The FCC never had any plans to invade newsrooms; so this comes as no surprise:
The only plan hatched by the FCC was the one to shore up the publics sagging belief in the myth that says the media and the government are mortal enemies. Mortal enemies has not been true through most of the last century when print was the only press. Mortal enemies was never true for one second throughout the decades of televisions reign over government propaganda. In fact, wags rightly call the FCC the Ministry of Propaganda.
Lets go back to 2002 for a second. Thats when the Federal Communications Commission first announced that all TV sets must include digital tuners by the year 2007. Since then broadcasters returned their analog spectrum to the government. They now transmit digitally. Then-FCC chairman Michael Powell said:
Oh yeah, members of Congress representing consumers. If they did it was the first and last time in history.
Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, did not agree with the FCC. At the time Shapiro said:
As it turned out the government via the FCC did not have to give consumers a choice.
Members of Congress protected themselves by claiming they were interested in a more efficient use of the limited broadcast spectrum. When the DTV scam was in the news, I made this suggestion: Eliminate tax deductible advertising dollars which, in turn, will get rid of a lot of television outlets and reduce overall broadcast time. Thats the most efficient use of the broadcast spectrum.
Also, clearer images with DTV was a big selling point. It was a load of bull-crap. Right from the start of the DTV scam I knew that clearer pictures was a fraud because it is sound that indoctrinates and brainwashes. No picture ever brainwashed anyone. DTV will never do a damn thing to tamper with sound unless digital pictures somehow enhance brainwashing techniques that I am unaware of.
The DTV fraud was designed to provide hundreds of platforms for advertisers entwined with countless outlets for government propaganda. Nothing new, or worthwhile, came from the entertainment industry, or network news divisions via DTV; so why the switch if it wasnt a fraud?
Knowing how Socialist/Communist control-freaks adore brainwashing, I cant help wondering if digital transmissions turned out to be more adaptable than analog transmissions when it came to sending out subliminal messages hidden in the picture.
The public airwaves are controlled by a very few even though the airwaves supposedly belong to everyone. Under the present setup those who can do without TV are forced to pay for it in various ways. Those who are addicted to television get the same old sewage pumped into their homes digitally, and they will be paying a lot more to the very few who use public property as though it is their own.
I never could bring myself to trust anything the Socialists who control the propaganda apparatus in this country do. Whenever propaganda machinery is wrapped in legislation, and bureaucratic mandates, as it was in the DTV scam the public always get screwed. That was true of DTV and its true of the scheme to convince Americans that there is no Media & Government partnership.
Now lets go to the heart of newsroom flap. Ill begin with this:
The National Review cover shows that the government is after something, but it aint TV newsrooms. Much of print press supports the government, and there is no reason for the government to interfere in television news.
Everything that has gone wrong in this country can be laid on the Media-Government partnership. The domestic disasters are a bit more difficult to uncover, but not impossible. The welfare state, 20 million illegal aliens on their way to amnesty, and the Affordable Care Act are but three items that would not have been possible without a Media-Government partnership.
Nailing the partnership in foreign policy is easy. I have only to post the following each time the media acts like it is not stooging for the government as they are doing with the FCC scam:
Convincing Americans that the media and the government have an adversarial relationship is essential when the government goes after free speech on the Internet. When the fight comes the media must be in a position to support the governments position without seeming to do so. That is the formula the media has been using for decades. The formula does not work when a majority of Americans know enough NOT to believe anything the government media tells them.
NOTE: Print press never came to the aid of free speech when the Fairness Doctrine was enforced from 1949 to 1987. Also note that neither print nor electronic media defends free speech on the Internet nor will they ever.
Ive posted many messages on the topic of freedom of speech on the Internet. I think Ive read most of the stuff written about the FCC con job. Not once did I ever see a specific mention of freedom of speech on the Internet. That is not to say that conservative journalists are deliberately avoiding the issue. They probably dont see the omission as important. I offer this to make my case:
Sunsteins plan to undermine opposition failed. The logical next step is for the government to wage all-out war against free speech on the Internet. A war the government cannot win if the media defends free speech as vigorously as it defends freedom of the press. Thats the problem. I doubt if the people who own the transmitters will defend freedom of speech on the Internet; nor can the governments Supreme Court be counted on to rule in favor of First Amendment protection for the Internet. Freedom of speech is a wonderful concept for street corner orators. It doesnt work out to well when everybody has an electronic soapbox:
These two articles are as good as youll find anywhere. The topic of freedom of speech is mentioned in connection to freedom of the press:
The only plan hatched by the FCC was the one to shore up the publics sagging belief in the myth that says the media and the government are mortal enemies. Mortal enemies has not been true through most of the last century when print was the only press. Mortal enemies was never true for one second throughout the decades of televisions reign over government propaganda. In fact, wags rightly call the FCC the Ministry of Propaganda.
