. We see some of it brought here for us to review.

It's wrong. It's an old human trait, to embitter ignorant people against their fellow citizens. But it's wrong.

Why can't we stop it? Why can't we be enlightened? We couldn't a movement use social media to provide information and point out ignorance?

While there is no doubt the problem is still pervasive, consider how far as a society we have come in the past 50 years, the past 150 years, etc. There's definitely improvement. Is it as fast as we would like? No. But you can't force people to adopt your viewpoints, its about persuasion and getting them to listen to your arguments. Enlightenment, exactly as you are putting it, is an extremely slow process when magnified to cover a large number of people.

I have no doubt that a few generations from now, people will look back at our society as it is today and think of what kind of savages we must have been for the way we treat homosexuals, immigrants, and others who our society has deemed a peg below others for whatever ignorant reasons.

It does take time. Look how far we have come.

But I don't hear anyone talking about this particular problem. The propagandizing of a generation that is being raised on FOX and hate radio.

Previous generations did not face this kind of propaganda. It's new. And I fear we will reap the harvest just about the time that demographics put the right wing in an undeniable minority. In other words, just when the right is losing influence, they are teaching violence ever more strongly.

years- close to two decades.

Our Teaching Tolerance program is working to foster school environments that are inclusive and nurturing – classrooms where equality and justice are not just taught, but lived. The program points to the future, helping teachers prepare a new generation to live in a diverse world.

As one of the nation’s leading providers of anti-bias education resources, we reach hundreds of thousands of educators and millions of students annually through our award-winning Teaching Tolerance magazine, multimedia teaching kits, online curricula, professional development resources like our Teaching Diverse Students Initiative and special projects like Mix It Up at Lunch Day. These materials are provided to educators at no cost.

Teaching Tolerance has produced award-winning documentary films about the civil rights movement and the struggle for social justice, bringing history to life on the screen and teaching students that they can make a difference in the world around them. Two of these films – Mighty Times: The Children’s March and A Time for Justice – have won Academy Awards in the short documentary category.

<snip>

http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/teaching-tolerance

Yes, you are right about the SPLC. But somehow there is not a national conversation about the effects of the propaganda on children. Perhaps SPLC would be the entity with the creds to take on such an endeavor.

If you want to help, get involved.

And they can start with churches.

Besides, what if your opinion of what is and is not "hate," is the opposite of how "hate" is defined? Most sane people understand that being against gay-marriage does not mean you hate homosexuals, so you would still hear that side of the issue. Most people don't equate tax cuts or program cuts with racism, so you would still hear calls for them.
Could go even further and ask what if your opinion is the one that is considered hateful, divisive and damaging? Think you would be ok with being labeled as a child abuser?

VERY bad idea, one you should think a whole lot more about.

What if it is people who do not share your political outlook or worldview?

probably. However, who gets to decide what is hateful propaganda?

It is the same as a group of people deciding that seal pups should not be clobbered to death.

It is the same as a group of people deciding to seek protections for victims of discrimination.

We seek to inform the people. We seek to counter ignorance with enlightenment. We seek to educate.

If we are only seeking to affect the national conversation, then there is no governmental involvement. No penalties, no laws, nothing like that.

There are plenty of folks that think that OUR ideas are propaganda. It works both ways.

But that didn't stop a movement of people who realized that it was a universal truth that every citizen should be free to determine his/her own destiny. The movement mounted an education campaign. It was all about standing up and changing peoples hearts and minds.

It didn't stop a movement of people who realized that women should be allowed to vote, that equality was a universal truth to seek. The movement mounted an education campaign. It worked.

Some things are universally true and transcend divides.

in the car. I am sure that will end well. Knock yourself out.

If 'We' decide then I sure feel sorry for a LGTB couple raising a kid in Kansas, community standards and all.

I'm sure a lot of conservatives consider exposing children to MSNBC to be "hateful propaganda child abuse" too..

Those you don't agree with are child abusers? Do we really need to go down this path?

