You wrote, "Perhaps having an "independent third party" conduct such a study would be better in your opinion, but until private money is raised for this kind of thing, I think having the government take a look wouldn't be such a bad idea."
You couldn't be more wrong. It's a terrible idea!
That independent third party already exists. It is the consumer. If you don't think the channel you are watching is giving you the important news you need, change the channel. If none of the channels are giving you the news you need, read a newspaper. If the newspaper isn't telling you what you need, buy a different paper.
Then you continue with, "...while items that people should be concerned about (such as a new development projects, corrupt politicians or even positive community events) are rarely discussed."
It sounds like your beef is with your intellectually lazy fellow citizens, who, for whatever reason, don't really care about corrupt politicians (unless they're on a Bravo reality series), new development projects, or positive community events.
Let's say the FCC dispatches government "monitors" to study content decisions at all these stations, and they all come to the conclusion that some stories need more coverage and others need less coverage. How can they compel stations to alter their content to meet the governments agenda? Suspend their broadcast licenses? Impose fines? Are you in favor of government sponsored censorship?
Read the first amendment. It's none of the government's business what any of us say (freedom of speech) or write (freedom of the press), who we associate with, or which god we pray to.
There are already plenty of countries with government "monitored" media outlets, and I don't think I want to live in any of those places. But, I could be wrong. It might turn out that folks in North Korea and Venezuela are extremely well informed about "new development projects" and "positive community events". But probably not so much about corrupt politicians.....
And Mat never mentioned government controlling the media. He didn't have to. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together understands that would be the likely outcome of allowing the government to have any opinion in the first place.
Answer this question:
If true freedom of the press means that the government can never exert any control over the content decisions of broadcasters, then why do they need to study that content in the first place? (Answer: They don't.)
Think of it this way:
If you plan on never owning a motorcycle, then why would you waste time researching motorcycle insurance rates? You wouldn't.
The fact that the FCC is interested in installing people to "monitor" content decisions should tell you all you need to know.
They're planning on buying the motorcycle....
Wake up, man.
For those who don't understand progressive Newspeak:
UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT: A citizen of another nation who has entered your country without the permission of your government. Formerly, an illegal alien. Newspeak forbids using the pejorative word "illegal" in describing persons who are engaged in illegal activity.
Those Russian shock troops in Crimea? They're just undocumented immigrants.
And when the Wehrmacht crossed into Poland in 1939? That was just an unexpected surge in the migration patterns of undocumented German immigrants.
We should be consistent.
Give the kids, born here and legal residents, in-state tuition.
Deport their parents.
So, according to Mat:
1. Having an all powerful government agency deciding which stories to cover would be preferable to having a handful of powerful media corporations deciding which stories to cover.
2. Consumers can only get their news from the handful of powerful media corporations which control all of the broadcast licenses, and are therefore uninformed.
3. The internet is a myth. It does not exist. And if it did, it would be controlled by powerful media corporations, when everyone knows it should be controlled by the government.
4. There are not thousands of sources of information available about news from around the world. Individuals cannot use twitter or social media platforms to inform other citizens about important news topics which may or may not be covered by powerful media corporations.
5. Government would never use media to shape public opinion or cover up government activities which violate the rights of citizens. With government in control of the media, the people would be hearing about how Lois Lerner used the power of the IRS to weaponize a government agency and use it to intimidate individuals and groups critical of those in power.
6. Mat is the most blissful person ever!
Imagine that — a quarter of SCGOPers are against interracial marriage. Shocking, yes?
70% of Blacks and Latino's oppose gay marriage. Shocking, yes?
Considering the ever expanding oppressiveness of government in all forms, I kind of like the idea of a well stocked armory in my neighborhood.
It might come in handy one day....
Think "Walking Dead" zombie apocalypse.
Neighborhood armory looks pretty good now, doesn't it?
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2014,
Charleston City Paper