When does cut funding = freedom of speech?

When NPR loses it's government funding. A case can be made for it:

Defund public broadcasting and set it free

[...] This week's brouhaha has underlined the single biggest problem with public broadcasting from the fan's point of view: namely, that with taxpayer financing, no matter how small, inevitably comes political considerations and even outright interference.

[...]

What did Sting teach us? If you love someone, set them free. Should NPR lose its federal funding tomorrow, we would see the mother of all pledge drives, and I would be first in line to contribute. As a friend told me this week, "I would actually start giving them money if they'd stop taking it from me." NPR has one the best media brands in the country; you don't think George Soros would be willing to up his annual contribution to cover the shortfall?

De-coupling from the federal government would allow NPR to sell advertising. Its executives could talk as much trash as they want to about Republicans and Tea Partiers, and few people would care.

We no longer would be subjected to this perennial sideshow and obsequious tip-toeing around political sensibilities. And best of all, at a time when governments at every level are out of money, we wouldn't force taxpayers to fund the listening habits of people who hate them. [...]

I've had my say about this already:

Defund NPR now... and make them more honest

On NPR recently, someone complained that NPR is like a sweater; if you cut government spending, the sleeves will fall off. Well, guess what? Short sleeves are IN this year! I'm sure NPR would adapt, and learn to do more with less like everyone else. Or perhaps even raise revenue in new ways.

In the long run, I think it would work out better for everyone.
     

What NPR's Vivian Schiller is pushing for

Check out her agenda. She's got BIG plans:

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Key Architect of FCC Govt Takeover of the News

Last week, National Public Radio CEO Vivian Schiller took a break from her crusade for a government takeover of the media to swat a fly. With now-former NPR analyst Juan Williams suitably splattered across the evening news after politically incorrect comments he made on Fox News, Schiller can return to her real passion – the creation of a national network to ensure that in the future, you get your news from the government in general and NPR in particular.

[...]

Schiller, a former New York Times executive, is one of a few dozen power players working with the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and a leftist group called Free Press to “reinvent journalism.” That’s how the FTC describes it. The FCC calls what they are doing the “Future of Journalism.” Free Press, a think tank funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, among others, calls it “the new public media.”

It’s all the same thing, a plan to take over local news coverage from for-profit television, radio and print media, which Schiller and her friends claim is in danger of extinction. These “friends” get together regularly with the heads of the FCC and FTC to brainstorm the details in government and congressional meetings. These meetings include the leaders of all the country’s public broadcasting outlets, including PBS, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and American Public Media.

They are beefing up their staffs in local news markets with herds of public news reporters to “take over” coverage as commercial media fails. Nationwide, this will cost $40 billion to $60 billion over a decade, they believe. Their plans, according to the FCC’s Future of Media report, are to raise this money by taxing for-profit news organizations – the ones whose reporting Schiller is supposedly trying to “save.” They want to charge “spectrum fees” of five percent of broadcast station revenues for use of the public spectrum and airwaves, which the government controls. They figure that could bring in $1.8 billion a year. A one percent tax on all electronic devices like cell phones, televisions and laptops could bring in billions more. So would a monthly fee on internet subscriptions.

While conservatives were busy arguing that NPR should be defunded in the wake of the Williams debacle, Schiller was putting the finishing touches on the national infrastructure NPR has launched to deliver this new government news product to cities across the nation. A decade ago, defunding NPR would have sufficed. To stop Schiller now, Republicans would have to defund PBS and CPB as well to have any hope of torpedoing her plans to build a nationwide news delivery system in the style of the BBC, but on steroids. Schiller imagines a national public print, television and radio news leviathan that would compete with the top five news companies in the news industry.

“We can create a national network around all of public radio that provides the kind of public service that is being not provided by other media companies that are suffering,” Schiller told Cyberjournalist.net. Never mind that her planned confiscation of their revenues will cause them more suffering and possibly send them to an early death. [...]

Read the whole thing. Chilling, absolutely chilling. She's actually creating the problem she claims she is trying to solve, then pushing her own power grab as the solution. And why not? She has gotten away with it thus far. Another example of government power gone wild. Once released, it knows no limits.

