I have to disagree with Fran Lebowitz

[Trumpocalypse]

Just watched this week's Real Time and really have to disagree with something said by Fran Lebowitz. She said that it's OK to give idiots a platform because it exposes their idiocy. She is wrong. It shows that she lives in a bubble and only knows other people who think like her. But everyone doesn't think like her. I do as many here on DU do. But many don't.

After she said it I'm glad Seth MacFarlane said 'that hasn't been working'.

In reality, by giving idiots, bullies, hate-mongers, etc. a platform you are only emboldening other idiots, bullies and hate-mongers. It legitimizes them. I think we all saw this over the last two years with Trump's campaign. Back in the 70s, Norman Lear was surprised to learn that many conservatives loved All in the Family. Why? Because they thought that Archie made a lot of sense. They didn't see the show as Lear wrote it, a satire on the stupidity of bigots and the right. But rather as a validation of the those views that they held. Archie their hero who slapped down the views of his liberal son in law week after week.

I believe in the 1st Amendment and don't believe in censorship. But these is no right to be on TV. And those that spew the most vile and disgusting views have no right to that platform.

[ksoze]

1. Your last paragraph is a contradiction

You have a right not to watch a tv channel. Use it, but do not attempt to censor for all.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

2. + 1 ..n/t

[Salviati]

4. No it's not.

https://xkcd.com/1357/


Your right to free speech does not give you a right to any platform you would want.

[Orrex]

22. I was accused of exactly that just yesterday

Imagine my surprise to learn that I am the federal government. Little ol' me!

[Trumpocalypse]

5. No one has the right to be on a TV show. That's not a contradiction.

And for the record I didn't and refuse to watch last week's Real Time because a certain vile person was given that platform.

[avebury]

20. The Constitutional right of Free Speech only means

that you have the right to say what you want to say (with some reasonable controls - for example you can't yell fire in a crowded room). It does not automatically grant you to access to all forms of communication. Newspapers/magazines doe not have to interview a person. TV shows do not have to have the person on a show. Publishers don't have to publish a book. Radio talk shows don't have to have a person on. The choice of private entities is countered with the internet which makes numerous social media websites (Facebook, Twitter, etc), chat sites (like DU), youtube and who knows how many other websites available for people who want to say what is on their minds.

[logosoco]

3. Platforms, such as what Limbaugh and O'Rielly have been using,

where there is no time spent for counter arguments...that is a problem. Broadcast television used to be much better about allowing time for that. (I think it used to be a law that they had to provide time for counter view points that Reagan gutted).
But on a panel show where others can question them, I think it is very important.

[Trumpocalypse]

6. There use to be the Fairness Docterine and Equal Time Rule

but Reagan got rid of them. I wonder why? LOL

[logosoco]

8. That's the one! Such a nice sounding name I should be able to remember it

and why would anyone want to get rid of something like that!!??!!

[pnwmom]

7. Agreed. Anyone can have a platform, on youtube or standing in the parking lot

at Walmart.

But TV and traditional publishers only have a limited number of spots they can give, and there should are some vetting of who gets those limited spots.

[PoliticAverse]

9. Was Hitler an idiot? Would Lebowitz have given him a platform?

[erpowers]

10. They Have To Be Negated

You cannot just let Donald Trump and Milo Yiannoplous get on stage and say stupid things and expect people to realize those things are stupid. You have to negate them when they say stupid things. Milo Yiannoplous' stupidity was exposed on Real Time even without Bill Maher conducting a hard hitting interview. Imagine what would have could have happened if a serious and smart liberal had debated Yiannoplous. He could have been further exposed. I think when a stupid person is given a platform, but there is someone there to negate them their stupidity is exposed.

[itcfish]

11. Sorry I found the author

Muslim/Indian lady offensive. Making excuses for trump and badmouthing liberals. Seth did a good job trying to correct her ignorant statements.

[BannonsLiver]

30. I found her even more repugnant than Milo in many ways

But I don't see anyone here whining about Bill having her on.

[itcfish]

40. Me Too

n/t

[mountain grammy]

12. What Seth said!

[flamingdem]

13. Sadly our media is 50% and until that changes the Conways of the world

will get a chance to spew, even if they do ultimately get pushed out they get to do their damage.

[NCTraveler]

14. Your first paragraph completely contradicts itself. nt.

[Trumpocalypse]

16. How so?

[NCTraveler]

19. She lives in a bubble. She wants to give others a voice.

Those can both be found in the first paragraph.

[Trumpocalypse]

23. Not a contradiction at all

She does live in a bubble and thinks that everyone will react as she does by giving hate-mongers a platform. As Seth pointed out, that hasn't been working. Why? Because outside of her bubble some people think differently.

[SDJay]

15. Then For-Profit Media

needs to go, which we obviously know it won't. Once the Fairness Doctrine got shitcanned and for-profit, shares-driven companies starting owning the dissemination of our information, everyone got a platform. Or should I say, everyone who spewed Siren Songs to the chosen demographics of the TV shows, radio shows, etc.

Providing actual, objective and accurate information became an afterthought. Walter Cronkite would be off the air within months now because he'd be too 'boring' and 'bland' for the no attention span viewership.

The point is that idiots are always going to have a platform as long as those providing it have a profit motive.

As a first amendment person, I think idiots should have the same opportunity to step onto a platform as everyone else. I will continue to exercise my right not to listen to them. That's the best we can do in this system unless we want to take steps onto what I consider a very slippery slope.

[MountCleaners]

17. OK, but...

There are probably a lot of people out there who voted for Trump who could turn against him, especially if he and his administration are overexposed. Ridicule can do wonders for our side. I mean, they're that ridiculous.

[Trumpocalypse]

18. Maybe some

But all the free media that Trump got only helped him.

[oberliner]

21. Are you saying that only people who share your view should be on TV?

Or what?

[Trumpocalypse]

24. Not at all

But you don't give a platform to hate-mongers. That only legitimizes them.

[oberliner]

27. Understood

But right-wingers would say Rachel Maddow is a hate-monger.

I guess the question is, who decides who is a hate monger and who isn't?

[Trumpocalypse]

28. I would think it is pretty obvious to most.

And I've never seen anyone on the right call Maddow a hate-monger so please don't indulge in intellectually dishonest straw man arguments.

[oberliner]

32. You would be wrong

That is part of the problem of only speaking with people who see the world the way you do. You forget (or pretend not to know) that others see things very differently.

Rush Limbaugh, for instance, accuses Rachel Maddow of being a hate-monger every single time he mentions her. In fact, he has called the entire MSNBC network a bunch of racists. And his show is enormously popular (much more popular than Rachel's show).

Maybe get your head out of the sand and realize what sort of stuff is being said on the right (and Limbaugh is relatively mainstream right - try Breitbart).

[Trumpocalypse]

33. And you still think

that giving extremists a platform is still a good idea. That has worked out well.

[Vinca]

25. I agree with her. If you don't give an idiot the stage, no one will know they're an idiot.

Last edited Wed Mar 1, 2017, 08:10 AM - Edit history (1)

[Trumpocalypse]

35. Except for other idiots.

And that really worked well in the last election.

[HopeAgain]

26. Short Term v. Long Term

Lebowitz is correct, understanding that it works on a long arc. Hitler was a stark example of the short term horror that effective propaganda can wrought. But over the long term, lies are exposed, false beliefs and rejected and we move along the slow path to an advancing society.

Sure, I would love to control the message put out there, word by word, to make sure that it fits my deep and unerring view of what should be said, but the rest of the world doesn't seem to recognize my perfect views.

Free speech is a dangerous, but necessary thing.

[Trumpocalypse]

29. Not saying to curtail free speach

But no one has the right to be on a TV show.

[BannonsLiver]

31. True, but one can always turn the channel

That's the beauty of modern entertainment.

[Trumpocalypse]

34. It's those that don't turn the channel

that are the concern. Those that have their extremist views validated and legitimized. Would you give Hitler a platform on National TV or the KKK?? You only have to look at recent incidents of anti-sematic and other racist attacks to see how naïve that attitude is.

[Cosmocat]

36. This country is FAR past that point

This isn't a little cold you can just take some vitamin C and go about your business.

This country has stage 4 cancer, nothing short of full chemo/radiation can possibly pull us back.

And, this dimwit is full of shit.

[Trumpocalypse]

37. I am???

[Cosmocat]

39. I'm sorry

that dimwit on Maher's show Friday night.

[betsuni]

38. Fran Lebowitz living in a bubble?

A bubble of being intelligent with common sense and having friends the same? That should be normal. Hello, Idiocracy.

[Trumpocalypse]

41. It should be the norm.

Unfortunately it is not. The last election proved that.