Curbing Talk

[jack]

Written by Evelyn Pyburn
Wednesday, 18 February 2009 18:07

“Enforced media accountability” is apparently the new term to be applied to the regulation of “talk radio,” which amounts of course to the curbing of free speech.

Former President Bill Clinton spoke last week in favor of it, and one must suspect that most supposedly democratic Democrats are also four-square behind it. Truth be told, some significant number of Republicans are also in favor of it because, after all, being able to silence the babbling riffraff is of political benefit to any one who savors power, and there are plenty of folks of that persuasion who can fully appreciate the prickliness of free speech. Putin knows well the problem, as does Castro, as do the Chinese (remember the problematic media during the Olympics).

It used to be called the “Fairness Doctrine,” although it was anything but. The Left has come to realize just how favorable the imbalance of the Fairness Doctrine (suspended in the early 80s) served them. The consequence of having opened up the airwaves is more than the Left can tolerate. It seems that within the free market of ideas and information, liberals and socialists cannot compete. Nothing else to do but forcibly silence the free flow of ideas.

Such a blunt approach is understandable when one remembers the adage that “information is power.” Having a well informed public, comfortable with the mental stimulation of open debate and critical thought, coupled with brazen simple-minded-folks feeling free to say whatever they want, will always undermine any government intent upon holding absolute power.

There’s little doubt that ending such free speech is one of the “Changes” that Obama was talking about, and it’s being inched forward from the backburner, especially given the fiasco the Democrats witnessed in having everybody being able to say what they wanted to about the stimulus package and the bailouts. But times have changed since the Fairness Doctrine; controlling radio and television will not be enough. Now we have the internet, which can easily circumvent their best efforts at silencing radio talk or television news networks, which stray off the politically correct path. So how far will they go? Be sure to know that once accepting the premise that censorship is necessary, there are no limits as to what is acceptable in order to achieve “equity” – print media would be foolish to think that they are immune, but so would consumers of media.

As bad as forcibly imposing the party line is, having to listen to them justify it is boring. Given their druthers, people will choose not to listen, a fact which largely contributed to the failure of liberal talk radio shows. So even if they pass a law which provides federal funding for liberal talk shows and force radio stations to air it, there is still no “equity” unless people listen.

Don’t think that governments are above forcing their citizens to listen.

Such was a problem for the early day leaders of communist Russia. Since being able to rationalize their actions is a compelling impulse of the neurosis associated with craving power and since indoctrination is essential to maintaining power – the Kremlin’s solution was compulsory daily participation in “public information” meetings.

To put this in modern perspective this would mean requiring every citizen, by an act of Congress, to listen for three hours a day to Al Franken. Not even communist Russia was so cruel, but the prospect certainly adds a huge new dimension to the value of free choice.

http://www.bigskybusiness.com/index.php?op...r&Itemid=22

[Easy Skanking]

It was Bill Clinton that called William Cooper the most dangerous man on radio at one point.
The only way they could shut Cooper up was to have the local cops execute him in front of his own house. :angry: