May 6th 2009
Dems’ Strange Search For News Independence
A
s the liberal Boston Globe, which always can be counted on for favors by John Kerry, struggles on the brink of insolvency, the Massachusetts Dem has suddenly become concerned about the nature of news sources, and the peoples’ ability to find the sort of news they like.
A Senate panel is looking at the plight of struggling newspapers in the digital era.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said Wednesday’s hearing on the future of journalism comes as many papers falter and new ways of delivering information multiply by the day.
Kerry said steps must be taken so the news media can stay diverse and independent. (USA Today)
Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, D-Natch!, jumped on the bandwagon, saying it would be cool if the feds could ease the liberal news media into a new non-profit sort of entity, to ensure that they could blather at will without having to worry about offending readers.
Isn’t this all interesting? Here’s John Kerry’s position on diverse and independent media in June 2007:
Senator John Kerry is calling for reimposition of the fairness doctrine.
In a radio interview on WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show, excerpted on YouTube, Senator Kerry said he thought the doctrine should return. Calling it one of the “most profound changes in the balance of the media,” he said conservatives have been able to “squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views. I think it has been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public dialog,” he said. (source)
And here’s Ben Cardin:
The government “has the responsibility” to make sure there are a “variety of opportunities for people to get information,” said Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) when asked about the Fairness Doctrine at the Democratic Senatorial Committee election night party on Tuesday. (CNS)
So they want to legislate liberal media in at taxpayer expense (non-profit status would relieve newspapers of tax burdens), while legislating conservative media out (the fairness doctrine would destroy their appeal, driving away advertisers).
Isn’t it funny how the same goal - the desire for multiple voices in the media - can look so different in the eyes of a big-government, anti-free market liberals? It’s more evidence of the Dems’ refusal to learn lessons from history.
Until a few decades ago, cities in America were served by multiple newspapers: Liberal, conservative, trashy, Catholic, black, suburban, capitalist, socialist, all touting the news in their own voice, appealing to subscribers who liked that voice. There was no call for fairness, because the free market provided enough choice. And when this model started evolving into the next, there were no calls from Congress save newspapers.
The second model, one prevailing newspaper per city, occurred primarily because the market determined it. The evening news on TV killed afternoon papers, and the morning news and rising production costs left room for only one print vehicle. Again, Congress sat back and watched it happen.
The third model was the consolidation of these papers into national chains. Congress saw nothing to complain about; in fact, with each transformation, the conservative voice of print media became more muted, so the big government, interventionalist Dems in Congress sat back and enjoyed the show.
It’s time for the next model, and all indications are that it will be much more difficult to control, and not as favorable to one (liberal) party: online journalism, citizen journalism (think Michael Yon), the return of small-circulation, single voice print papers, talk radio, live webcasts of government agency meetings, and other options are all in the wings, ready to replace (for better or worse) the big newspapers.
John Kerry, Ben Cardin, Nancy Pelosi and other fans of neutering talk radio could just sit back and let America choose what media it wants without their meddlesome fingers in the mix. But that’s not why they got themselves elected. They know what you need better than you do, and they’re out to prove their right … despite what history tells us.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Yahoo Buzz]](http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-buzz-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Digg]](http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-digg-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to StumbleUpon]](http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-su-micro3.png){kind=icon}
Posted in Fairness Doctrine, Kerry, Media | 3 Comments » | 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Comments
May 6th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Propping up a liberal mouthpice will indeed be a priority for this administration. Relying on these institutions to promote leftist propaganda and to circulate the words used to mollify the population, the Obama administration very much needs these to control the flow of information. What could go wrong with that?
Obama is a fabulous speaker. The voters apparently thought last November that a good speaker always makes a competent leader. As Pakistan teeters on the brink of collapse and US industries are hurrying to move jobs to China to avoid excessive taxation, Obama is running out of words.
Obama’s words (Obamawords?) like ‘inherited’ or ‘dialogue’ need to be controlled. The Globe helps him keep control of the messaging. However, the public won’t tolerate tax money used for a bail out like this.
There are several words that Team Obama has overused in the past 100 days or so. They have taken on new meanings since the Leader began reading them incessantly from His teleprompter. You can see this list and their new definitions at:
http://firstconservative.com/blog/top-ten/obamas-words-or-obamawords
May 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
The Fairness Doctrine applies only to radio and TV stations operating under license to use public airwaves; it does not apply to newspapers, magazines, blogs, satellite radio, satelliet and cable TV, the Internet, the Web, et al because these broadcast stations are operating undeer a limited spectrum. As a former radio news director, it was never a problem to get both sides (or in some cases, mutiple sides) toi a story; you didn’t air it until you have opposing views represented. This notion that the Fairness Doctrine is a censorship bill is straight bull. With it, those liberal bastions of NBC, ABC and CBS willl have to air conservative views and Fox will have to view liberal views.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:04 am
Fox already does air liberal views, Dan, for all the good it’s done its reputation among the liberals. Do you think for a moment this foul-smelling dead horse would have been whipped back to feeble life if liberal talk radio had succeeded? NanPo and her storm troopers can’t stand that we have a channel.
And where does it stop? Why limit fairness to just libs and conservatives? You know the litigation will follow - Satanists and Chrisitians will want to be heard. Then Muslims will demand government to give them a voice. Hey, Ed, do you know where we can get a vampire child molester to balance out this cross-burning Dr. Spock guy?” C’mon!