DANGER ZONE!
It seems that Mr. Obama thinks we have too much information and that our free and increased access to information is putting a “strain” on democracy. Fundamentally, this is troublesome, and while much could be said on this topic, because there is no argument to win with Mr. Obama himself, not much more needs to be said. His views speak clearly for him. ... read more ...
While I try to steer clear of conspiracy theories or discussion of evil motives, I have a worry.
Do you remember, in the months shortly after Obama was elected, when there was noise about reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine (or institution of some type of regulation to “level the playing field” with regard to talk radio)? Without going into specifics, politicians such as Dick Durbin (Sen), Nancy Pelosi (H. Rep), Debbie Stabenow (Sen), Anna Eshoo (H.Rep) and others, spoke out in favor of reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine and some even floated legislative trial balloons or regulatory proposals to advance the idea. But suddenly, Obama, with the waive of the presidential magic wand, called off the idea shutting down the discussion.
While our Congressional leaders make noise about revival of the “fairness doctrine”, Iceland, somewhat known for its pseudo-socialist policies, is making bona-fide efforts to become the world leader in ensuring a free press. See their government’s proposal here: Modern Icelandic Media Initiative. Congressional desire to roll back free speech and Iceland’s initiatives to ramp up free speech should be a warning sign that our leaders are fearful of a truly free press and likely see control of it as a measure to ensure their grip on power. Thoughts?
Just a short blurb here to ask, “Should the feds prop up Air America?”.
It seems they’re in dire straits. If you read my rant below on gov’t media subsidy, then this is the natural result of the marketplace of ideas I am preaching, and the marketplace should not be tampered with by Uncle Sam.
This is big. Finally, the McCain-Feingold bill has been rolled back. After review of the highlights below, it is chilling to think that only 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed with the majority opinion. Some portions of the majority and concurring opinions (which I appreciate most) are below. Citations are redacted. The full opinion is available here. Comments are welcomed.
Majority Opinion, J. Anthony Kennedy:
The recent headline in USA Today (here) says that Harry Reid apologized for his “racial” remark. Anybody find it odd that the word “racist” is not used in this article to describe Reid or the remark? I find it interesting that there’s little to no questioning whether Reid is a racist bigot. Instead, the article serves as a platform to communicate Reid’s apology, and Obama’s acceptance of same, without inquiry. I wonder what USA Today would be reporting if some high-ranking GOP Senator had made the same comments?
On another front regarding this same news event, it is being reported that CBS 60 Minutes in a segment aired 1/10/2010 with the authors of “Game Change” (the book which exposed the Reid remarks) the topic of Reid’s remarks were completely ignored. Ask yourself why, and try to answer honestly. Watch clips here and see how obsessed CBS is with Sarah Palin, while having no time for Harry Reid’s racism – and let’s not forget, Sarah Palin is no longer an elected official, and Reid is the leader of the U.S. Senate. View here.
NO, HELL NO.
Think for a moment about what free speech entails. In addition to traditional notions of free religious and political expression, it is the foundation for free creative expression (for creations both good and bad). This is the freedom to create and market a top 10 hit, a box office blockbuster, a wildly successful advertising campaign, etc. It also is the freedom to create and have no commercial success whatsoever, as the vast majority of creative persons do (think: “starving artist”). Free speech carries no guarantee that the message will be heard, liked or purchased.
As a basic premise, the Fairness Doctrine was enacted by the FCC at a time when the concept of “scarcity” was readily accepted with regard to broadcast media. It’s a simple concept – there is only so much bandwidth on the electromagnetic spectrum and only a certain number of radio and television station licenses can be allocated to geographic regions without interference between signals.
MediaFairness.com is dedicated to fighting the idea that fairness must (or can) be imposed upon the media.
For one, this site will serve to argue against re-adoption of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”, based on the well-founded argument that the Fairness Doctrine is an unlawful prior restraint on speech which, when in effect years ago, was imposed in order to grant rights to broadcasters to editorialize and was technically based on the Federal Communication Commission’s notion of “scarcity”. With new media technology, scarcity no longer exists.
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting Heritage Foundation Fact Sheets
Is There Such a Thing as “Media Malpractice”?
Joe Scarborough calls the media’s apparent ignoring of the brewing Sestak story, “Media Malpractice”. Does he imply that there is a duty or obligation for fairness in reporting, or is he merely pointing out the continuing intellectual dishonesty in the mainstream media? If the former, this sentiment lends itself to the question: ... read more ...