Future of the News
By Jeffrey FolksIt's a frightening thought: government takeover of the media. But having tightened their grip on health care, financial services, and energy, it's only logical that the Democrats should turn their attention to the media.
Discussions underway at the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission point toward a dangerous new effort to regulate what Americans read and hear. The takeover under discussion would apply across the board to print media, radio and television, and the internet. The result of proposed regulations would be nothing less than an end to free speech in America.
Under the proposed changes, government would have the right to impose taxes on selected media (including internet service providers and internet sites) and redistribute funds to traditional liberal news media. Government could impose a fairness doctrine on the internet as well as on radio -- thus forcing conservative media to "balance" their programming by including liberal commentary.
Government would also be granted a wide range of options for subsidizing liberal media, including perpetual grants of taxpayer money to left-leaning publications like the New York Times and to increase funding for "progressive" media such as National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System. No wonder the Nation magazine has lavished praise on the FTC and FCC proposals: Based on its longstanding liberal bias, the Nation might qualify for a generous handout.
In its recently published "staff discussion," the FTC maintains that big-city newspapers and other traditional media (such as old-line network television) have seen their revenues declining and that, as a result, there have been "significant losses of news coverage." Since news coverage serves a "public good," it is up to the government to perpetuate these traditional media.
Nowhere in its extensive discussion does the FTC consider the possibility that old-line media are failing because they are simply out of touch with the American people. The mainstream television news outlets are clinging to a liberal ideology that is as irrelevant as Lyndon Baines Johnson, but they refuse to change. Who wants to hear Brian Williams's endless reports on "Making a Difference" when those reports routinely bash capitalism in favor of community organizing? Who wants to listen to more of the media's underhanded propaganda pieces carefully timed to support "progressive" legislation like Obamacare and cap and trade? Who wants to watch their biased exposés taking on religious leaders, big business, and the American military?
The FTC seems to believe that serious news reporting cannot exist without government subsidies. Why is it that Fox News and the Wall Street Journal have flourished while traditional networks and the New York Times have fallen off a cliff? Fox News and the Journal are doing just fine -- as are thousands of conservative websites and radio stations -- without government intervention. Government's contention that news reporting is in decline is simply preposterous: Americans are more engaged and better-informed than ever before. Perhaps that is what worries Obama's regulators.
Now Obama is out to force the public to listen to outfits like MSNBC, whether they want to or not. The FTC and FCC proposals are convoluted and numerous, but the net effect is to subsidize liberal news while taxing and restricting conservative media. This dangerous censorship is disguised as a well-intentioned program to "save the news." In fact, it is little different from the sort of limitation of free speech that is practiced in every totalitarian dictatorship.
In its recently published "staff discussion," the FTC maintains that big-city newspapers and other traditional media (such as old-line network television) have seen their revenues declining and that, as a result, there have been "significant losses of news coverage." Since news coverage serves a "public good," it is up to the government to perpetuate these traditional media.
Nowhere in its extensive discussion does the FTC consider the possibility that old-line media are failing because they are simply out of touch with the American people. The mainstream television news outlets are clinging to a liberal ideology that is as irrelevant as Lyndon Baines Johnson, but they refuse to change. Who wants to hear Brian Williams's endless reports on "Making a Difference" when those reports routinely bash capitalism in favor of community organizing? Who wants to listen to more of the media's underhanded propaganda pieces carefully timed to support "progressive" legislation like Obamacare and cap and trade? Who wants to watch their biased exposés taking on religious leaders, big business, and the American military?
The FTC seems to believe that serious news reporting cannot exist without government subsidies. Why is it that Fox News and the Wall Street Journal have flourished while traditional networks and the New York Times have fallen off a cliff? Fox News and the Journal are doing just fine -- as are thousands of conservative websites and radio stations -- without government intervention. Government's contention that news reporting is in decline is simply preposterous: Americans are more engaged and better-informed than ever before. Perhaps that is what worries Obama's regulators.
Now Obama is out to force the public to listen to outfits like MSNBC, whether they want to or not. The FTC and FCC proposals are convoluted and numerous, but the net effect is to subsidize liberal news while taxing and restricting conservative media. This dangerous censorship is disguised as a well-intentioned program to "save the news." In fact, it is little different from the sort of limitation of free speech that is practiced in every totalitarian dictatorship.
15 comments:
Suddenly, that worthless ditto machine up in my attic becomes relevant as it is the only way to disseminate information without government control.
Now, if I could only find some ditto fluid, I could start making some handbills.
The Democrats believe that free speech is unfair and inappropriate.
What would the last 20 years have been like without Rush and Fox News?
George Orwell: "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."
Propping up failure. Rewarding Failure.
Nobody does it better than the Dems.
PS - The image characters are getting so hard to read, they're going to need audio assistance for the poster.
Or maybe a news scheme is needed.
With any luck, we'll survive this in good grace.
An information bureaucracy of predictable, cement-tongue hacks, an American politburo, every liberal's wet dream. They won't even make it as far as the ash heap of history. This isn't a nation of kulaks. Bad times a'comin'.
The truth would have been hidden from us if Rush and Fox News didn't exist and that would have resulted in even more uninformed voters. The truth would be considered an outdated concept today. Misinformation galore....
"Account termination" notices Report abuse
Mike CH
Google Employee
7/7/10
If you receive a mail that threatens account termination/suspension do not answer - it is a scam!
Gmail will never send you a mail threatening account termination or lockdown. If the Gmail team needs to communicate with you, we will send you to a special web page when you next log in, or show a short "message bar" at the top of the Gmail web page.
You can report these messages to us by clicking the little arrow button in the top right of the mail, then "Report Phishing".
*** EXAMPLE SCAM MESSAGE ***
Due to the congestion in all Gmail users and removal of all unused Gmail Accounts. Gmail would be shutting down all unused Accounts, you will have to confirm your E-mail by filling out your Login Information below after clicking the reply button or your account will be suspended within 24 hours for security reasons.
* User name: ....................
* Password: ......................
* Date of Birth: ....................
* Country Or Territory: ....................
-----------------------------------
Send this around-do not let anyone be scammed!
Gmail Forum
"Americans are more engaged and better-informed than ever before. Perhaps that is what worries Obama's regulators."
This hits the nail on the head.
If they can tax free speech then it no longer is free; throw away the constitution when redistribution of basic rights takes effect.
s'ok Hussein has played 41 rounds of golf already Nik..thats what matters! .hope your weekend is fab..it's hot hot hot here!!:)
There was a time when the MSM had credibility. Not anymore. Their "confidence" ratings are lower than the great liar, barack hussein obama's are.
And we sit and wait for an election that will change the balance in at least one house of Congress so that the outrages can be investigated and fairly put before the American people to judge.
The ObamaNation fears this.
Heaven help us, friends. This is getting really, really scary.
Post a Comment