Creating a government controlled news monopoly with taxpayers money is not what taxes are for. De-fund the lot of them... NOW.


Also see:

Marxist Censorship Dreams, and the FCC
     

South Africa: Everything old is new again?

Wasn't government censorship of the press one of the things that was WRONG with the Old South Africa? Isn't that what the ANC used to claim? Are they now saying censorship is OK, as long as they are the one's doing it?

SAfrica's ANC party wants tribunal for journalists

JOHANNESBURG – South Africa's governing party said Tuesday that the country needs a special tribunal to regulate the work of journalists, a proposal that has drawn sharp criticism from local and international media organizations.

The tribunal would be given powers to rule on media content and to impose unspecified penalties on journalists.

African National Congress spokesman Jackson Mthembu said the party has found numerous instances of news stories that were intentionally damaging to subjects' reputations and dignity.

"Your freedom does not supersede the other freedoms that are there," Jackson told journalists Tuesday. "We say there must be punishment when journalists mess up with reputations and dignity of members of the society."

South African journalists have launched a campaign to fight what they say is an attempt to curtail media freedoms in a nation known for one of Africa's freest and most open constitutions.

Other legislation under consideration would allow South Africa's government to classify a broad range of material that is currently not secret. Under the new law, it would be illegal to leak or to publish information deemed classified by the government, and the offense would be punishable by imprisonment.

On Tuesday, the South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) said it will do what ever it can to stop the proposed "Protection of Information Bill" and media tribunal.

"We are not opposing the ANC government but the bill and tribunal," said Guy David, secretary general of SANEF.

When the old, white ruled government of South Africa censored the South African press, outrage was expressed worldwide, and boycotts and sanctions were imposed on the country.

Now, years later, we have a black ruled government, proposing similar or even worse censorship of the press. Where is the outrage, the world-wide indignation? Will we even hear a peep out of the international press about this?

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.
     

Federalize the news industry? To what ends?

Will journalists wake up in time to save journalism from Obama's FTC?

[...] Those in the administration who clearly view independent journalism as an obstacle to "change we can believe in" and their numerous allies in the old media, non-profit, and academic communities who either share a similar ideological vision or see the FTC process as their salvation against the Internet, will no doubt dismiss my assertions as extemism or alarmism.

Fine, call me whatever, but what they cannot deny is what is clearly written in the FTC document and what it reveals about the intention behind the initiative, which is to transform the news industry from an information product collected by private individuals and entrepreneurs as a service to private buyers, to a government-regulated public utility providing a "public good," as defined and regulated by government.

The authors hide this dangerous intention behind carefully worded expressions of concern for preserving "quality journalism" and "addressing emerging gaps in reporting," and they rationalize their proposed approach of massive government intervention in the news process as simply an extension of what government has always done via postal subsidies, tax breaks, and so forth.

Jeff Jarvis, a veteran of the old media and a pioneer of the Internet-based new media with his Buzz Machine blog, provides a thorough analysis of what the FTC is considering and explicates the dangerous consequences that will follow.

[...]

Conservative journalists will do well not to roll their eyes impatiently with liberal colleagues who don't understand that government always expands its control over any activity it either funds or regulates, and therefore must be limited at every level to well-defined, narrowly circumscribed powers that only it can fulfill, as was done by the U.S. Constitution.

Better to explain yet again that the original intention of the Founders with respect to the media - "Congress shall make no law respecting ... the freedom of the press" - is the key to saving independent journalism.

Then we must remind them that the adversarial relationship that is supposed to exist between journalists and public officials must apply no matter who those public officials might be or what political party or ideological school of thought they represent.

Elected officials' first thought is always about re-election, while career government workers' is job security. A journalist's first thought is supposed to be getting the facts.

To that end, we're supposed to be adversaries, not co-conspirators, partners, favored "stakeholders," or beneficiaries. That's why the Constitution made us independent.

Read the details. What this FTC document says. Unbelievable. If we allow this, if we let it happen, then we deserve what we get.


