Axis Of Bias
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Media: A major newspaper suppresses damning video of Barack Obama partying with pro-terrorism radicals. Meanwhile, Obama punishes news outlets that do their jobs. Fairness Doctrine anyone?
Los Angeles Times owner Sam Zell must have thought of the Chicago Cubs when he OK'd the layoff of 75 editorial employees this week. Zell owns the lovable loser Cubs, who haven't won the World Series in a century, and the liberal media are turning into the Cubs of modern communications.
But news-hungry consumers don't find it lovable when the media elite keep important stories to themselves. John McCain has demanded that the L.A. Times release its videotape of a 2003 farewell party in Chicago at which Obama is said to have grandly toasted guest of honor Rashid Khalidi, the late PLO head Yasser Arafat's spokesman. (Ex-terrorist Bill Ayers may have been there too.)
But the Times apparently doesn't think Americans are entitled to see Obama praising a terrorist mouthpiece before they decide whether to make him president for four years. Similarly, major news outlets buried this week's story of Obama calling for "major redistributive change" in a newly discovered 2001 radio interview.
But if you think we've got an unholy alliance between liberal Democrats in Washington and this country's media elite now, just watch what happens if Obama becomes president with a Democratic Congress — especially if it features a filibuster-proof Senate.
Major Democratic congressional leaders like Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois, 2004 presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi want the reinstitution of the outdated, pre-Internet "Fairness Doctrine." They want to counter the news revolution in which blogs and talk radio have taken on the Big Three TV networks.
The Obama campaign claims Obama opposes a new Fairness Doctrine, but City Journal editor Brian C. Anderson doesn't think a President Obama would veto such a bill. Moreover, Obama and most Democrats want to impose more "local accountability" on broadcasters, "setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal," as Anderson notes.
This measure is "clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows," Anderson says. "It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge." Obama would pair that with relicensing stations every two years instead of the current eight.
We have already seen that Obama's forces have no scruples about punishing media organizations who do not act as disciples of "The One." Newswomen with both WFTV in Orlando, Fla., and the CBS affiliate in Philadelphia dared to ask running mate Joseph Biden about Obama's plans to "spread the wealth," as he infamously told Ohio's Joe the Plumber. The Obama campaign let the journalists know they were now personae non grata.
With both the executive and legislative branches firmly in the power of the most liberal leadership ever — Obama, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — it is naive to think they would not move against those who most threaten their prospects in the midterm elections of 2010. And that is Fox News and conservative talk radio, supported by the blogosphere.
The establishment media and liberal Democrats constitute an axis of bias, arming to threaten the free speech of Americans. George Orwell, call your office.
This is what we conservatives have been saying for quite some time: as just the Democrat nominee, Barack Obama has gone out of his way to silence dissent, even to the point of asking the Justice Department to prosecute a perfectly legal organization that ran an ad that spoke unfavorably (but accurately) about him. Just think what he could (and probably would) do as President.
I caution you to dismiss this as hand-wringing by conservative radio freaks. Remember the theory of liberalism creep - it your rights and freedoms are taken away slowly, one small step at a time, in almost unnoticeable increments. I'd suggest you consider smoking bans. Here in Kansas City, we now have a metro-wide smoking ban in place. While that seems cleaner, more healthy, and all that, it is a terrible suppression of freedom because the government (with the support of too many people who misunderstand what's at stake) has forced this ban on private property. It's one thing to ban smoking in public areas, but it's entirely different for the government to dictate what can and can't be done on someone's own property.
Let me be clear: I am not a smoker. I don't like being around cigarette smoke. I think it's a disgusting habit. But, I will defend the right of smokers to smoke on their own property till the day I die because I understand that people have the freedom to make choices in their life, whether good or bad. If I don't want to be around smokers, and if a restaurant allows smoking, I am free to choose another restaurant. The restaurant owner has the choice to allow smoking and risk people like me going elsewhere, or to refuse to allow smoking and risk smokers going elsewhere. The key is that it's the property owner making that decision in his own business interest, not the government dictating to him. That's freedom. That's America.
Don't think this is valid? Look at how many things have been banned because they've been deemed unhealthy or bad: transfats, foie gras, smoking, incandescent light bulbs...and the list is getting longer. Once we allow government to dictate our personal choices and freedoms -- even under the guise of being 'good for us' -- we start down a very slippery slope. Essentially any government action (with a few exceptions for national security, crime, etc.) that prohibits the free choice of citizens is bad, and that's why this Fairness Doctrine simply cannot be allowed. First it's refusing an interview to a couple local stations. Next it's withholding a video that would be damaging to their favorite candidate. Then it's ostracizing an entire network (remember, the Dems refused to participate in a debate on Fox earlier this year). The Fairness Doctrine takes square aim at huge enterprises of radio networks that do nothing but propagate free speech according to the free market - if people tune in to good programming, advertisers pay money to run ads during that program, and those people buy those products, and business works.
The reason these liberals want the Fairness Doctrine is very, very simple: talk radio is the key component of the distribution of information outside of the mainstream media. Their monopoly as gatekeepers of information is broken. Not only does the media want the Fairness Doctrine because they want their monopoly back, but liberal politicians want the Fairness Doctrine because without the media monopoly, they cannot hide their actions from the American people, which happens far too often. As we have seen this year, the media has simply become the in-house propaganda wing of the liberal Democrat party, and as such, they both have a vested interest in seeing the Fairness Doctrine get reinstated.
If it does, you'll see a crushing of dissent like we haven't seen in America in recent memory, if ever. It will be reminiscent of a socialist state where the media is literally contolled by the state (though in this case it will be largely voluntary, an even more disturbing prospect), preventing any opposing viewpoints from being heard on anything.
This Axis of Bias cannot be allowed to flourish. If Obama becomes President -- especially if he gets a supermajority in Congress to help him -- the Axis will become reality in short order. We've seen the first few steps, and we know from history where those steps will eventually take us. Let's not give Obama the chance to silence us.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment