First dissent will be discouraged.
Then dissent will be suppressed.
Then dissent will be illegal.
Sound like a line from a budget political thriller? Well it’s not, it’s a very real possibility in a potential Obama administration. If Obama is elected and the Democrats add to their lead in the legislature, we could be facing a form of liberal fascism that is unprecedented in this country.
It’s no secret that Obama and his surrogates are concerned about the coverage he gets on non-liberal media outlets like FoxNews and conservative talk radio shows like the Mark Levin Show and the Laura Ingraham Show. Obama himself joked at a recent fundraiser that FoxNews has probably cost him a few points in the polls.
Obama is a vocal advocate of the fairness doctrine, stating that he wants our tax system, like our health coverage, to be “fair.” But that fairness doctrine doesn’t only deal with the economy, it branches into the media world. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D – NM), a vocal supporter of Barack Obama, went on the Jim Villanucci show on KKOB radio to talk about the fairness doctrine and how it applies to the radio. Here’s the clip:
Yes, you’re not hearing things. Bingaman said that he wants radio to be fairer, and by fairness, he means disallowing stations from purveying any particular viewpoint, especially conservative. Everything must be presented in moderation and each radio station must be careful to give Americans a clear picture of each and every issue. That means that stations that harbor conservative shows could be FORCED to add liberal shows or lose their license to broadcast.
Listen, for the love of God, this is America. If I want to sit in my car and listen to conservative talk shows all day and all night, then that’s my own business. If you want to listen to liberal talk shows, you’re more than welcome to do so. But let me say this now: the second we start regulating what kind of viewpoints radio programs are allowed to have, freedom dies. It is NOT the government’s responsibility to regulate points of view or ideas. Their job is to make sure no one’s swearing or being obscene, not to make sure that no one is daring to speak out against them.
lughlamfada
Saoirse
So, not that this is a thorough search by any means, but I quickly looked for information regarding Obama’s stance on the Fairness Doctrine.
Supposedly, according to his press secretary, he’s against re-instituting it.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html
And the following is ripped from his website.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
“Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Barack Obama believes that the nation’s rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.”
So, it appears that he is in favor of instituting regulation to promote competition and diversity amongst media outlets, but it doesn’t imply that he’s saying he wants to regulate what a media outlet does or does not air. I want more information on what this means before making any judgments. This could either be a good thing, or a very bad thing.
As for Mr. Bingaman, the Senator from New Mexico, well that’s another story. I haven’t looked into it yet, but if I had the available funds, I’d probably put in a campaign contribution to whomever is running against him. The concept that the government should be forcing individual media outlets to engage in the “right” kind of coverage is deplorable. Not to mention that not every issue is two sided. Many, if not most are differentiated by shades of gray. If you don’t consider 1st Amendment arguments, ideas like this tend to sound like a good idea at first to the optimist, but the more you think about it, the worse it gets. “What’s that, I had a special on about Darwin, and now I have to give equal time to Creationism/Intelligent Design?” But for people who want to uphold constitutional rights, like me, this is just bad mojo.
To be honest though, I do sympathize with Mr. Bingaman, I would love to see Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and MSNBC replaced with something that is “Fair and Balanced” (pardon the joke). Not because they should be legally forced to do so, but because I have a deep yearning for truthful, honest, and deep discussion about the state of things in America and around the world; I wish that the big media outlets would feel the same way too, but they don’t and I have to respect that.
So, I hope one of two things happen, 1) The concept of the Fairness Doctrine falls in to the annals of history never to be heard from again, or 2) It blows up in the media and the supporters of the bill have to run away from it faster than you can say “Boo!”
And just for the sake of completeness:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Just to play Devil’s Advocate, it could be stated that so long as you don’t prohibit the ability of media outlets to put out the content that they want, the government wouldn’t necessarily be abridging the the freedom of speech by enforcing that additional view points are made. Just like it’s not “respecting the establishment of a religion” to have “In god we trust” on the money, or “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance… Oh wait.
Great blog post.
“First dissent will be discouraged.”
“Then dissented will be suppressed.”
Joe the Plumber, Fox News and WFTV have been both ridiculed and banned for questioning Obama in a manner that resulted in negative attention for the Obama/Biden campaign.
In one month, we’ve managed to cover discouragement and supression.
Will dissent be illegal in November?