May 27, 2009 Political
Well, it’s coming, there’s going to be a new sheriff in town, and he’s going to want to regulate the Internet in such a way as to ostensibly “protect the public interest”, but in reality, find a way to suck money from the interactions of the internet , whether it’s chat rooms, blogs, or internet commerce. Everything will become regulated, and because it will be regulated, it will also be monitored for threats, for content, and for bias (against the regulators, of course).
I am not a lawyer, and do not claim to be prescient, but with Barama taxing the snot out of everything else, including the 95% he said would get a tax break, it stands to reason that the internet, which has remained like the wild west, relatively free, would fall under his money grubbing scrutiny sooner rather than later. How else does he think he can fund his health care, and begin to muzzle criticism of his policies?
The FCC will soon have a 3-2 Democrat majority. It’s no secret that two of the Democrats serving on the FCC favor restoring balance to talk radio – in other words, they would move conservatives out and balance them with liberals. They call it balance and diversity, but whenever government regulates free speech, it is censorship. Whenever government proscribes a certain amount of speech, it is speech control. John Madison who helped craft the First Amendment would roll over in his grave.
This debate is one of the hottest topics on radio today and with the White House declaration of war on Rush Limbaugh there is almost a fever pitch in Washington by Democrats to take back the airwaves because they think conservatives dominate talk radio and Fox News. That’s true. But, we don’t dominate the rest of the media which includes hundreds of NPR stations, the liberal network Air America, dozens of cable news and public affairs channels, dozens of magazines, 1400 newspapers, and tens of thousands of Internet sites.
On any given day, Americans can get any point of view anywhere which makes the argument for control of American airwaves moot, at best. Yet, the debate is moving ahead and Democrats are carefully writing language for regulation of our broadcast media. It is personal for them. They want to control it all and they want to eliminate conservative views from the media. Big Hollywood
This will of course, include the media known as the Internet- where Barama’s most vociferous critics reside, as well as many of his most ardent supporters. It’s a constant give and take on the blog sites, but how much tamer will it be when the regulators come in and write their rules for this free speech media? How much will this cost to send information or opinion out into the ether?
As it stands right now, the spirited discussion can sometimes get out of hand and off topic, but I know I would rather have that than to be told what to do or say, or how many words I was allotted. This will change, and not for the better if Skinny B and his Chicago posse get their way.
With Democratic majorities in Congress and a liberal Democratic administration we can blunt the political influence of media conglomerates and the Right. That is why the Republicans and their corporate media sponsors want to destroy Net Neutrality. They know from their experience with talk radio and the creation of Fox News that corporate absorption of the Internet and ending net neutrality would be a propaganda coup.
The Obama Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a revivified Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice could pursue all sorts of reforms that would open up the nation’s political discourse. A few minor changes in the rules and regulations governing the public airwaves and corporate media consolidation could transform the political economy of the media sector. Such reforms would make it more difficult for networks to shove people like Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer down our throats because enhanced competition would mean that rivals might be broadcasting more attractive fare. Breaking up Rupert Murdoch’s empire (starting with revoking the waiver that allows him to own the New York Post), and busting up Clear Channel’s monopoly of radio would be a good place to start. Congress, working with the Obama Administration, could then revisit the odious Telecommunications Act of 1996 and remove or rework its worst provisions. Huffington Post
Yep- this is just a start on the Brave, New World of the Liberal- speak. Note that they say that the “fairness doctrine”, or as they speak of it,”Net Neutrality”, in their minds, is being threatened by the big, bad Murdoch and his Fox News, and ownership of the New York Post- because these entities say things Liberals don’t like. It doesn’t matter that these things are true, they are unpleasant for these lotus- eating libs, and they must be regulated for more “attractive fare” Lovely.
What I find funny is that the author of this article in the Huffington Post, Jim Palermo, feels as though ALL the media is like Fox News- how absurd. a five minute viewing on virtually any other channel would reveal the liberal bias of those networks, but that’s not enough for Skinny B- no, he wants it all, and no criticism of his teleprompter either. Perhaps that is what is behind the creation of his little OTV station. State- run Television- oh boy, doesn’t that send a tingle up YOUR leg?
Liberals are so consumed with (still) trashing any possible revival of the Bush name and all associated with it, that they are almost cross-eyed , like a cat that was dunked in cold water. Any possible network, whether it be radio, TV, or Internet, will be controlled by these people through these laws, so as to silence dissent from any quarter.
But what happens when the libs begin to dissent? As they will- they are so quarrelsome that when there are no voices from the right left to be heard, they will turn on themselves in a remarkable display of backbiting.
That is, if Barama allows them to.
Jan 10, 2008 Political
I wrote a post earlier about Ron Paul being excluded from a debate. Duncan Hunter was also excluded and I commented that anyone who is still in the race deserves to participate in any process associated with the election including the debates. Fox News has decided that they will exclude candidates based upon polling results but they also rely on polling data that excludes certain candidates from the process. Duncan Hunter is such a candidate. If one were to look at Fox’s site he is not listed as a candidate and Real Clear Politics does not list him in their polls, polls which Fox uses when making its determination.
Duncan Hunter is being excluded from the South Carolina debate based upon criteria that Fox set but which Hunter could never hope to obtain if he is not included in the actual polls. Hunter paid $25,000 to be on the SC ballot and until such time as he withdraws from the race he deserves to participate like any other candidate.
The election process requires the people of this country to collect information about candidates and determine which one best defines their beliefs and goals. Part of this process is to have debates which pit the candidates against one another so that we the people can get an idea of where they stand and what they will do as president (or whatever office they are running for). The media should not be filtering these candidates and presenting only those deemed worthy by them.
Duncan Hunter is an honorable man who served this country in the military, who serves in Congress and who supports our men and women in uniform. He has strong positions on ILLEGAL immigration and he is a true conservative. To exclude him from the public forum is to do a great disservice to those who will make an important decision about who leads this country. The election process belongs to the people and not the media.
I say this with regard to any candidate from any party and I feel just as strongly that excluding Kucinich and Gravel (whoever that is) was wrong. There have been low polling people in the past who have not been excluded. Imagine the uproar that would occur if Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson had been excluded when they made their bids. Of course that is hypothetical because the media would never do something like that and offend the race hustlers, but I digress.
Fox News and any other outlet that sponsors a debate should include ALL candidates so long as they are still actively part of the process. To do anything less is an affront to the political process and truly un-American.
For a news organization that claims to be “Fair and Balanced” Fox’s actions appear to be anything but.
Shame on you Fox and shame on you SC GOP for allowing this censorship to take place.