Fairness Doctrine

By -

I expected it to be coming.  When you are trying to set up a totalitarian state, the first thing you need to do is seize control of the media, especially the airwaves.  Look what has happened to the press under Putin in the New Russia. 

Hence the so called Fairness doctrine that designates the government to supervise any discussion on the airwaves.  All such discussions must be "balanced" whatever that might possibly mean.  The result, talk shows do not exist with a point of view; only allegedly objective shows. Such shows, like our major media news outlets, choose what events are newsworthy, and which are not. They also choose how every story will be "spun."  Are Israelis victims or criminals. Who is to say.  Apparently the government will tell you. 

But allegedly "objective" news programs will not be criticized. Only frankly and honestly partisan points of view like Rush Limbaugh on talk Radio or Sean Hannity on Fox News will be targeted.  Amazing how so called "liberals" are so hostile to the free marketplace of ideas.  They love to come  up with ways to prohibit points of view they disagree with, such as labeling it "hate speech."  If Rush is such a big fat idiot, prove it.  (P.S. I do not agree with everything said on talk Radio, obviously, but certainly feel they have the right to say it). 

Comments

J.D. Kessler said…
Bob:

Certainly the government cannot censure what the right wing nuts say even though it is replete with exaggerations, hate speech, and out and out lies. It is very frustrating that it appears there is no debate on these talk shows. Those with opposing views are ridiculed as idiots...Have you ever listened to Mark Levin... He is probably the most afraid of an honest debate, which is odd since he's actually a lawyer.

Do you think the consolidation of the media networks contributes to the perception that right wing talk programs are free to put out their version of the truth unopposed by intelligent thought on the other side of the argument?

Interesting you pick Joe McCarthy as a supporter of fair and balanced debate, or a critic of those who would punish those with different views. Truly you have to admit you have used a classic example of turning the truth on its head. This asshole used his committee the same way Rush uses his microphone to attack anything he disagrees with and without regard to the truth of the arguments he employs. Those who opposed McCarthy became targets themselves. Think about the irony of using McCarthy as the spokesman for free speech, open debate, and supporting the right of dissent.
7:47 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How About Kids Accounts?

By -
posted by Bob Clasen Mr. President, Let's Share the Wealth By DAVID BROOKS Published: February 8, 2005 President Bush said he was open to other people's ideas on how to fix Social Security, so I hope he'll listen to mine. My idea starts with a blunt political observation. Personal accounts - as they are currently envisioned - are going to be hard to pass. Every important Democrat opposes them. Jim McCrery, the Republican who is chairman of the House Social Security subcommittee, says the president's plan will have to fundamentally change if it is to have a chance. So my idea is this: If the president's current version of personal accounts stalls, he should consider another version - one that is more likely to win broad support, and that achieves all the goals of an "ownership society." The personal accounts I'm thinking of would be inspired by a proposal called KidSave, which was floating around in the late 1990's. KidSave wa...
Read more

Democrat Party: "Dependency-Bureaucracy Complex"

By -
by George Will ____________________________ If Sept. 11 had never happened -- if debate about domestic policy had not been drowned out by the roar of war -- the potential domestic ramifications of this election would give it unusual nation-shaping power. To understand why is to understand some of the Democratic rage about the specter of a second term for George W. Bush. He has a multifaceted agenda for weakening crucial components of the Democratic Party, factions that depend on cosseting by the federal government. Consider trial lawyers and organized labor. John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as running mate was a blunder, and not just because Kerry probably will lose Edwards's North Carolina. The Edwards selection ratifies a provocative fact: trial lawyers have become the Democrats' most important faction. This has energized small-business owners, the self-employed, doctors and others who worry that they live one lawsuit away from ruin. Such people, now arous...
Read more

Victory in Fallujah

By -
_____________________ by Ralph Peters New York Post November 11, 2004 -- IN the Second Battle of Fallujah, military operations are ahead of schedule. Our casualties have been blessedly light. The terrorists who haven't fled are being killed by the hundreds. Our troops will soon achieve their goal of eliminating Iraq's key safe haven for terrorists. Our Marines and soldiers have carried the ball inside the 10-yard line. The media's response? Move the goalposts. The legions of pundits ("Will talk for food") now suggest that a win in Fallujah will be meaningless because we failed to kill or capture the terrorist leadership, because some of the thugs ran away and because Fallujah won't resemble Darien, Conn., by next Sunday. On Tuesday, as our troops handily pierced the defenses terrorists had spent months erecting, The New York Times carried two front-page stories implying that our forces were facing possible defeat. The Times' military analysis...
Read more