FCC Discussing Ways To "Reform" Free Speech and Free Press

According to a CNSNews report, the FCC is having internal discussions about ways in which they can further manage the transmission of information in American society. Funny, but that sounds more like something a government agency in China, Venezuela or Russia would be involved with. I can't find a place in the U.S. Constitution that mentions the Federal Communications Commission, much less give it the power to determine winners and losers in the telecommunications industries.

The FCC was created to manage the finite number of radio frequencies available when that technology was new. Today, there are infinite sources for news and entertainment through a plethora of media. The FCC's purpose was technical, but today it believes itself to have the power to program media outlets and even use the tax code to save those who cannot make it in the free market.

According to an FCC official, who spoke with CNSNews.com on background because the report has yet to be made public, the document focuses on the availability of news and information to the American public.

The official said the report examines the decline of broadcast journalism over the past several years and tries to explain why traditional forms of journalism have declined while other, newer forms have been on the rise.

The report also examines the different business models used by different types of media outlets, comparing Internet and broadcast and print business models, the official said. The report looks at which business models seem to be succeeding and which ones are not.

The decline of traditional print and broadcast outlets is the primary focus of the report, which analyzes which new outlets are picking up the slack -- and why they might be eclipsing traditional news outlets.

Journalistic quality also is an issue, according to the official, who said the report would look at whether the Internet and other news sources have been able to fill the gap in journalism left by the declining print and broadcast outlets.

Note to FCC: those things are truly none of your business. We have something called the free market in America. "Traditional" outlets have declined because of competition and an unwillingness to meet the needs of their customers. Individuals do not need the approval of a committee of arrogant bureaucrats to decide if they are able to "fill the gap." Media consumers will make that call.

The second part of the report examines possible ideas for addressing these issues. Among the ideas discussed in the report are things like a potential government response to the decline of older media outlets.

Another idea examined in the report is whether the federal government could possibly use the tax code to aid struggling outlets, giving them tax breaks to help them survive.

A major issue the report details is the possibility of “behavioral rules” for broadcasters, according to the official. Behavioral rules might include guidelines that broadcasts serve the public interest.

Bringing back Cold War-era guidelines mandating that broadcasters do “non-entertainment” programming is another idea being examined, according to the official.

So, the FCC will decide what media outlets are "legitimate." And how will they do that? And what gives five bureaucrats that power? "Public interest" is a verbal distortion. That is a term used by a ruling class to decide what information they want people to receive. The only public interest that matters in a democratic republic is the ratings book. The result may be garbage, however I would rather endure free market trash than propaganda regulated and improved by the Kremlin on the Potomac.

Media and journalism are personal issues for Michael Copps (FCC commissioner), who has publicly lamented the rise of “infotainment,” blogging, and the disappearance of “investigative” journalism.

So, does that mean he would forbid networks from spending a week and a half covering a celebrity funeral? Copps is a Leftist in a powerful position. News networks and newspapers have the freedom to do investigative journalism if they choose. They choose not to do so. It is often the bloggers Copps so laments who do the real analysis and in-depth research he claims to desire. Remember, Rathergate? It was bloggers who uncovered Dishonest Dan's phony letter that he was using to influence the 2004 campaign. It was bloggers who helped expose some of the more unpleasant aspects of Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama's background. Could that be the real problem? That bloggers are bringing information to light that the "traditional media" ignores?

“Reform is never on auto-pilot, and in spite of all the marvels of twenty-first century technology, there is no GPS system that can deliver us to a new, progressive promised land,” Copps said on May 14 to the liberal group Free Press. “In communications, will ‘old media’ stalwarts like newspapers and broadcasting simply disappear—or will they adapt and survive?

“How about journalism?” asked Copps. “Will anyone figure out a business model to support in-depth, investigative journalism – or must we develop something completely new, perhaps based on philanthropy, non-profit models or public media?”

"Reform?" "We?" Is he referring to the FCC or the radical Left? What happens to the "old media" should happen organically. They have no presumptive right to survive if they do not provide a service that people will pay for. Maybe ACORN can run NBC; I doubt the news coverage would be different.

“We're not only losing journalists, we may be losing journalism,” he said. “Some blame the Internet and bloggers, and that's certainly a part of the story. All that consolidation and mindless deregulation, rather than reviving the news business, condemned us to less real news, less serious political coverage, less diversity of opinion, less minority and female ownership, less investigative journalism and fewer jobs for journalists.”

Journalism has committed suicide by becoming Leftwing partisans. Is Mr. Copps concerned that over 80% of journalists vote Democrat or is his plan to push the percentage over 90? The internet and bloggers are the solution, not the problem. They do the job "professional journalists" refuse to do. All the identity politics psychobabble tells us Mr. Copps is a dedicated Leftist who plans to use his position to attack free speech in America.

