Posted on 02/16/2005 7:08:07 AM PST by JesseJane
Check out this article, dateline: 11/19/04
US military 'still failing to protect journalists in Iraq
I think of the above linked article... and I think about McCain's proposed legislation for "media control" in Campaign Finance Reform.. and what certain lefty groups already know, want, and demand. Here, and abroad.
When in fact, the dearth of local coverage is because the Feds have usurped meaningful local government regulation. Who cares what the local politicans do when their strings are pulled from Washington? See, e.g., Fed rules that must be met in order to qualify for Fed funding, and a tax structure where the vast majority of the burden is Fed driven.
McCain ... who needs him or his ilk?
McStain has never written a piece of government SHRINKING legislation in his career.
Exactly
And cable news, probably.
The VNC turned McCain while he was prisoner, with the help of American traitors like John Kerry. That's why McCain has been Kerry's obedient lapdog all these years. He even helped Kerry with the shredding of documentation of live POW sightings in Vietnam, thus leaving them and their families in the proverbial cold and paving the way for Kerry's cousin to broker all real estate in Vietnam...all with no guarantees that Hanoi would stop human rights abuses.
What's wrong with you?
He's after intener "bloggers" who might vaguely be deemed by people like him as illegally working for a political campaign in violation of CFR. He's after US. That's why the media insists on calling this forum a blog.
The McStain only came out against the loophole he wrote for the Kerry campaign when the shoe wound up on Kerry's OTHER political left foot.
I could have put it better. I meant to imply that he's going to help the right by cooking himself (and his cause) due to what he is. Time for a McCain expose' by the blogs he's attacking.
I anticipate that consumers use of the heavily regulated traditional TV airwaves will be supplanted by unregulated Dish and Internet media. Similarly, traditional land-lines are being pushed aside by VoIP.
Wow.. that article got me thinking about Nick Berg. Running around Iraq on his own, with a brutal ending. But it started before that with Daniel Pearl!!!!!!!! And just who did Eason Jordan leave his wife and kids for???? Marianne Pearl, his widow.
If I remember correctly, there were a number of journalists that were not embeds that injected themselves in a battlezone, and frankly they were not the responsibility of the military to stop the war so that the journo could set up and get better pictures. During the timeframe of that article you mention, French journo's were being held hostage, and not released until December. Marianne Pearl was French I believe, and perhaps that's what helped push the story.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
That's what I thought also.
Media Matters is also supported semi-officially by the RATS. Shrillary personally gave the "go ahead" to David Brock. Horowitz's new site has the potential to become a powerful tool to counter the propaganda coming from MM and other traitor Dimocrat front groups.
Lessee; weekday local news by station in Milwaukee -
That would be "Channel 12" as the ABC affiliate, not "Channel 10"; somehow I confused them and one of the P-BS affiliates (they're all a bunch of lefties anyway)
The rationale for McCain-Feingold was, in the words of then-senator Bill Bradly, to prevent "the rich man's wallet" from overwhelming "the poor man's soap box." So then, the higher you go up the production value scale, the more salient is the issue of the dominance of "the rich man's wallet."McCain waves stick at TV over news coverageNote, the issue is television. TV is a high-production-value medium compared to radio,
which itself is high production value compared the newspapers,
which is high production value compared to the Internet,
which is high production value compared to personal speech.The question then follows, "How best, in the context of the aformentioned heirarchy of production values, to limit the influence of the rich man's wallet on politics?"
The salient point one notes in that heirarchy is that the two most expensive, TV and radio broadcasting, are creatures of the FCC - that is, they would not exist without government censorship of nearly everyone, to give clear channels to the few FCC licensees. Two of the other three are explicitly protected by the First Amendment, and the third - the internet - lies between literal in-person speech and literal ink-and-paper printing press.
The obvious conclusion is that, far from mandating increased coverage of politics on TV, government should mandate that TV and radio should butt out and let we-the-people publicize our political views on a true First Amendment field of debate. That means no political ads on radio or TV, but also - emphatically, since journalism is politics - no broadcast journalism.
Or alternatively, sell (or even give, to make the transition go smoothly) to the broadcasters property rights in the frequencies. Remove all FCC controls on content and limit the FCC's duty to recording and enforcing the ownership rights. Broadcast journalists like the rules mandating broadcasting in "the public interest"; the rules create the playing field on which they make money and become celebrities. The majority of politicians want the status quo because modern campaign techniques are dependent on the FCC content rules.
Imagine the change in the political landscape if the owners of the broadcast frequencies were free to close their news divisions, to be replaced with more profitable programing. Or even (horrors!) free to end TV and radio broadcasts so they could rent out their part of the frequency spectrum for other uses.
I don't see how your proposed blanket banning of broadcast journalism would pass constitutional muster. The first amendment is there to protect political free speech. If, as you assert, and I concur, that broadcast journalism is politics, shutting down ABC News, CNN, and FOX would violate the first amendment.
You are certainly right that this "non-coverage" has a certain smell of protectionism; but I'm not quite sure of the source for that protectionism.
JJ -- this is creepy.
You are too kind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.