Democrat Goals: Government Control of Media

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well isn't this lovely? The good ole dems are sick and tired of all those conservatives getting so much airtime and want to do something to get their side of the story out. Being dems, they figure the best way to do this is to have the gov't crack down on opinions in the news they don't like...

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=333927

Kucinich: Congress To Take On FCC
January 15, 2007

Over the weekend, the National Conference for Media Reform was held in Memphis, TN, with a number of notable speakers on hand for the event. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.

The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding "hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington.” The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news public early.

In addition to media ownership, the committee is expected to focus its attention on issues such as net neutrality and major telecommunications mergers. Also in consideration is the "Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner. It was enforced until it was eliminated in 1987.

Kucinich said in his speech that "We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda" and added "we are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible."

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps was also on hand at the conference and took broadcasters to task for their current content, speaking of "too little news, too much baloney passed off as news. Too little quality entertainment, too many people eating bugs on reality TV. Too little local and regional music, too much brain-numbing national play-lists." Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein also spoke at the event.

Great! I certainly want the government forcing the media to support a particular ideaology.

Just so you know, the "fairness doctrine" was intended to force broadcast stations to air 'both sides' of controversial issues - and they could be taken to court by people who thought they hadn't presented the issue 'fairly'. Way back in 1985 the FCC found that this was having a chilling effect on news and free speech and might be unconsitutional. Now, leftists view it as a means to control all those annoying conservative people in the news.

CR

[Watchman]

Just so you know, the "fairness doctrine" was intended to force broadcast stations to air 'both sides' of controversial issues - and they could be taken to court by people who thought they hadn't presented the issue 'fairly'.

I can see where this might be a little problematic in the Promised Land of Lawyers where suing for bazillion dollars seems something of a national pasttime and the political field is outright ridiculously polarized.

[Fisherking]

Yes! Yes! Let's legeslate Fairness! Even better let's just nationalise the Media and give them what is good for them! For god's sake we know they don't have any clear thoughts….voted for Bush twice…

Boy it is a good thing this is happening in the U.S. or someone might get the idea that it is political control of the media. Just like there isn't enough of that already.

ROFLOL! But they may loose some political support if they start messing with TV programming and want to take away those (IMO also) stupid reality TV shows. Boy, I tell you, why should those media people be able to make money programming any way.

It is a good thing that the left is so tolerant or some people might think they were a bunch of narrow minded elitists who want everyone indoctrinated into their way of thinking.

[doc_bean]

I thought all media were already liberal

[Divinus Arma]

The problem is that the Liberal agneda is hard to present in a logical and persuasive manner without shocking the audience. When people start hearing the truth about raw liberalism, they run for the hills.

It is very hard to convince people why we should give free stuff to the undeserving, why we should redistribute wealth, why being soft on crime is a good idea, and why it is necessary to allow our culture to break down in permissive excess while simultaneously restricting parenting tools and blaming families for failing. (terrible wording, I know. But you get the point of the sentence)

This agenda does not acquire a natural audience because they are in direct contrast to traditional American values and the American identity.

This is why the liberals use stealth tactics in mainstream media to get a point across. And it is why liberals are so afraid of open debate and free speech.

The liberal elite are the self-selected royalty of American society. They believe that they know what is best for their low-minded peasant population. This is why they continually seek to consolidate power into the hands of the fewest people possible while attempting to supress, through lawsuits, the voice of those who oppose them.


BUT the American public sees through this. That is why Fox news is the #1 rated news network in the country, with more viewers than many of the other major netwroks combined.


Liberals are only listened to when conservatives screw up. And lately we have screwed the pooch in a major way. The fact is, America does not prefer the liberal socialist Democrats, they are simply upset with America's Party: The Republicans.

Anyway...

[Samurai Waki]

If Fox News is doing so good, why did they recently have to lay off a bunch of their anchors? Not Conservative enough?

I don't watch the news anymore, because chances are if you listen to the garbade on either side your only hearing a quarter of the truth.

[Tribesman]

Being dems, they figure the best way to do this is to have the gov't crack down on opinions in the news they don't like...

