The same could be said for the other Branches of Government and most television talking heads...
Posted on 05/17/2009 12:51:46 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
I have enjoyed Oprah Winfrey’s work on television since she showed up as the second banana on People are Talking with Richard Scher on WJZ in Baltimore, four decades ago. Now, she is the leading talk show host in the known universe. Although her audience has decreased from nearly 9 million in 2005 to 7.3 million in 2008, she is still the top of her profession.
Oprah’s success demonstrates that several efforts of the current Administration to restrict both freedom of the press, and freedom of speech are both wrong and unconstitutional. There is a proposed bill in Congress which would institute government controls on contents on the Internet. The FCC is pursuing two efforts, called respectively “diversity” and “localism.”
For the details of these proposals, see www.SaveRadioFreeAmerica.org and www.theacru.org, As a full revelation, along with colleagues, I wrote many of the articles found on both websites. The intent of “diversity” is to use threats to the continued licenses to current owners to produce more female and “persons of color” as owners of radio and TV stations.
This effort is based on an assumption that only women can talk about matters that concern women, and likewise “persons of color” all think alike And no one else has anything to offer to members of these groups. Those are sexist and racist assumptions, that no government should be engaging in.
The other effort is to make sure that local communities are “fair” in what they broadcast, This would be determined by local “community boards” who would decide whether programming “serves” the communities. This demonstrates that the current government has no use for what Thomas Jefferson called “the free market of ideas.” Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to determine what they prefer to hear and see, by using the dials on their radios and TVs.
Now, consider the truths that Oprah Winfrey exhibits. Do all women think alike, and all “persons of color”? The Winfrey answer is no. Most of her listeners are white women, with a fair number of white men included.
Does Oprah depend on black-owned, or female-owned stations to carry her program? Absolutely not. Any program that seeks media success tries to get syndicated on the dominant station in each market, and then to become the dominant show in that time period. Since the goal is commercial success, each participant – station owners down to program hosts – seek the biggest audience, to attract maximum advertising dollars. Race and success have nothing to do with this. That is exactly how the Winfrey Show has built its success.
The Administration’s efforts are posed in terms of “fairness.” But its ideas of ‘fairness” include telling the free press what it can, and cannot, broadcast to audiences freely choose. The Oprah Winfrey Solution is to let free people determine their own media choices freely. It was also Jefferson’s solution for “the marketplace of ideas.”
It is also the constitutional solution. But apparently the Administration officials either haven’t read the First Amendment lately, or do not take it seriously.
By agreeing publicly that the Fairness Doctrine is dead, and acquiescing in an amendment in Congress said the same thing, the Administration pretends to have no interest in censorship, especially in talk radio. But its other actions, and certain internal documents never intended to become public, reveal an intent to replace the Fairness Doctrine of other forms of censorship.
Not many people in the talk show community are aware of the threats to them and their listeners. But as the pressure from the Administration on all fronts increases, you can expect this subject to achieve front-page status on radio and TV. It will also become a lively debate in Congress, where all but 19 Senators voted for the DeMint Amendment against reestablishment of the Fairness Doctrine. Once the American people realize that their “freedom to listen” is at issue, as Justice Scalia called it in a recent argument before the Supreme Court, the subject will light up on talk radio, and then in the halls of Congress.
It may be sufficient to kill the new forms of censorship, without going to the courts, where recent cases indicate the forms will die if they get there.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced law in the Supreme Court for 33 years. He now lives on the Eastern Continental Divide in the Blue Ridge of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
- 30 -
John / Billybob
The same could be said for the other Branches of Government and most television talking heads...
Rush is certainly aware of the coming restrictions and has mentioned it numerous times on his show. Personally, I think the administration will succeed since they don’t plan on achieving their ends through the congress but instead through the bureaucracy. Speech regulation by stealth.
I am a white woman and in 1997; it dawned on me that Oprah is a racist. It also dawned on me this blanket of guilt she uses just isn’t true. I stopped watching her and have never looked back or wanted to.
Bingo. Cap and Trade, Bailouts with administrative strings, EPA Regulations to implement “Warming” Regime, etc. Incrementally, they will expand the Gov’t control over every facet of our personal and financial lives.
Ban Guns? Nope, just tax them to death!
John / Billybob
And, should local "community boards" decide that the programming which would best serve their respective communities should be decidedly "right wing," what then?
It seems to me that when they achieve this, it’ll be time to take the advice in my tagline. I just hope I’m still healthy enough to participate in a meaningful manner.
“I am a white woman and in 1997; it dawned on me that Oprah is a racist”
Agreed. Her slobbering all over Obama and his sickening wife and her refusal to have Palin on her show added to my conviction that she is a raging, unrelenting racist for whom I have no use. If Palin were black, she’d be on her show. Racism, pure and simple. Other than the fact that she speaks English without a trace of “negroisms,” I can’t see what else there is to this huge, colossal, fat phony.
Agree. It’s odd that the blacks are always screaming racism when some of them are the worst offenders. Talk about not moving ahead.
It has gotten progressively worse since Wrights Apprentice and his husband got elected.
She went from a talk show host, to a sort of lifestyle guru to a wannabe quasi-politician.
She’s like everyone in the entertainment industry, always unsatisfied.
Reminds me of Clooney, Jolie, etc., they just want to be more than they are, but without the effort to really become someone. They run on pure adrenaline, not studying at home like real diplomats do.
John / Billybob
I agree. Not only is it not the proper function of government, it is probably unconstitutional and totally illegal. Hopefully, these abuses of government and the liberties they take with citizens will eventually be righted. I fear, though, that it will be long in coming and blood will be spilled in the process of that righting.
Full Disclosure: Richad Scher acted like an arrogant dork, according to friends I had who had to deal with him at the time...
Cheers!
Oprah’s next (current?) push will be for “saving” the was, is, always shall be, forever basket-case called, Africa. Hollywood and the usual suspects will gleefully jump on that continent’s “save the children” campaign.
This wll mean boots on the ground. Yes, AMERICAN BOOTS! Again, somewhere else but here.
The U.N. has no boots.
The current Prince of Peace, Hope and Change, now in office, might ‘select’ Oprah to manage the ‘Africa Rising’ crusades.
Do not let these wordsmiths “Select” your sons to go there!
Perhaps there is a Gulf Of Tonkin in the Congo?
John / Billybob
When you consider that ACORN will be first in line, and other liberal fellow-travelers will be right after then, to be chosen to serve on these boards. I would oppose them, even if a small number of them favored conservative programing. That's NOT the proper function of governments in the US.
The whole push will be for "diversity." But the operative definition of someone who adds "diversity" is, quite simply, "anyone who can be relied on to promote the Democratic Party."Promotion of "diversity" is discrimination against white (pink, as Thomas Sowell would say) men (is it even legal to use the word "man" any more?) for the purpose of discriminating against Republicans. This is possible because, and only because, journalism promotes itself (and politicians who align with journalism) by criticizing and second guessing anyone who takes responsibility for getting things done. IOW, Republicans - everyone else is a victim.
The two sentences of the third paragraph should read:
For the details of these proposals, see www.freedomto listen.org and the connected websites. As a full revelation, along with colleagues, I wrote many of the articles found on these websites.
The next-to-last sentence in the seventh paragraph demonstrates that my mind got ahead of my fingers when writing. It should read:
Race and sex have nothing to do with this.
Those who publish my columns, please make these two corrections before printing this or placing this on the Internet.
John / Billybob
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.