This QandO piece really does worry me. Mostly that I don't particularly see much in the MSM standing against this foolishness.
McQ makes a point that should be appreciated:
McQ makes a point that should be appreciated:
Notice who is going to tell us what is or isn't "balanced". Is that the standard we prefer? Or instead, shall we, the viewing public, make those sorts of choices with our remote control?It makes me wonder who will be at the complaints department if this comes into law. I'm wondering if fair hearings would be made for complaints against those approved liberal portions of the MSM as opposed to those that come against the more conservative portions.
Hinchley and his henchmen prefer their arbitrary definition of "balanced" to your ability to choose what you prefer and punish shows which don't meet those preferences by not watching them. Instead, they prefer to decide what does or doesn't constitute balanced coverage and force it on you.
The first amendment is a prohibition against government making laws which abridge freedom of speech or the press concerning political speech.
It is very unambiguous in its language:
"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."
I continue to wonder what part of "make no law" Congressman Hinchley and his supporters don't understand.
2 comments:
"I continue to wonder what part of "make no law" Congressman Hinchley and his supporters don't understand."
His type has trouble with some phrases; ones such as "shall not be infringed" comes to mind...
Nylarthotep, as you correctly state, this reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine has little to do with fairness and much to do with legislating a result that the political left could not achieve through the free market. Hinchley claims that a revamped Fairness Doctrine will result in more diverse voices on the airwaves by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market, yet in practice, placing limits on the station ownership has been shown to have the exact opposite effect. If corporations are forced to sell off certain stations, the majority of those properties will find themselves unable to compete against cable, satellite, radio, and the Internet for the advertising dollars on which they rely. And without the necessary income, these stations will eventually fail, resulting in less competition and ultimately a more homogenized media, neither of which is in the best interests of the public. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I do some consulting work with the NAB.
Post a Comment