SIGN OF THE TIMES: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS RULES THE BORING NEW YORK TIMES
CAMPAIGN REFORM URGENTLY NEEDED BEFORE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES INJURE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DEMOCRAT FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

The truth about the democrat's version of the fairness doctrine is strongly rooted in the philosophical difference between Republican's and their democrat opponents which have embraced the leftist elements of Marxism, socialism, and communism. And it is a simple difference which explains much about the philosophies between the two major political parties. Where the Republicans believe strongly in self-reliance and the equality of opportunity, the democrats believe in big government control and the equality of outcome.  A proposition which is readily apparent when you view the democrats trying to buy votes with ever larger entitlement programs. Of course, there are those who will point to the profligate spending of the current Administration as a counter to this thesis. To which we reply, the current Administration is comprised mostly of Rockefeller Republicans who act like liberal democrats and seek to maintain their power by avoiding the unpleasantness associated with explaining the truth to the public. Unlike conservative Reagan Republicans who sound positively stodgy and circumspect.

In recent months, the chattering classes cannot put aside their speculation about the revival of the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" to ensure that certain elements of the media, namely "popular talk radio that discusses or debunks democrat propaganda," is somewhat muted. This the democrats see as a necessity as their political propositions and arguments cannot withstand the close scrutiny of conservative media hosts or the wide dissemination of the truth that is delivered in a form that can be understood by the majority of the public. A truth which encourages, heaven forbid, a wide-ranging discussion of the issues of the day.

The fact of the matter is that the talk show hosts encourage hostile listeners with a contrary point of view. One, to illustrate the opposition's venom and hatred of open and free discussion; two, to illustrate the paucity of their contrary argument's factual basis and three, to further encourage open and free discussion of the issues. Hardly a sinister evil as it promotes the best qualities of political debate and free speech.

So what's the problem that would require the government to monitor free speech and mandate counter-programming? There is no problem other than the democratic left is not fairly represented with an equal "hour-by-hour" and "issue-by-issue" chance to either muddle the issue or turn the entire program into the same type of irrelevant programming that fills most of the airwaves. Again, the democrats demanding an "equal outcome" rather than the "equal opportunity" that was afforded to democrat acolytes like Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, and the unlistenable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as the espoused their so-called "progressive viewpoint" on Air America Radio's syndicated radio network.

Like most syndicated content generated by a broadcast network, local affiliate stations were free to pick-and-choose which programs they would air from the network offering. Unfortunately for the syndicated network's offering: their news featured biased reporting, the comedy wasn't all that funny, and their talk was mainly a non-stop vitriolic attack on the Bush Administration. Hardly the type of content that would entice either paid sponsors or a large listening audience. No matter how you personally feel about such hosts as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, they are all controversial, stimulating and provably, by their ratings, entertaining enough to stimulate a wide audience and attract large sponsors. Undeniable facts demonstrated on a daily basis by professional broadcasters.

So if the democrats fail to produce content worthy of their audience, what is left? (pun intended) Regulatory sanctions on free political speech as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution or something more evil and sinister. An implied governmental threat controlling the commercial broadcasters who own and operate numerous media outlets. Hence the supposedly neutral examination of broadcast media outlet ownership which claimed that racial (Blacks, Hispanics, etc.) and sexual (Gay, Lesbian, Transgender) were substantially under-represented. Of course, pulling aside the curtain revealed that it was a "progressive" think tank headed by a rabidly partisan Clintonista that published the report. Is it possible this study was a veiled threat to station owners and operators that, should the opposition take office, their lucrative public licenses may be a risk due to a lack of program diversity? "Oh No!" cried the other side, that's not what it means. The study proves nothing worthwhile or even newsworthy. Perhaps the next attempt to promote the democrat's leftist views of world the might involve the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

I think it was said best by Don Watson (Death Sentences) who wrote, "The language of modern democratic politics is increasing ruthless toward doubters, or even people with imagination." A conclusion which can be amply illustrated by Al Gore's view of global warming which leaves no room for doubt, discussion or even confrontation based upon conflicting scientific views or the science which tends to indicate that carbon dioxide has little to do with global climate cycles.

Again, words of wisdom from Don Watson...

"Balance is not in itself principle, truth, reason or fairness. It does not mean the 'right judgment,' though a politician who decides to increase taxation, abolish pensions, or invade another country on balance might want you to believe it does. It's not the balance; it's the judgment."

"Yet balance is presented to us as if it were essential to all understanding. Believing that balance will grant us wisdom, we might as well believe where balance exists, political spin cannot work; or muckraking, name-calling, stone-walling, wedge politics, dog whistling, slogans, or weasel words, But these techniques were invented for a system where balance prevails, to exploit and manipulate us behind its curtain.  We should view balance with the suspicion we reserve for any word used repeatedly in public affairs."

What can YOU do?

Support and Defend your First Amendment rights of Free Speech with regard to political speech. Label those who are trying to control the broadcast media for what they really are: power-hungry political dictators demanding that you follow their dictates.

Support and Defend those who are defending your right to Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, both here and abroad.

Do not vote for anyone who demands that you think in a particular manner -- especially in a manner which would allow the person to pursue their self-interest toward political power and personal wealth over your self-interest in pursuing your own goals.

Vote for those who stress equality of opportunity over those who stress equality of outcome., for those who need to manage outcomes will eventually enslave us all with their mad schemes to obtain and retain power.

Ask yourself, "fairness" -- to whom or to what cause?

-- steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


Comments