Really ?
Cracking down on views they don't like , you mean like bringing in dishonesty and unfairness to broadcasting .
Absolutely shocking .
No really it is a hell of a shock .
For all these years I have been completely wrong .
I really did think Reagan was a Republican , but he must have been an evil Dem instead .........Also in consideration is the "Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner. It was enforced until it was eliminated in 1987.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Tribesy, are you trying to say Reagan supported the 'fairness doctrine'?

Where are the self proclaimed defenders of speech who pop up whenever they think Bushitlerburton is doing something terrible (Like, oh, supposedly 'censoring' geologists)?

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Where are the self proclaimed defenders of speech who pop up whenever they think Bushitlerburton is doing something terrible (Like, oh, supposedly 'censoring' geologists)?

Waiting till there's some substance rather than a congressman flapping his lips?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Waiting till there's some substance rather than a congressman flapping his lips?

Valid point.

A Kucinich mouthing liberal platitudes for a "red meat" audience is a far cry different from a Kucinich introducing legislation re-instating the Fairness Doctrine and putting real effort behind its passage.

Would a fair slice of the American political "Left" like to see Limbaugh and others shut up -- or effectively have to pay for Al Franken to get 15 hours of broadcast time a week? Sure they would.

Will Kucinich and others actually push it, bring it to a public vote, take on the inevitable challenge in front of the Supremes, etc.? Not nearly as likely.


As a side note, DA has rather succinctly expressed a view on mainstream media that is fairly representative of USA traditional/conservative thinking. Well done DA.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Would a fair slice of the American political "Left" like to see Limbaugh and others shut up -- or effectively have to pay for Al Franken to get 15 hours of broadcast time a week? Sure they would.

I was under the impression that Ann Coulter (amongst other right-wing rabids) was calling for a lot of "liberal" media types to shut up or be prosecuted for treason not long ago.

Both sides like to claim the "other side" is unfairly biased and in the driving seat to influence the apparently docile and uncomprehending hordes. The important thing is that there are sides, and that I suspect most people either couldn't care less or are perfectly capable of making their own choices.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I was under the impression that Ann Coulter (amongst other right-wing rabids) was calling for a lot of "liberal" media types to shut up or be prosecuted for treason not long ago.

Yep. She's the "right" wing equivalent. Personally, I think she just throws out those verbal bombs to drum up book sales -- but I can't prove it.

Both sides like to claim the "other side" is unfairly biased and in the driving seat to influence the apparently docile and uncomprehending hordes. The important thing is that there are sides, and that I suspect most people either couldn't care less or are perfectly capable of making their own choices.

Again, you speak a good deal of sense here. Remember, however, that the sense of US mainstream media being more liberal than their audience is not a phenomenon of the last few years. Going back at least to the 1960s with Agnew's criticism of the media (yes, he was a crook, but his point was still worthy of consideration) and Nixon's (yes he obstructed justice, but he had a keen political sense of where a majority of American thinking trended) messages aimed at the "silent majority" there has been criticism along these lines. This is in sharp contrast to the radio era or the first part of the 20th century, where media had a reputation for hammering at government on behalf of the common man, but also of being fairly supportive of traditional values and traditional common wisdom in doing so.

Of course, take it further back and the papers were just as divisive as they are today -- and more so. Look up the columns written during the Jefferson/Adams election. Makes today's stuff look like cotton candy.

[Lemur]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were supposed to be taking Kucinich seriously.

In other news, David Wu says that the administration is full of fake Klingons. Where, oh where is the Klingon outrage?

[edit]

Fact-check for DA:

Fox news is the #1 rated news network in the country, with more viewers than many of the other major netwroks combined.

Not backed up by any numbers I can find:

Cable news outlets saw prime-time audiences dwindle in 2006, with the leader in the space, Fox News Channel, dropping 26 percent in the core 25-54 demo. CNN fell 17 percent in the demo, while CNN Headline News was down 5 percent in total viewers and 4 percent in the demo.

CNBC was the only cable news net that saw significant growth in 2006, upping its prime-time audience by 32 percent and boosting its core demo more than 15 percent. MSNBC grew slightly, upping its total prime-time audience by 5 percent and its 25-54 number by 7 percent.

In fact, you can take the ratings for all three cable news networks and they still wouldn't add up to the viewership for a single network channel's nightly news. So direct your wrath at ABC, CBS and NBC, por favor.

[Ice]

DA:

Democrats: Crappy

Republicans: Crappy

Politics: Crapppy

[Rameusb5]

DA:

Democrats: Crappy

Republicans: Crappy

Politics: Crapppy

Media: Crappiest of all.

The 24 hour news channels have done far more damage to our democracy than communism could have ever hoped to.

Some of the absolute garbage that gets spewed by the media is absolutely amazing to me. While I'm totally against censorship, it is unfortunate that 99.99% of America has chosen to let other people think for them. Which means that people actually listen to the media. That scares me.

[Tribesman]

Tribesy, are you trying to say Reagan supported the 'fairness doctrine'?

Yes , isn't that what I wrote .
Reagan loved the doctrine so much that he didn't use his Presidential veto to block it becoming enshrined in law , neither did Bush II .
So obviously I was wrong and they really are Republicans not Democrats since if they were evil democrats they would have used uncle Vito to stop the requirement for fairness and honesty in government licensed broadcasting .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Fairness Doctrine was extant law when Reagan took office. It was on the books in one form or another since 1927 as part of the legislation for the Federal Radio Commission and the successor Federal Communication Commission of 1934. So yes, you may blame Republicans, but the chaps involved were Hoover (Commerce Secretary) and Coolidge (who did not run for another term and let Hoover take the fall for a depression he sorta knew was coming).

Along with de-regulating more government than any administration in a LONG while and winning the Cold War, Reagan got rid of the "fairness" doctrine.

Like many pieces of legislation, this one is mis-labeled. Fairness by this definition requires equal time to all major candidates on any controversial or political issue. The new version would seek to extend this "fairness" to all poltical-content broadcasts. So, stations would be forced to air 3 hours of somebody like Franken in order to keep the very lucrative Limbaugh program up and running. OR they would be forced to cancel Limbaugh.

The intent -- an informed public -- is noble, but the means is impractical and functionally counterproductive to free expression.

[Tribesman]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fairness Doctrine was extant law when Reagan took office. It was on the books in one form or another since 1927 as part of the legislation for the Federal Radio Commission and the successor Federal Communication Commission of 1934.

Yep and the vote was to get proper firm legislation enshrined due to the result of conflicting Supreme court rulings .

Like many pieces of legislation, this one is mis-labeled. Fairness by this definition requires equal time to all major candidates on any controversial or political issue. The new version would seek to extend this "fairness" to all poltical-content broadcasts. So, stations would be forced to air 3 hours of somebody like Franken in order to keep the very lucrative Limbaugh program up and running. OR they would be forced to cancel Limbaugh.

Yep a problem was that broadcasters found it too much time and effort to find enough type A moonbats to counter every type B moonbat .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes , isn't that what I wrote

You wrote a addled jumble of meaningless drivel, the main point of which seemed to be that since Reagan was President while the 'fairness' doctrine still existed, he supported it as much as the dems who want to renew it.

As to those who don't seem to care about this...Are we not supposed to take the word of democrats on their own intentions anymore in cases like these?
Also, an important part of the article...

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.

This is not necessarily just about whether this will get passed into law- it probably won't- it's about how the democrats want to control the media and what that says about them as a political party.

Lemur - assuming Kucinich isnt a filthy liar and the new subcommitee is being formed, it isn't happening without the approval of the democrat machine.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Well you clearly were unable read what I wrote Rabbit.

the main point of which seemed to be that since Reagan was President while the 'fairness' doctrine still existed, he supported it as much as the dems who want to renew it.

Nope Reagan used his veto (just like Bush did) to oppose balanced reporting . So if he opposes fairness and honesty in broadcasting he must be a Democrat right
It is in your view democrats who oppose fairness and honesty in the media isn't it Rabbit .
So is Reagan (and Bush) Democrat or Republican ?
Or is the premise for your topic of the testicular variety ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nope Reagan used his veto (just like Bush did) to oppose balanced reporting

When, and for what law? And why did you also say:

Reagan loved the doctrine so much that he didn't use his Presidential veto to block it becoming enshrined in law , neither did Bush II .

?

So if he opposes fairness and honesty in broadcasting he must be a Democrat right

I never said that.

Or is the premise for your topic of the testicular variety ?

I believe you're confusing it with the premise for all your posts.

CR

[Slyspy]

Surely if the media is the liberal hotbed that you guys claim it is (and how I love the American use of "liberal") then fair reporting would benefit the conservatives?

Or am I missing something?

[Crazed Rabbit]

But what if the democrat controlled gov't were to interpret the long standing liberal bias in the media as moderate and centrist?

Even if conservatives were helped - which is unlikely, as then the dems would not mention it - I would not want such gov't interference in free speech.

CR

[Slyspy]

Why would this only be a tool of the democrats? In the unlikely event of it becaome a reality that is.

[AntiochusIII]

It's actually pretty comforting to know that we're back to blaming the Democrats for Everything Under The Sun (tm) and accusing them of trying to take control of Everything Under The Sun again. The Republicans' monopoly on that front was pretty worrying for a long time.



Next stop: Why the Libertarians are a bunch of commies under your bed.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why would this only be a tool of the democrats? In the unlikely event of it becaome a reality that is.

Because they have the power in Congress, and becuase of how this worked in the past.

CR

[Major Robert Dump]

Whatever the end result of the new laws, I'm sure Samoa and the Mariana Islands will be exempt. Move there if you don't like it.

[Tribesman]

When, and for what law? And why did you also say:

Quote:
Reagan loved the doctrine so much that he didn't use his Presidential veto to block it becoming enshrined in law , neither did Bush II .

?

that went right over your head didn't it .

Here have it in borats American style .......pause ....NOT .

So Rabbit , did Reagan or Bush call on uncle Vito or not ?

Surely if the media is the liberal hotbed that you guys claim it is (and how I love the American use of "liberal") then fair reporting would benefit the conservatives?

Or am I missing something?

That is what is so funny about this topic .

[Fisherking]

For those of you who have never seen an American News Broadcast. (& CNN International does NOT qualify) It is not actually real news. The national broadcasts are almost entirely of political content presenting a somewhat left leaning viewpoint except Fox News. (Back to them later)

American News seldom if ever gives you an international viewpoint and even those world happenings are looked at in an American political viewpoint. Americans usually have no idea of what the rest of the world thinks of a particular happening unless they are told that by the media. As a result Americans have a very limited view of the world. Some of the fault lies with the U.S. Government who have not allowed foreign news programs to air, via cable, in the past. (Canadian TV channels were off air during news times) But primarily it is because American Media just covers things in an extremely slanted way. As a result Americans have a completely different view of the world than do Europeans. This is one of the reasons Americans appear so totally ignorant of world events so far as Europeans are concerned, and Americans believe that Europeans make irrational policy decisions.

With that said, Europeans are totally ignorant of the actual American political environment. The facts of why Americans may believe as they do are given short-shrift and Republicans are usually presented as those in league with the Devil.

Americans are indoctrinated to think that they are always the good guys with white hats riding to the rescue. Both political parties help buy into that.

In fact, no one has a clear view of what is going on. Anyone in America concerned enough to be interested in politics likely has one extreme view or the other and no one occupies the middle ground. Europeans are given a slanted view as well where key facts are omitted. Everyone outside America thinks that Americans are dominated by either a free thinking elite or fundamentalist Christians with roving bands of marauders going about shooting people.

In actuality, it is sometimes hard to tell who is more wrong. The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans and everyone is right from their point of view. It is much wiser to be very sceptical of both. Both parties have their self interest at heart and neither was conceived for the purposes of evil. That does not mean that they don't both have some very bad ideas that if implemented would effect individual liberties.

Back to FOX NEWS: Fox News does try to present a fair and balanced American viewpoint in their News broadcasts; the thing is that there are very few actual news broadcasts as compared to opinion programming. Their opinion programming is firmly slanted to the right and provides the majority of their on air content. Their news will even give more of an international point of view than the others but there is so very little of it, or there was as of about two years ago.

American Political Parties are unlikely to do anything of positive consequence. Most legislation from either party is likely to be a do-something act which only looks good on paper and the actual result is detrimental; the Patriot Act and various Homeland Security measures on the right and the various gun control measures on the left being prime examples. Neither has had a real impact on security but has gone a long way in implementing Government interference into the lives of the public, while giving the impression that Government is trying to help.

Perhaps, after many years of Government service, I am just a bit jaded but the phrase "I'm from the Government and I am here to help", is still reason to be concerned, no matter which government the person is from.

[Watchman]

Around here the above tends to get summed up in rather more brief and rude sentences.