• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it TIME for Entertainers to RATCHET DOWN Political Advocacy?

Is it TIME for Entertainers to RATCHET DOWN Political Advocacy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 23.4%

  • No

    Votes: 36 76.6%
  • Total voters
    47
Hawkeye10 said:
My memory is that when Reagan was an actor he was an actor, when he was a politician he was a politician.

If this is so he does not belong in this thread.
Click to expand...

As an actor, he did a bit of work on trying to curtail the influence of collectivism in Hollywood.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Let me state it another way then - your poll question is beside the point. Then point is called amendment 1.

If you don't like what someone is saying or how they are saying it, tune them out. I didn't disagree with much of what Milo Y. said, but I didn't listen to him because he's an annoying troll.
Click to expand...

My poll is besides your point.

I am making a different point.
 
Jesse Booth said:
As an actor, he did a bit of work on trying to curtail the influence of collectivism in Hollywood.
Click to expand...

Could be, but it is not an argument that what entertainers are doing now, driving division and demeaning half the nation, is good for us.
 
Perhaps something should be done about it. It's like fake science, it's dangerous.
We have free speech but you cannot claim your food supplement has medicinal properties (cure/treat). Where is the outrage from all the "but free speech!" phony's in that case?
No, clearly whatever labels and way we differentiate entertainment from "journalism", has become a joke.

Journalism is the production and distribution of reports on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the "news of the day" and that impacts society to at least some degree
..While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of — truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability — as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.
Click to expand...

News should be news. Entertainment should be entertainment.
People left to do so will find every nook and cranny to exploit, that's a feature of free enterprise. The other feature should be finding when it doesn't' work and crafting solutions. This happened over time (Nixon administration/Fox news was the genesis, look it up).

That said, I can't personally think of any good solutions.

queenmandy85 said:
How do you separate them? When a person speaks, they believe they are doing the right thing.
Click to expand...
Glen Beck told us he didn't believe the stuff he said with regards to politics, he simply said what he felt would generate revenue.
Why didn't he for instance, just make up fantasies that were NOT political? He, and many others, use politics, because it's so important to us in a democracy. That's what generates the ratings.

If you mean "believed he was doing the right thing" in terms of whatever is best for Glenn, that's true, but in terms of believing the political spin itself is "the right thing", is just not the case.
Besides, that's not really the issue. The issues is these types adhere to nothing in the journalistic styled "code of ethics", and yet occupy the same space, if not a larger space, than journalists in terms of talking about
 
Mach said:
Perhaps something should be done about it. It's like fake science, it's dangerous.
We have free speech but you cannot claim your food supplement has medicinal properties (cure/treat). Where is the outrage from all the "but free speech!" phony's in that case?
No, clearly whatever labels and way we differentiate entertainment from "journalism", has become a joke.



News should be news. Entertainment should be entertainment.
People left to do so will find every nook and cranny to exploit, that's a feature of free enterprise. The other feature should be finding when it doesn't' work and crafting solutions. This happened over time (Nixon administration/Fox news was the genesis, look it up).

That said, I can't personally think of any good solutions.


Glen Beck told us he didn't believe the stuff he said with regards to politics, he simply said what he felt would generate revenue.
Why didn't he for instance, just make up fantasies that were NOT political? He, and many others, use politics, because it's so important to us in a democracy. That's what generates the ratings.

If you mean "believed he was doing the right thing" in terms of whatever is best for Glenn, that's true, but in terms of believing the political spin itself is "the right thing", is just not the case.
Besides, that's not really the issue. The issues is these types adhere to nothing in the journalistic styled "code of ethics", and yet occupy the same space, if not a larger space, than journalists in terms of talking about
Click to expand...

The solution, the only solution, is for people to put their agendas and will aside and focus instead on the well being of the society...to put the greater good ahead of their appetites.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Professional sports labor as well, they are entertainers, and the so-called journalists who follow them such as ESPN.

Down, for what ever reason you believe, however far down you believe, not necessarily to zero.


My Answer: Yes, because what so often happens is that these people actively demean about half the people in the nation, which drives down morale, and because the browbeating has gotten to the point that it is an uncivil act......it has become an assault on the "wrong thinkers" sovereignty.

I think that a 60% reduction would be about right.

Note: This is not about rights to speak, this is about what would be best course of action, however you define that.

tyvm
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech, even for morons.
/
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The solution, the only solution, is for people to put their agendas and will aside and focus instead on the well being of the society...to put the greater good ahead of their appetites.
Click to expand...

The owners of this "democracy" will never allow it.

Their appetites for money and power are insatiable.

They never stop until they are forced to.

See every revolution, ever.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Opinions on what's "right" to do will vary, but we remain a country where people can say what they want (mostly). Sometimes there may be market and/or personal consequences to speaking. Hell, we have networks and websites that are nothing but propaganda arms for the 2 political parties. I don't watch those networks, and consider the websites to be lying/spinning until proven otherwise - that's my solution.
Click to expand...

You not listening/tuning them out doesn't prevent real societal harm though.
What about marketing non-science based drugs as curative/real, as related to drugs/supplements?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_(dietary_supplement)

Sure you can ignore the marketing, but if the marketing is not true, the rest of society is still at risk. And I assure you, some will slip by you if they are not regularly enforced against. There should be a higher threshold than simply "be smart otherwise you're ****ed". We could say the same about anything..hell, labor laws. Don't work for a boss if they are an asshole! Who needs government enforced safe work conditions!? You're free to go elsewhere!!

