markkind
01-26-2007, 10:36 AM
*>I've come to realize what cowards politicians can be. Many from both parties are so petrified of the media that they go to extremes to control the media whenever the opportunity presents itself. We all remember how the Bush people would conduct "Town Meetings" and fill said meetings with handpicked supporters so as to not present the image that the man was unsupported. They even went as far as to give attendees pre-approved questions to ask. It's episodes such as this that earned the administration such derisive labels as "fascist." <br />*>But the Democrats aren't much better, just a different shade dictator, namely communists. Hillary Clinton is infamous for trying to control the media around her and while her history of attempting to silence people around her has been well documented, the latest from the Hillary camp is that she won't do any talk radio interviews, including those hosts associated with Air America. Heck, even Pat Buchanan sat down with Randy Rhodes on her own show. <br />*>Speaking of talk radio, Congressman and Presidential also-ran Dennis Kucinich is talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine (see below). On paper all it says is that media establishments must present both sides of an issue at all times. While that may sound reasonable, there are at a minimum, two problems with this so-called Fairness Doctrine. <br />*>First there is the problem of what exactly constitutes "fair". Certainly the party in charge of the country thus charged with presiding over the Fairness Doctrine will have a rather subjective view of what in fact "fair" means. <br />*>If someone is saying that there should be abortion on demand at all times to any female that deigns to have one, then is the fair thing to do is to have someone opposite that person say there should never be abortion at all ever under any circumstances? What about a moderate point of view? What if my listeners/viewers don't care about the opposing point of view and want to hear only far ____wing commentary? The problem with the Fairness Doctrine is that is limits consumer choice by involving government in private enterprise. <br />*>This brings me to my second point, which is that it is simply not the governments place to dictate programming on privately owned media channels. All it can do is lay out laws governing what kind of programming can go where (public TV, cable TV, PPV, etc) or on the radio (as opposed to satellite radio) and that is all. Congress by law cannot tell MTV to get rid of Jackass because Maxine Waters thinks white men getting kicked in the nuts just isn't funny. At the very least, the proposed Fairness Doctrine is an over-reach and at most it is shades of the former Soviet Union and to be frank, the current Russia's attempts to tightly control the media in order to protect itself. <br />*>People should use the internet to voice their concerns about this to their congressman and fight against any legislation that retracts freedom speech and choice in the marketplace rather than quietly allow Congress to become the media. <br />*><em>Per his telegraph to a media reform conference last week, Ohio Democratic Representative and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has been named head of a new House Domestic Policy Subcommittee and he plans to hold hearings on media ownership with an eye toward a reintroduction of the fairness doctrine.</em><br />*><br /><em>The doctrine, which was scrapped by the FCC in 1987 as unconstitutional, put an affirmative obligation on broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. It's absence is also credited with the rise of conservative talk radio.</em> *><br /><em>Appearing on Lou Dobbs CNN program Kucinich said he planned to hold hearings on the doctrine. He said that since the doctrine was scrapped by the FCC, 50 media companies have shrunk to six. Kucinich, who voted against the war in Iraq and does not want to fund the administration's proposed troop increase, tied the absence of t