Fresh on the heels of their decrying FCC restrictions on obscene, outrageous &/or offensive content by the likes of Don Imus and Rosie O’Donnell (proof that a stopped clock is right, at least twice a day), many of the same Liberals are out in force supporting...YES, OTHER FORMS of content restrictions!
Yes, the Left is favoring content restrictions in the media in the form of HR 4069 IH or the “Media Ownership Reform Act,” (MONA) which, among other things, seeks to bring back the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine," scuttled in the 1980s by the great Ronald Reagan.
Why was it scuttled?
Yes, the Left is favoring content restrictions in the media in the form of HR 4069 IH or the “Media Ownership Reform Act,” (MONA) which, among other things, seeks to bring back the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine," scuttled in the 1980s by the great Ronald Reagan.
Why was it scuttled?
Because it didn’t work!
Well, actually, it was never intended to “work,” in any “fair” or balanced way. It sought to maintain the Liberal hegemony over the media and it did that quite effectively over its lifespan.
Am I being hypocritical? Don’t I not only oppose MONA, but would support a “Fairness Doctrine” that mandated the media accurately reflect the public viewpoint, which is more than 2 to 1 Conservative/traditionalist?
While I would love to see the entire spectrum of our media and our educational establishment, for that matter, more accurately reflect the American public’s viewpoint, I DON’T, at this point, support any law that would mandate that.
From the great Mick Brady at Dancing in Tongues;
“The driving force behind this push is none other than our old friend, Dr. Strangelove himself, the radical leftist billionaire, George Soros.”
Well, actually, it was never intended to “work,” in any “fair” or balanced way. It sought to maintain the Liberal hegemony over the media and it did that quite effectively over its lifespan.
Am I being hypocritical? Don’t I not only oppose MONA, but would support a “Fairness Doctrine” that mandated the media accurately reflect the public viewpoint, which is more than 2 to 1 Conservative/traditionalist?
While I would love to see the entire spectrum of our media and our educational establishment, for that matter, more accurately reflect the American public’s viewpoint, I DON’T, at this point, support any law that would mandate that.
From the great Mick Brady at Dancing in Tongues;
“The driving force behind this push is none other than our old friend, Dr. Strangelove himself, the radical leftist billionaire, George Soros.”
<
From Insight: "At a recent National Conference for Media Reform, sponsored by Free Press, a Massachusetts-based group heavily subsidized by Soros, (Maurice) Hinchey (D-NY) laid bare his plan to silence conservative voices on television and radio. The anti-war McGovernite attacked Savage, Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts, saying they were “responsible” for leading the U.S. into the Iraq war, as well as for preparing the ground for future military invasions of Iran and Syria. According to Hinchey, these men pose a “threat” to American national security. Hence, under his bill, they would be fired."
<
"All of that stuff will end," Hinchey said.”
<
Scary stuff indeed. Try for one moment to imagine where this country will end up if one half of its population is silenced. You can find the answer in most of the places in the world that have been taken over by zealous leftists: they invariably end up in totalitarianism.”
Indeed, it is scary stuff, and it begs the question, if it’s OK for the likes of 60’s radicals like Maurice Hinchey to support a law that seeks to silence the majority voice in America within its media, why wouldn’t it be OK for Conservatives to call for an expanded form of that doctrine that would, at the least limit Liberal voices to their numbers in society (16%)...if not eliminating them from the media altogether as Soros and Hinchey seem to support doing with Conservative voices?
2 comments:
The Fairness Doctrine scares the hell out of me, only because I actually think it has a chance at becoming law once again. We can't count on Dubya to veto it.
And even if he would....who's next up in the Oval Office and would they?
Like all such things, I believe the backlash would be tremendous. Far stronger than the one that resulted in the rise of Conservative Talk Radio and FoxNews.
For a long time I never understood why those who amassed extreme wealth often became ardent socialists once they got there.
Ted Turner, a good'ol boy turned urbane socialist ("The day the Soviet Union collapsed, it felt like I lost my older brother") is one among many examples.
It's really easy to understand.
When attaining wealth, one wants the rules as loose and "free market" as possible, but once you've amassed wealth, thenyou want regulation to cement your position in place.
American entrpreneur, Armand Hammer, had numerous monopoly contracts in the former Soviet Union - no more worries about competition, some lout looking to do what you do for less, or looking to give the people better value.
In a very real sense, the free market = economic democracy, and it's the purest kind of democracy there is.
So, socialists, and all those who favor the "command economy" oppose democracy - without exaggeration, "They HATE our freedoms and democracy!"
Socialism protects established wealth at the expense of innovation and advancement. That's very GOOD for the idle rich, it's very BAD for those who have a passion to create, innovate and move society forward through free and open commerce.
Post a Comment