Take his complaints individually:

• "less real news"- That is the choice of the media. Does anyone really believe Mr. Copps intends to tell CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS to stop spending so much time on celebrity news? Pure subterfuge.
• "less serious political coverage"- Does that mean he is critical of the "traditional media's" one-sided political coverage? After all, the positive Obama stories doubled the positive McCain stories. Is Copps concerned about that? Yeah, right.
• "less diversity of opinion, less minority and female ownership"-This is not about the media's Leftist slant. This is a shot over the bow at the one corner of the media in which Conservatives have dominated: talk radio. "Diversity of ownership" is the new linguistic shroud for what was once known as the Fairness Doctrine.

Michael Coops if a Leftwing propagandist, pure and simple. He isn't worried that people don't have access to information; he is worried they have too much. This means the state-run media has to endure competition and Leftist politicians much face an electorate that is more fully informed. We can't have that, now can we? Keep an eye on this bureaucratic weasel. It is clear he plans to use the government to restrict free speech, free press and access to information. Mr. Coops radical agenda is clearly NOT in the public interest.

Saran Palin Resigns Governorship; Still Conservative Superstar

Sarah Palin's resignation announcement was definitely a surprise. Of course, her explanation made perfect sense. It is interesting that she had popularity numbers in the 80 percent range before she became the vice-presidential candidate for RATA (Reach Across The Aisle) McCain. They are still in the 50s despite the incessant attacks, most of which are coming from outside Alaska.

Palin is the biggest political star in the Conservative movement. There is speculation of a U.S. Senate run or competing for the 2012 GOP nomination. Some are saying she is done with politics. That still leaves some interesting possibilities.

Sarahcuda is a magnetic personality. The Left already knew her credentials before she was chosen as the VP candidate. That is why they stormed Alaska like it was Omaha Beach the next day. The attacks on Palin began immediately and have not ceased. They don't hate her because she is dense or corrupt. She is neither and they know it. She is, however, a strong and accomplished woman whose resume' is thick and who is a strong and articulate Conservative. She also does not back down from the jackals' attacks. If she were truly the flighty nobody they portray, they would not waste so much time and effort vilifying her. She is a real threat to their ideology.

Palin was the energy in the RATA McCain campaign. McCain's best selling point up to then was that he wasn't Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama. As soon as the people out in flyover country became acquainted with her, they fell in love. Not in the "hopey, changey" glazed-over manner of the Obama-bots; this was a woman who truly represents their values and point-of-view. She was not an elitist insider. These are the kind of folks who smell phony from a mile away. This woman was one of them.

Sarah Palin is not finished with public life. Dropping the constraints of public office will give her greater flexibility for her next stage. Family, of course, will be a huge part of her priorities. One need not hold public office to be a leader. As she has done her whole adult life, she will serve the public while taking care of her family. My hunch is that she will speak out for Alaska's energy resources and the need for allowing them to be tapped for America's energy future. At least in the short run, she can work on that issue which is of importance to her and her state as well as the rest of the country. From there, who knows.

One more hunch: the Left will continue to blindly hate Sarah Palin and do all they can to smear her. Unfortunately for them, the only folks buying that song are their fellow Leftist cretins. Real America recognizes a Real Woman, a Real Patriot, and a Real Leader.

Obama's EPA Repeals 1st Amendment and Transparency

The Wall Street Journal has a shocking piece on the Obama administration's silencing of a global warming heretic. The EPA is the agency at work in forcing scientists to accept climate extremist ideology over, you know, science! The global warming goons sound like the ruling classes of Medieval times who would declare a "scientific truth" and imprison anyone who dissented from their pronouncements.

EPA scientist Alan Carlin found out that you don't go against the family. Chicago rules have replaced scientific inquiry.

In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.

Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.

The emails were unearthed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Republican officials are calling for an investigation; House Energy Committee ranking member Joe Barton sent a letter with pointed questions to Mrs. Jackson, which she's yet to answer. The EPA has issued defensive statements, claiming Mr. Carlin wasn't ignored. But there is no getting around that the Obama administration has flouted its own promises of transparency.

Now, there is change you can believe in. Science is now a religion or a rigid corporate doctrine. Independent thought will be punished. Big BrObama is watching.

But, never fear. You can be sure our Mainstream Media will do their job and investigate Big BrObama and the EPA's crackdown on scientific analysis. Just as soon as they finish with Michael Jackson's memorial service...Michelle Obama's garden...and Sarah Palin's relationship with Lucifer...and the attempts to overthrow a legitimate election in Iran...and America's desire to embrace illegal immigration...and the racist Conservative attacks on Sonya Sotomayor...and Chastity Bono's genitalia...and Barack looking cool...and Barack looking fit...and Barack being intelligent...and Barack saving the economy....but, eventually they will look into this thing.

Barack Obama Wins Daytime Emmy For Best Lead Role In A Drama

All politics has an element of propaganda, but Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama and his gaggle of clowns have taken the phenomenon to a new level. The staging of Obama's health care "town hall" was so blatant, I don't know whether to laugh or to be frightened. This seemed like something Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro would have arranged to put a happy face on their latest usurpation of individual liberties. Of course, given the fact that Obama is of the same voice as Chavez and Castro on the Honduran president's overthrow after trying to become lifetime dictator, maybe we should be more alarmed than amused.

The emotional bang came from a lady from southwest Virginia named Debby Smith who is dealing with cancer. She is not the villain and everyone wishes her well and hopes she will get the needed treatments for a full recovery. However, she was not just someone who happened to be there. She is an employee of Obama's Organizing For America brownshirts within the DNC. The White House brought her to the event. Maybe she should ask her boss about helping her out. Of course, to her boss, Comrade Obama, Ms. Smith was simply "Exhibit A" (his words) for why all Americans should turn their health care over to the imperial federal government. The hug made for nice theatre, but she was used as a prop for further Statist usurpations of American freedom.

If Leftist Democrats were serious about health care costs, they would examine the reasons for those costs. When was the last time you heard a Democrat seriously discussing changes to policies and laws that would give greater freedom and flexibility to individuals, employers, and insurers? No, they simply beat us over the head with "turn your life over to the government and all will be well." Its about power, pure and simple. The amazing thing is that the dumb masses do not laugh in their collective faces when Democrats talk about government making an industry, any industry, more effective and efficient. The federal government is the Babe Ruth of inefficiency.

The extent of the ObamAlinsky propaganda machine has even led to antique journalist Helen Thomas snapping back at their media control. Thomas is a leftwing elitist, but even she is alarmed at the White House's tight grip on media access and staging of events. Give credit to Helen Thomas; unlike Katie Couric, Andrea Mitchell, Chrissy Matthews, George Stephanopolous, and most of the Mainstream Media she still has at least a little journalistic integrity.

One question for the DNC, Barry Vladimir Hussein Obama, the Mainstream Media, and all the front groups raising money to propagandize Americans to forfeit their bodies to government control: instead of spending tens of millions (or hundreds of millions) of dollars on spin and misinformation, why not create a free market insurance company based on the principles you want the government to impose on the folks? If you really want to provide insurance to 46 million uninsured people, you could easily get the ball rolling without involving the other 260 million people. Or could it be power, not health is the primary concern?

Why Is The Mainstream Media Surprised That Wal-Mart Supports ObamaCare?

Wal-Mart's announcement of its support for Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama's nationalized health care scheme has sent shockwaves through the state-run media. Shocking! The eeee-vil corporate giant supporting the kind-and-benevolent Democrats' desire to mandate mediocre medical care to all Americans is reported as a surprise development in the long march toward socialized medicine. Is the mainstream media really that stupid or are they convinced that we are?

Wal-Mart already has health care for employees. They see the strong possibility of more stringent federal regulations on employer-based health care and the likelihood of a government option. Hmmmm, so Wal-Mart can be a "good corporate citizen" and support universal health care while shedding the responsibility of paying for it directly. There is a reason the company has been so successful and will continue to be. They know how to play the game.

I don't fault Wal-Mart for this action. They are acting as good stewards of their company and their stockholders. They understand what Dr. Barry Mengele doesn't want you to grasp. The "public option" is less for individuals than it is for businesses. Why should they shoulder the responsibility of their employees' medical care when the imperial federal government is willing to take their workers into a government-based system?

Here is the other inconvenient truth of most government regulations and usurpations: despite all the "evil corporation" rhetoric that the Statists spew to the dumb masses these centrally-planned schemes are a boon to Big Bidness. The math is simple. Who can more easily absorb the greater costs of regulation and taxation, as established company or one that is growing or in the start-up phase? A larger corporation can diffuse the increased costs more broadly with less of a hit to the bottom line than can a smaller company. Ultimately, the consumers will pay any increased corporate taxes through higher prices, so Wal-Mart can do that more cheaply than can Bob-Mart, Sid-Mart or Dave-Mart.

Obama's health care scheme comes from the same totalitarian desires as his nationalization of banks, car companies and the energy industry. There is precedent. Americans should look back at FDR's horrendous National Industrial Recovery Act for an example of how this works. Competition and the free market were blamed for the depression that became "Great" with FDR's help. The NRA abolished competition and forced industries into strictly-enforced rules that eliminated the dynamism of capitalism.

So, expect more big corporations to jump on board. It is clear that any company that is willing to play ball with Comrade Obama will be taken care of and those who do not will become targets. I wonder how the Leftist propagandists will square their hate of corporate America with industrial support for universal health care? Or will they even need to as the dumb masses continue to mourn Michael Jackson and prepare for the next season of American Idol?