Also see:

Seizing The News Business
     

Iran continues crushing all opposition

Iran crushes opposition protests with violence

ran’s regime thwarted the opposition’s hopes of turning the 31st anniversary celebrations of the Islamic revolution into another massive protest today.

It out-manoeuvred the so-called Green movement by swamping the official proceedings with huge numbers of its own supporters, preventing the media from covering anything else and blanketing the rest of the capital with security forces who forcefully suppressed the opposition’s relatively muted demonstrations.

President Ahmadinejad also sought to grab the headlines and divert attention from the protests by announcing that Iran had produced its first stock of 20 per cent-enriched uranium. He declared that Iran was now a “nuclear state”.

Opposition websites claimed a young woman named Leila Zareii, was killed and many others were wounded or arrested. The opposition leaders Mehdi Karroubi and Mohammed Khatami - a former president - were attacked, as was Zahra Rahnavard, wife of the Green Movement’s other leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Even Zahra Eshraghi, granddaughter of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the 1979 revolution, was briefly arrested. She and her brother, Hassan, are both opposition sympathisers and she is married to Mr Khatami’s brother.

[...]

Opposition websites said Revolutionary Guards and basiji militiamen were stationed everywhere and that they moved swiftly and violently to break up opposition demonstrations.

They claimed the security forces used live ammunition, knives, teargas and paintballs that would enable them to identify protesters later and that they were beating and arresting women as well as men. They were backed up by water canon, new Chinese anti-riot vehicles and helicopters. Some, wearing plain clothes, infiltrated the protesters. The mobile telephone, internet and text messaging systems were seriously disrupted. [...]

Here is further reporting from an Iranian blogger:

Full Account of What Happened to Karroubi the Lion Heart This Morning

Many of Karroubi's known supporters and associates were rounded up in recent days, some were imprisoned and some were forced to make written pledges not to take part in the protests today. Karroubi himself had received such a letter. Despite all this intimidation Karroubi set out to join the protesters at Sadeghieh Sq. at 10:00 am Tehran time as he had promised. From 8:00 am this morning however there were heavy clashes between people and the repressive forces around Sadeghieh Sq. The special units kept dispersing the people but the people kept returning.

Approaching Sadeghieh Sq. Karroubi decided to get out of his car and walk the rest of the way to Sadeghieh Sq. due to heavy car traffic. Around 500 people spontaneously started walking behind Karoubi without any chanting. After they had walked for 200 metres, a large group of hired thugs and Special Units on motor bikes attacked Karroubi and the people around him using machetes, knives and truncheons. They also used tear gas and shot people with paint pellets so that the paint marks would identify them later. The clashes were very severe and lasted 4 to 5 minutes. One of Karroubi's bodyguards was hurt very badly and is in critical condition in hospital. Karroubi was finally whisked away and a car driver offered to take Karroubi away. Hired thugs then spotted the car driver and smashed his windscreen and windows but the driver put his foot down on the accelerator and managed to get away. [...]

Of course the Western Leftists turn a blind eye to it all:

More Treachery by UK Universities

The Iranian regime has many enablers among Western Leftists.
     

Marxist Censorship Dreams, and the FCC

This makes the threat of the "fairness doctrine" look like nothing. This so-called "Government Broadband Plan" may actually be a first step in setting the stage for the governmental usurpation of all private media:

Diversity Czar Lloyd and Marxist McChesney's Censorship Dream: The FCC's Plan for Government Broadband

The Wall Street Journal's intrepid and very good Amy Schatz has a piece today updating us on the progress of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s National Broadband Plan.

With all that we have thus far seen, things look quite grim from a free speech, free market perspective. The groundwork for government information totalitarianism - favored by people like Hugo Chavez-loving FCC "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd and Marxist "media reform"-outfit Free Press founder Robert McChesney - is being laid in the Plan being crafted by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

As we first reported, the Center for American Progress (at which Lloyd was then a Senior Fellow) and McChesney's Free Press co-authored the deeply flawed, anti-conservative and Christian talk radio "report" entitled The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.

But their shared disdain for free speech and the free market extend way beyond just this. These "media reformers" seek to eradicate most or all private ownership of all information delivery - be it by radio, television or the internet - thereby leaving the federal government as sole purveyor. [...]

If that sounds alarmist to you, then you need to read the rest. See what Lloyd and McChesney have actually said. Dang! Marxist is certainly NOT too strong a word. It's absolutely frightening to think what these people would try to do, to subvert the FCC for their purposes.

The source article also has embedded links.


Also see:

How much longer will our Republic last?

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government"
 
   

President Obama reportedly does not favor a return of the Fairness Doctrine

At least, not in it's old form. But new incarnations remain a possibility:

Citing Obama Opposition, McDowell Warns Against Fairness Doctrine

FCC commissioner Robert McDowell had a message for Democrats, or anyone else contemplating trying to reimpose the fairness doctrine: The move could undermine the justification for existing localism and children's TV regulations, and could be used against public radio.

He also suggested it would not come back wearing a big sign saying, "it's me, the fairness doctrine," but would likely instead be rebranded.

Those were some of the observations McDowell provided Wednesday in a speech to The Media Institute in Washington, which is a strong opponent of the doctrine.

The fairness doctrine, which was scrapped by the FCC as unconstitutional in 1987, required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues.

In the speech, McDowell cited candidate Barack Obama's statement to B&C--through an aide--that he did not support the doctrine, adding that the new administration has a terrific opportunity to enunciate its strong opposition to anything resembling the fairness doctrine.

He spoke at length about the doctrine's origins and its use by both Democrats and Republicans against their opponents. He said he did not know whether recent calls for its return would bear fruit, felt it was a good time to talk to his audience--of media executives, lobbyists, journalists and others--about its creation, its historical abuses, and the legal difficulties involved with restoring it and trying to enforce it. [...]

I've said before that many Democrats don't like it because it cuts both ways. This article talks about some of those ways. But the idea that it could be "rebranded" and reintroduced in different form(s), is another idea the article looks at. Something to be alert for, as our Brave New Word... "progresses".


Related Links:

Is the Fairness Doctrine even doable anymore?

Obama Cults, Shrillness & the Fairness Doctrine
     

Democrat Politicians openly advance their Thought Police Agenda: Silence the opposition

It's the tactic of those who know they can't win through debate and persuasion. Tammy Bruce comments on local government attacks from the left on San Francisco Talk radio host Mike Savage, and Federal government attacks from the left on Radio host Rush Limbaugh:

Democrats Descend into Soros Gestapo Sewer

[...] Make no mistake, I am no fan of Savage, and I consider Limbaugh, as many do, a water-carrier for President Bush, but this is obviously wrong on a multitude of levels. On one hand you have government attempting to intimidate public voices into silence because they do not like a political message. Hugo Chavez is engaging in this very activity in Venezuela with the shutting down of televisions stations he does not like to silence their independent message.

Principles and values are simply slogans when applied only when convenient, or to situations with which we agree.

Nihilistic leftists like George Soros and those who run his sewerline Media Matters know their message anti-American message of socialistic hopelessness will never survive in America if we have avenues where the issues can be freely discussed, out from under their dead hand.

This is nothing new, however. My first book, The New Thought Police, illustrated this tactic and warned of the American left's incresing reliance on fascist theory and application.

See the attacks on Savage, O'Reilly and Limbaugh for what they are--frantic fascist efforts to demonize those who cannot be intimidated into silence. It is an effort by a bunch of Malignant Narcissists to shut down open public discourse before the 2008 presidential election. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) If you read the whole thing, it has links and quotes from articles about the attacks.

I've read Tammy's book "The New Thought Police", and she knows of what she speaks. The Democrats seem hell bent on advancing their Thought Police Agenda. They HAVE to. Their ideas can't survive open debate, so the solution is to prevent debate from happening. Silence your oppositon using any means possible. It's the favorite tool of fascists everywhere.


From Pat at Born Again Redneck:

Wednesday wisdom roundup
Women's voting patterns, Jesus, American Culture and Fred Thompson. Don't miss it!