Death to Free Speech in America
By Briane - Posted on January 19th, 2007
Tagged: Media
• Personal freedom
If Dennis Kucinich, Democratic Congressman has his way there will be big changes in the media as we know it. His Domestic Policy panel plans to hold hearings to discuss the revival of the long dead “Fairness Doctrine” which was abandoned in the 1980’s. This measure would require any media outlet which presents an opinion on events to devote equal time to an opposing point of view. So much for the free market determining what will and won’t be successful in the media and goodbye to freedom of the press if this goes through. This move is aimed to silence the popular conservative talk radio industry.
Why is it that people who label themselves as progressives and the defenders of our rights and liberties can’t stand to hear anyone with a different opinion than their own? I guess rights and freedom only apply if you tow the party line.
I’m sure if this takes affect it will impact the Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs and their ilk but will it treat liberal media outlets equally? I doubt it. I don’t think you’ll see 2 versions of a story on CBS, NPR the New York Times or Saturday Night Live. Better watch out, sites like this where people are allowed to express their own opinions might be next.
I say let the audience decide. There are plenty of outlets for opposing opinions especially this day & age.
Let's hope this doesn't go through. Freedoms can be taken away one step at a time, and no matter what political party you are, this shouldn't be looked upon as a good thing.
The nightmare of paperwork and investigation it would take to enforce this blows my mind. Plus it would take the FCC's time away from their continuing quest to become the most easily offended people on earth. We have plenty of liberal and conservative media, why should it have to balance on a per-channel basis? Across the board it mor or less balances, or at least reflects popular views. This is an artificial and pointless idea.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
There isn't such thing as free speech as it is, if you think about it.
It's not like you can bash different ethnicities, drop f bombs, call someone the n word and have it be ok. You can't bash liberals without them crying "intolerance!".
The conservative voice of this country is slowly being silenced and for what? We're entitled to our opinions just as every loud-mouth, anti-American garbage spewing liberal is allowed to theirs! I'm so sick of news reports and even regular primetime shows bashing conservatives. People can't see how immature that is? I mean, sure, there are negative things about both parties and both parties have been less-than-classy at sometimes, but it's not as if the conservatives have a huge foothold in the media.
This will only make things worse. People need to get on the horn to their congressman about this!
Oh man i see our freedoms disintegrating as we speak,... slowly and rapidly at the same time they are adding bills and laws that are simmering our freedom of speech, privacy and way of living!!!!! I guess HISTORY WILL KEEP REPEATING ITSELF,... watch one day there are going to be people trying to write a new Constitution that will give us REAL freedom!!! lol Not totally funny but I mean its just that crazy!
~<3~Love and be loved!~<3~
The bill does make some sense...I'm an advocate of hearing both sides of the story. Much as I generally disagree with most conservative views, that doesn't mean I don't want to hear them.
The way things are most people tend to only watch or listen to media angles they agree with. If a huge portion of the public only listen to either conservative channels or purely liberal channels they will not be exposed to both sides.
Too many people will take whatever they read as bond simply because it appears via a Liberal media channel, or a Conservative one. This bill will force people to analyze what information they are being fed and decide what they agree with based on a decision as opposed to blind allegiance.
This bill isn't about limiting freedom of speech, it's about balancing bias. There are too many people who don't have the time to investigate a host of media channels to draw a balanced conclusion. They work all day, they maybe grab a newspaper at lunch/morning, one which will generally have a bias. They will maybe listen to a bit of radio, mostly biased shows, they will watch their favourite news channel. If all these media vessels are showing both sides, then the public has no choice but to be exposed to them.
This bill also safeguards against a far greater threat, that of corporate agenda. Let's not forget that most of the major media channels are all owned by a small number of people. These people have the power to manipulate the news agendas of a massive number of news outlets simultaneously. This bill means that measures to curb this media distortion are at least beginning to be implemented.
What about issues that have more than two sides? In America we only have two major parties, and only those views will be considered. This could easily have the effect of further entrenching, if that were possible, our disturbingly limited two party system. Most shows either hold a mild bias or are so outrageous that anyone can tell it is biased.
We would now have a hard institution to straightjacket us into a simple yay-nay, liberal-conservative balance. Think of all the issues that aren't covered by our usual greedhead hypoctites and jelly spined commitment-phobics. We both agree on our stance to legalize drugs, but that hasn't been espoused by any major party until extremely recently, and that not vocally.
I think it is an artificial and restrictive bill likely to cut out any idea not officially recognized as directly opposing another idea. A novel idea already has almost no chance of getting covered, and now channels will have to weigh its political ideas and find a competing idea to balance it. It is just too manipulative and forced.
I agree that the conglomeration of media is worrying, but by and large specific outlets aren't tightly controlled. I am sure very general rules exist as to what can be covered and what can't, but draconic overlordship is difficult and unlikely. Disney/Viacom is one of the more controlling media corps. and their biggest, publicized, rule is that their news channels won't cover Disney news.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
I get what you are saying, and it is a valid point. But the way I see it, as is, without this bill there is still pretty much only two sides put forward in mainstream media anyway, it's just that they are largely on agenda specific media channels with a bias towards one or other of the two party system.
As you mentioned in your other comment, another good point, about the paperwork and enforcing nightmare, I think this bill could really only be enforced significantly on major media outlets. The way things are, many media channels are either Conservative bias or Liberal bias. The other sides of the story are not really represented, except in small independent media channels. If these alternative views are to be aired under this bill, there must be an argument from a relevant opposition, whatever that may be.
If a left of centre view is put forward, match it with a right of centre view. If a far left view is aired match it with a far right. If an Atheist view is put forward, match it with a theist. Does that not make sense? The way I see it, the bill could provide a safeguard against one sided media agendas.
Freedom of speech is great, but those with the most media channels have the luxury of amplifying their free speech and drowning out those who disagree.
A good example of this can be found on www.adbusters.org . Here they did an experiment where they put together public announcements warning against things like watching too much TV, and eating fast food and obesity. They offered to pay the going rate for ad-space on a host of networks and were rejected without exception by every one of them. Why? Because their ads conflicted with the interests of the various channels' major advertisers. It's worth looking at.