Same with fake-news. Fake media propaganda changes society, your risk the integrity of your society just the same. Journalism is held to certain ethical standards for real, and good reasons. Entertainers that are nearly indistinguishable from journalism may also cross that line.

There is a reason propaganda is an entire field of study and specific tactic used by military's around the world.
 
What if...? said:
The owners of this "democracy" will never allow it.

Their appetites for money and power are insatiable.

They never stop until they are forced to.

See every revolution, ever.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with that, but you are missing the point of the thread.

What are entertainers for?

Are they helping us now or are they hurting us now with their constant haranguing, their constant "US v THEM" mentality?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The solution, the only solution, is for people to put their agendas and will aside and focus instead on the well being of the society...to put the greater good ahead of their appetites.
Click to expand...
I agree, but we ave never successful done this in a meaningful way outside of some sort of legislative action. I mean, the point of being free is to exploit the system for personal gain, according to many libertarian-types and business people. And their shareholders support them as long as it includes profits and avoids net negative legal risk. I'm not saying I know of any ideas for such good legislation, but I do know we have done exactly what you're saying in other industries to good success...
 
Mach said:
I agree, but we ave never successful done this in a meaningful way outside of some sort of legislative action. I mean, the point of being free is to exploit the system for personal gain, according to many libertarian-types and business people. And their shareholders support them as long as it includes profits and avoids net negative legal risk. I'm not saying I know of any ideas for such good legislation, but I do know we have done exactly what you're saying in other industries to good success...
Click to expand...

I reject that.....people used to be able to put down their wants/demands when the fight got in the way of the overall health of the community.

At least Ratchet Down, at least for a time.....but that is not the point of the thread either...

What SHOULD entertainers do?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I specifically said that this is not about rights to speak, it is about what is the right thing to do.

You fail at following along.
Click to expand...

No, I follow just fine. As long as they have the right, they can do as they please, whether you like what they say or not.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
But, by not listening to them, you deprive their employer of revenue so their employer just might decide that loss of revenue is reason to let them go.
Click to expand...

That is entirely possible. Free speech just means you can say it and the gubment won't interfere. Your employer might.
 
Redress said:
No, I follow just fine. As long as they have the right, they can do as they please, whether you like what they say or not.
Click to expand...

Even on the second go you fail....

So sad.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Even on the second go you fail....

So sad.
Click to expand...

Again, I understand what you are trying to say. I simply reject your notion for reasons you don't like.
 
Redress said:
Again, I understand what you are trying to say. I simply reject your notion for reasons you don't like.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with me, the question is what would be best for America.

The second place you go wrong is this is not about what they can do, this is about what they should do, and why.

Are we going to see the third attempt to track with the thread from you?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Professional sports labor as well, they are entertainers, and the so-called journalists who follow them such as ESPN.

Down, for what ever reason you believe, however far down you believe, not necessarily to zero.


My Answer: Yes, because what so often happens is that these people actively demean about half the people in the nation, which drives down morale, and because the browbeating has gotten to the point that it is an uncivil act......it has become an assault on the "wrong thinkers" sovereignty.

I think that a 60% reduction would be about right.

Note: This is not about rights to speak, this is about what would be best course of action, however you define that.

tyvm
Click to expand...

To be honest I could care very little. I hold no stock in what an entertainer says, and pay as much attention.
 
I'm not sure I understand the point of the thread. It seems like the reason stated was that entertainers demean half of the country, but almost everyone does that. Why shouldn't we include all of our politicians and the POTUS himself in this discussion. Is it more important that entertainers tone it down, or people with real power? Either way, I would vote no on forcing people to ratchet down their speech.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
What SHOULD entertainers do?
Click to expand...
Then I'll add myself to the list of those who do not think you're making any sense with regards to what the thread is "about".

People should do what they choose to do. Without context there isn't much more to say about that.
List any *should* and it's likely we can list any number of counter-examples where they shouldn't have...

...so should a hollywood actor not mention politics once if interviewed about it? Sure they should, if they want.
The "damage" this does in comparison to fake-news media that literally changes social ideas about politics based on misinformation, is as different as night and day.
 
MrPeanut said:
I'm not sure I understand the point of the thread. It seems like the reason stated was that entertainers demean half of the country, but almost everyone does that. Why shouldn't we include all of our politicians and the POTUS himself in this discussion. Is it more important that entertainers tone it down, or people with real power? Either way, I would vote no on forcing people to ratchet down their speech.
Click to expand...

Force was never part of the question and I say that Entertainers Job is to try to being us together, to attempt to expand the common ground, not to divide us like most everyone else does.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
If they are hurting the nation do you care?
Click to expand...

They hurt no one. Those who choose to listen do, those that don't, don't. It matters not, if an entertainer chooses to make their opinions known.
 
Mach said:
Then I'll add myself to the list of those who do not think you're making any sense with regards to what the thread is "about".

People should do what they choose to do. Without context there isn't much more to say about that.
List any *should* and it's likely we can list any number of counter-examples where they shouldn't have...

...so should a hollywood actor not mention politics once if interviewed about it? Sure they should, if they want.
The "damage" this does in comparison to fake-news media that literally changes social ideas about politics based on misinformation, is as different as night and day.
Click to expand...

What should entertainers do at this time of great division to foster the best interests of the nation/society/Greater Good.

This is not complicated.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Force was never part of the question and I say that Entertainers Job is to try to being us together, to attempt to expand the common ground, not to divide us like most everyone else does.
Click to expand...

I think you are giving entertainers too much power. Their job is to make money by entertaining people. Just because our celebrity obsessed culture wants to stick a camera in their face and ask them random questions doesn't mean their opinions are valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom