Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Is New Media Under Attack?

The administration and the Democrat-controlled congress are gunning for the new media – conservative talk radio and Fox News Network in particular. Their weapons are localism, net neutrality and quite possibly government subsidization of old media.

Localism is a stealth approach to reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the FCC, introduced in 1949, that required the holders of radio broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced, according to the FCC. The Fairness Doctrine was abolished under President Reagan in 1987, and since that time several unsuccessful attempts have been made to reintroduce it, either through FCC policy or Congressional legislation.

The left supports the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine due to the tremendous popularity, political influence and commercial success of conservative talk radio and the internet-based new media. Conversely, liberal talk radio has been a dismal failure in every respect. The Democrat party is arguing a need for fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues (politics), as determined by the government (FCC).

The right contends that liberal talk radio has no popular appeal because it is angry, emotion-based and doesn’t address issues or facts. The right wonders aloud why there isn’t a call for application of the Fairness Doctrine to the liberally biased television and newspaper media.

A majority of Americans oppose the Fairness Doctrine. The People recognize it for what it is – suppression of free speech in violation of the First Amendment in The Bill of Rights. As a result, the Democrat Party will attempt to compromise conservative talk radio through “localism”, which involves FCC mandated local control of radio programming in support of local “community interests”. Think of it as community organizers determining the content of local radio programming.

What is the economic viability of a radio station with programming determined not by the marketplace, but a bunch of community organizers who think they know what the listeners need? Who would buy advertising on such a radio station? How long would it be in business?

As if this weren’t bad enough, the Government is also looking to control “false claims” made by internet blogs and websites under the guise of localism. What?!!! Localism is simply a partisan attempt to legalize censorship.

Net neutrality is even more insidious. First, net neutrality is a misnomer. A definition of net neutrality would suggest a benign, equal condition, when in fact, it is anything but equal. Net neutrality is actually a bigger threat to free speech than the Fairness Doctrine because it affects both the internet and wireless network service.

Net neutrality proponents site as their chief concern, the ability of wireless companies and ISP’s to present content and support applications in a biased and predatory way, thus giving them certain competitive advantages at the expense of the consumer. Further, they believe the federal government is needed to guarantee neutrality in the way content is made available over the internet and wireless networks.

Government control of content and application management on the internet and wireless networks is a clear violation of our First Amendment rights. That fact alone precludes any consideration of the inevitably burdensome regulations, unnecessary expense and unintended consequences that are sure to follow.

The wireless companies and ISP’s are scrambling to establish positions on this issue. Like the pharmaceutical companies, auto manufacturers and bankers before them, they are trying to decide whether to “dance with the devil” with the hope they will receive more favorable treatment if the proposed net neutrality legislation is enacted. It would be fun to watch, were not the consequences so dire.

This is just one more ugly, unconstitutional initiative with which The People must deal. Please become informed, stay involved and make your voice heard. Anti net neutrality bumper stickers can help raise awareness…


http://www.triteworks.com/doggin-blue-dogs/new-media-under-attack/

Answer Question
 
SavageGrl

Asked by SavageGrl at 4:07 PM on Dec. 22, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 18 (6,045 Credits)
Answers (13)
  • I am sorry...but blogs are useless sources.
    Mom2Just1

    Answer by Mom2Just1 at 4:10 PM on Dec. 22, 2010

  • "conservative talk radio and Fox News Network in particular. "

    Just a clarification. New Media, in the media industry, refers to wireless/mobile/internet. The examples cited above are actually Old Media in new clothes.

    "The right contends that liberal talk radio has no popular appeal because it is angry, emotion-based and doesn’t address issues or facts. "

    The same can and has been said of conservative radio, as far as anger and emotion. It's not true for EITHER.

    "What is the economic viability of a radio station with programming determined not by the marketplace, but a bunch of community organizers who think they know what the listeners need? Who would buy advertising on such a radio station? How long would it be in business?"

    You might want to ask Clear Channel about that. What was allegedly driven by the marketplace failed miserably because they FORGOT localism.
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 4:14 PM on Dec. 22, 2010

  • Adding to that...

    All that said... no broadcaster wants the Fairness Doctrine back. It's deader than Jacob Marley.
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 4:17 PM on Dec. 22, 2010

  • Leading the charge for Net Neutrality, is Free Press, an anti “big media” organization funded by socialist/progressive donors such as George Soros’ Open Society Institute; the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Glaser Progress Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Overbrook Foundation, the Philadelphia Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, the Surdna Foundation, and the Wallace Global Fund.


    http:/ /www. redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/09/06/net-neutrality-obamas-way-of-saying-shuddupayourface/


    Interesting, don't you think?

    SavageGrl

    Comment by SavageGrl (original poster) at 4:22 PM on Dec. 22, 2010

  • Yeah. I hear Soros' name thrown around all the time. Allegedly he's telling NPR reporters what to do.

    Funny, every NPR reporter I've worked with is still waiting for those marching orders! That includes me!
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 4:25 PM on Dec. 22, 2010

  • O.P. does this link still work, I cannot get it to work so I am going to post it and see if it will work here...


    redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/09/06/net-neutrality-obamas-way-of-saying-shuddupayourface/

    agentwanda

    Answer by agentwanda at 6:15 PM on Dec. 22, 2010

  • Still doesn't work for me… :(
    agentwanda

    Answer by agentwanda at 6:41 PM on Dec. 22, 2010

  • It says 400- Bad Request… Well Crap!
    agentwanda

    Answer by agentwanda at 6:47 PM on Dec. 22, 2010

  • Got it on the other post… :o)
    agentwanda

    Answer by agentwanda at 7:33 PM on Dec. 22, 2010

  • No, not the WHOLE Media, just the ones that don't pony-up!
    goodwitch399

    Answer by goodwitch399 at 8:53 PM on Dec. 22, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN