Government Controlled Media?

With every passing week, we are uncovering new connections between members of the Obama administration and left-wing  radicals. Take for example, White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn.During President Obama’s campaign, her husband, Bob Bauer,  who was at that time part of the Obama campaign’s General Council, sent threatening letters to several news organizations in Ohio and Pennsylvania, demanding that they stop airing NRA (National Rifle Association) ads that expose President Obam. One of these letters, sent on September 23rd, 2008, said this:

“You need not air this advertisement… You have a duty to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.. We request that you immediately cease airing this”

Bauer also threatened these news organizations by saying that their FCC(Federal Communications Commission) license would be taken away if they didn’t stop airing NRA ads.

The Obama appointed chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski, who said that he does not support enactment of the Fairness Doctrine, appointed Mark Loyd to be the FCC diversity Czar. In an Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in November, 2009, Loyd said in regards to the FCC’s position on the Fairness Doctrine:  “What we are really saying is that the fairness doctrine is not enough.” Loyd also mentioned putting “hard structural rules in place that will result in fairness.” Genachowski also has ties to the radical organisation  called Free Press. So what is Free Press? The following is an excerpt from the Free Press website: “Free Press is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to reform the media.”

So how exactly do they propose that we go about “reforming the media”? Craig Aaron, the Senior Program Director for Free Press, says that the Government will need to play a role in media reform. I don’t know about you, but I really don’t think that complies with the First Amendment. For example, the Fairness Doctrine (which was created by the FCC in 1949 but later repealed when the world realized that it was a piece of junk), would force news gathering organizations to present both sides of any controversial issue that they touched on. That sounds fair, but where in the Constitution is it said that we have to exercise our speech in a “balanced” way? The First Amendment gives us the right to exercise our freedom of speech in any way that we see fit. The Government has absolutely no right given by the Constitution giving it the power to enforce “balanced” reporting amongst the media.
This is not the only problem with the Fairness doctrine. Another one is this: Who decides what is fair? Will it be some Czar in Washington? Seeing as that many of these Czar’s are commies, or otherwise oppose the free market, or in some cases, admire Mao Tse Tung, one of the most ruthless dictators of the 20th century and a contributor to Marxism/Leninism,and Communist Policies, I don’t think I trust their view of balanced reporting. Besides, what I think is a balanced view of a certain political issue may not be the same as yours.My view of balanced reporting comes from my presuppositions that make up my worldview. For example, I know that God exists, that he created the universe, and that he is a personal God who is involved with the events of history.  I know that the Son of God walked on the Earth two thousand years ago, and that he is coming back someday to bring those who follow him into heaven to live with him for eternity. My view of a balanced opinion will naturally derive form that. No one in the realm of politics is unbiased, no mater what they say.
Of course there is a difference between approaching politics with presuppositions, and being unfair in my reporting. But how do I know that the government will understand the difference? I don’t. The government should not be in the business of telling people what they can and cannot say. Edmund Burke, a British statesman who lived in the 18th Century said that “People never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Thus it is with the Fairness Doctrine. The liberty that is being jeopardized is freedom of speech, and it is being done under the illusion of fairness and the expulsion of rumors and distortions.