Do you see anyone on MSNBC calling for race hatred? Do you see anyone there calling for assassinations? Do you?

No.

And your last sentence is just wrong.

different political ideologies. Not everybody sees things the way you do. Suggesting those you don't agree with are child abusers is nothing but arrogance..

Your whole premise is wrong..

sounds suspiciously like "natural law" to me..or an alternative. I don't find claims of righteousness, no matter where they came from, palatable. Nobody has a patent on the truth...it's nice you think you do though.

It's not my truth. It is history's truth. And the truth of science, write large by climate change.

Telling people they are worthless sinners, condemned to hell, not worth anything as a person.

Believing that adults have to "break a child's will" and get them to obey, at all costs.

Read John Bradshaw, Ph.D. on "Healing the Shame that Binds You" for the damage that the "poisonous pedagogy" as described by Alice Miller produces monsters. Yes, like Hitler. I'm not invoking Godwin's Law, Hitler really was raised by abusive parents who were determined that the parents are always right, no matter what.

http://www.amazon.com/John-Bradshaw/e/B000AP7IVY/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1347041358&sr=1-2-ent

In fact, a great number of them don't. Both my brother and sister belong to very liberal Methodist congregations.

My nuclear family are also committed, progressive United Methodists (I have been carefully trained not to ignore the EUB contingent of the UM church).

I know this and was reared up in it. Still, I concur that there is psychological damage inflicted by it. I don't expect you to agree, because we will each arrive at our own truth.

: peace :

They still teach that "sin" = shame. Even if they didn't, Methodists and other less conservative churches represent only a very small percentage in the US. The Catholic church alone has almost 9 times more members than the Methodists do.

and whether they're a small percentage or not doesn't invalidate my point. And what about the Episcopal Church?

Social issues

The preparation materials for delegates to the 2006 General Convention highlighted areas of "Social Teaching/Contentious Resolutions" made by the General Convention in the previous 30 years including race, economic justice, ordination of women, and inclusion. In some areas, such as race, the church has maintained a consistent theme. In other areas, such as human sexuality, the church has faced larger struggles.
Race

In 1976, the Convention called for an end to apartheid while commending the Anglican Church of Southern Africa (formerly the Church of the Province of Southern Africa) for its ministry.[82]
In 1979, the Convention condemned the Ku Klux Klan and all similarly racist groups and called on church members to oppose them.[83]
Between 1982 and 1985, equal opportunity employment and affirmative action were first implemented within the church.[84][85][86][87][88]
In 1991, the Convention declared that the practice of racism is sin and called on all church members to work to remove racism from the US.[38]
In 1994, the Convention condemned the "racist and unjust treatment" of immigrants.[89]

Economic justice

During the Great Depression, places like the Cathedral Shelter of Chicago served the poor.
In 1991, the Convention recommended parity in pay and benefits between clergy and lay employees in equivalent positions.[90]
Several times between 1979 and 2003, the Convention expressed concern over affordable housing and supported the church working to provide affordable housing.[91]
In 1982 and 1997, the Convention reaffirmed the Church's commitment to eradicating poverty and malnutrition and challenged parishes to increase ministries to the poor.[92]
In 1997 and 2000, the Convention urged the church to promote living wages for all.[93][94]
In 2003, the Convention urged legislators to raise the US minimum wage and to establish a living wage with health benefits as the national standard.[95][96]

The Methodist church, which is by far the largest "liberal" church in the US, reports 7.7 million members out of 145.8 million total in the US. That's 5.3%. If you throw in the Unitarians and a few other "liberal" churches, you might make it up to 7%.

I'm not sure how you think everything you just posted was relevant to this discussion. The Catholic church has lots of charities that genuinely do good work also. That doesn't change the fact that they are actively engaged in fucking up the mental health of children.

And while you seem to think the Methodist church isn't actively involved in this also, I'll point you to their position on the subject which is posted right on their web page, which states...

Original sin is the starting premise of Christianity. If you didn't have original sin, then you would not need substitutionary atonement.

Original sin is a fairy tale; an imaginary problem with an unnecessary solution.

ALL Christians believe in original sin, therefore they are all emotionally abusive, and think that being emotionally abusive to babies, children and adults of all ages is just fine and moral.

Christians believe that God is a crooked prosecutor. God charges you with a rap that you are not guilty of. You're guilty of it because you are breathing, because of a fairy tale of a couple of fruit munching idiot nudists and a talking snake that walked upright and a fruit tree.

And all Christians think it's just fine that God is a crooked prosecutor. A God that commits perjury by saying that we are all sinners, even before we make any mistakes on our own using our free will.

I don't want anything to do with an abusive, mass murdering, cruel god and that includes Jesus as well (cussing out a fig tree, condemning to hell folks who don't like his preaching, etc. etc.).

Christianity is a syncretic pagan cult that is a cannibalistic death-worshiping thought system.

All (or at least the vast majority) require one to suspend reason in favor of revelation. Once you manage that, you're gullible to all forms of hocus pocus and other assorted bullshit. That's why you get dipshits like Akin who believe women can just push "legitimate" rape sperm right out of their vagina, or Rmoney who is proud of the fact that he rejects the idea of AGW, or all the other half-wits who want another shot at the Scopes monkey trial.

Not other religions?

Jesus and/or his followers didn't invent shame you know.

That is a slippery slope we do not want to go down.

Marketing has done an awful lot to change all of our psyches. The incessant push for profits, particularly in declining markets, probably trump any other concerns except legalities.

I'm not sure that "hate programming" rises to a level of "child abuse". However, perhaps we need to keep an open mind and listen to the arguments, without dismissing them before thinking them through.

If I was an alien travel agent, and earth was a travel destination, I'm sure I would want this place Warning Labeled:

[div style="font-size:20pt;color:red;text-align:center;margin-top:20pt;" ]"Not a child-safe destination."

I find it despicable and wouldn't have my children listening to the same crap, regardless of which side of the political fence it came from.

That said... no, it is not child abuse. Perhaps if the parent straps a kid into a chair and forces them to sit there listening to fox news or hate radio for hours on end... well, yeah, then you might have a case.

Pretty much any ideology, when taken to extremes.. is harmful. I like the idea of putting together an enlightenment campaign... but your target audience would most likely have to start with the parents to be effective.

A campaign of general awareness can shape public opinion and eventually influence behavior.

Civil rights campaign changed American opinion, and each successive generation is more tolerant.

Women's suffrage changed American opinion, and is now the way of the land, despite what the shrinking right believes.

You're going down a slippery slope that will lead to unintended consequences, very bad unintended consequences.

What would those consequences be?

Look, when you use the term child abuse, it has specific, legal meaning. If somebody is guilty of child abuse, they go to jail. Are you wanting to send those parents who listen to Fox and hate radio to jail?

As far as unintended consequences go, the question becomes quickly who determines what is detrimental content for children? Will those standards fluctuate with who is in office? Because if you don't have concrete, legal definitions, then it will be left to those who are in office, and that can come back to bite you and me.

Furthermore, as one who grew up with a very conservative parent, I have a hard, hard time believing that it is child abuse. In fact it was due to my early exposure to some very far right wing propaganda that I became very liberal myself, at least in part. In addition, you're going to have a hard time convincing the public that exposure to RW propaganda is child abuse, especially when everything else in the household is fine. I know of several RW families where a parent listens to Fox, or Rush, or whatever. The parents are very loving, provide a wonderful home for their children, and do nothing, not one thing that can be considered to be child abuse.

As far as your "campaign of enlightenment" goes, it won't even get off the ground, at least not if you continue to frame the debate in terms of child abuse. It would also be laughed out of the park on the grounds of freedom of speech, and the fact that a "campaign of enlightenment" sounds way to Orwellian to far too many people. Furthermore, it would provide the right wing in this country with one more example of liberals wanting to nanny state every single thing.

If you really want to get rid of hate radio and the like, then work to restore the Fairness Act, you have a much better chance of success doing that than your "campaign of enlightenment".

But here they are again:

1. Don't confuse the desire for enlightenment with a desire for intervention.

2. I do not advocate any governmental involvement whatsoever.

3. A campaign of enlightment and advocacy is the standard method of making grassroots social change. To wit: civil rights, women's suffrage, preserving the planet, equal pay for equal work, abolition of slavery, yada yada yada.

As others up and down this thread have said, the term child abuse has specific, legal meaning, a meaning that includes the involvement of government authorities.

And as I said earlier, if your goal is to get rid of hate radio, you would be better off reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Your campaign of enlightenment would, in my opinion, come off as more liberal nanny state BS that would fall on many, many deaf ears.

It may be true that the term "child abuse' is provocative. But it started a conversation, didn't it? I have acknowledged in the thread the sentiments of those who immediately go to "intervention."

My goal is not to "get rid of hate radio." My goal is for us to talk about its effects on children. Enlightenment brings its own change. Public sentiment, once swayed, leads to changes in behavior.

It is a term weighted with a legal meaning, defining a crime and determining punishment. Are you advocating that parents be put in jail or have their children taken away because their parents listen to hate radio? Are you advocating that DFS gets involved? If not, as your posts in this thread seem to indicate, then you need to stop using the term child abuse, because you are mislabeling the problem.

If your goal is not to get rid of hate radio, then what is your goal? If it is to talk about the effects on children, then you need to provide specific examples of these effects. Peer reviewed studies, actual examples, rather than vague notions like "I think it does harm to children." Sorry, but as of this point, you can't prove that. At best you might be able to prove that a diet of Fox news and hate radio leads to children that are poorly informed about current events, but that is about it. There is no proof of either long or short term harm done to a child.

Any movement will be what it will be. A dialogue can't be opened and a problem solved at the same time. A person can't ask a question and concomitantly manage the reactions.

What would you suggest in place of the term "child abuse"?

is a horribly slippery slope and not something done in western democracies.

No one has suggested any government intervention.

legal definition requires that the state intervene.

I don't understand that at all. Please amplify.

i am under no obligation to explain something i edit out of a post. that's why the edit feature is there.

TV shows....


They're not riding around with salesman dad or mom in the middle of the day, so Radio is a even bigger fatter no.

masquerading as truth? Look, I'm a filmmaker and I also work in TV, I'm very much against censorship. But having a television station that calls itself "news" while feeding disinformation is also wrong. If you're a news station in the United States, a nation whose entire political system relies on an informed public, there should be certain tight standards on what you can and cannot call "news." I'm not saying get rid of Fox, I'm not even saying they have to change their programming, I'm just saying they should not be able to call themselves a news network. Nor should they be able to claim accolades for themselves ("fair and balanced&quot ... it's something like copyright law, you cannot claim a work of art as your own, and that's not a violation of freedom-of-speech because you are not free, legally, to claim something that isn't yours. Likewise, the surgeon general forces cigarette companies to put certain warnings on their products--the Federal Government and its High Courts have ruled that public safety outweighs the cigarette's companies' right to present their product as harmless. So there's precedent.

Now, this is going to get a little more controversial, but... those airwaves ARE public airwaves, controlled by the government on our behalf. Certain guidelines are already imposed on them for the protection of youth and the information of the viewers: the FCC guidelines and rating guides. If something is broadcast that the FCC considers inappropriate (usually at the urging of the citizenry), then the broadcaster is fined. Calls to action vis a vis violence, and programs that espouse toxic hate and bigotry, should not be tolerated on the airwaves, nor should lying about the intention of your programming (i.e., news vs. opinion)... and if a station advertises itself as a news station, then it should have to have a certain percentage of actual news vs. commentary or other entertainment programming.

I abhor the issues you have outlined and and certainly did my best to instill what I consider my 'liberal" values, i.e. question everything, strive to understand and make your best decisions fully informed ... but, I am sure some of my views could be construed (by RW nut jobs) as harmful.