Lets go back to 2002 for a second. Thats when the Federal Communications Commission first announced that all TV sets must include digital tuners by the year 2007. Since then broadcasters returned their analog spectrum to the government. They now transmit digitally. Then-FCC chairman Michael Powell said:
Oh yeah, members of Congress representing consumers. If they did it was the first and last time in history.
Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, did not agree with the FCC. At the time Shapiro said:
As it turned out the government via the FCC did not have to give consumers a choice.
Members of Congress protected themselves by claiming they were interested in a more efficient use of the limited broadcast spectrum. When the DTV scam was in the news, I made this suggestion: Eliminate tax deductible advertising dollars which, in turn, will get rid of a lot of television outlets and reduce overall broadcast time. Thats the most efficient use of the broadcast spectrum.
Also, clearer images with DTV was a big selling point. It was a load of bull-crap. Right from the start of the DTV scam I knew that clearer pictures was a fraud because it is sound that indoctrinates and brainwashes. No picture ever brainwashed anyone. DTV will never do a damn thing to tamper with sound unless digital pictures somehow enhance brainwashing techniques that I am unaware of.
The DTV fraud was designed to provide hundreds of platforms for advertisers entwined with countless outlets for government propaganda. Nothing new, or worthwhile, came from the entertainment industry, or network news divisions via DTV; so why the switch if it wasnt a fraud?
Knowing how Socialist/Communist control-freaks adore brainwashing, I cant help wondering if digital transmissions turned out to be more adaptable than analog transmissions when it came to sending out subliminal messages hidden in the picture.
The public airwaves are controlled by a very few even though the airwaves supposedly belong to everyone. Under the present setup those who can do without TV are forced to pay for it in various ways. Those who are addicted to television get the same old sewage pumped into their homes digitally, and they will be paying a lot more to the very few who use public property as though it is their own.
I never could bring myself to trust anything the Socialists who control the propaganda apparatus in this country do. Whenever propaganda machinery is wrapped in legislation, and bureaucratic mandates, as it was in the DTV scam the public always get screwed. That was true of DTV and its true of the scheme to convince Americans that there is no Media & Government partnership.
Now lets go to the heart of newsroom flap. Ill begin with this:
The National Review cover shows that the government is after something, but it aint TV newsrooms. Much of print press supports the government, and there is no reason for the government to interfere in television news.
Everything that has gone wrong in this country can be laid on the Media-Government partnership. The domestic disasters are a bit more difficult to uncover, but not impossible. The welfare state, 20 million illegal aliens on their way to amnesty, and the Affordable Care Act are but three items that would not have been possible without a Media-Government partnership.
Nailing the partnership in foreign policy is easy. I have only to post the following each time the media acts like it is not stooging for the government as they are doing with the FCC scam:
Convincing Americans that the media and the government have an adversarial relationship is essential when the government goes after free speech on the Internet. When the fight comes the media must be in a position to support the governments position without seeming to do so. That is the formula the media has been using for decades. The formula does not work when a majority of Americans know enough NOT to believe anything the government media tells them.
NOTE: Print press never came to the aid of free speech when the Fairness Doctrine was enforced from 1949 to 1987. Also note that neither print nor electronic media defends free speech on the Internet nor will they ever.
Ive posted many messages on the topic of freedom of speech on the Internet. I think Ive read most of the stuff written about the FCC con job. Not once did I ever see a specific mention of freedom of speech on the Internet. That is not to say that conservative journalists are deliberately avoiding the issue. They probably dont see the omission as important. I offer this to make my case:
Sunsteins plan to undermine opposition failed. The logical next step is for the government to wage all-out war against free speech on the Internet. A war the government cannot win if the media defends free speech as vigorously as it defends freedom of the press. Thats the problem. I doubt if the people who own the transmitters will defend freedom of speech on the Internet; nor can the governments Supreme Court be counted on to rule in favor of First Amendment protection for the Internet. Freedom of speech is a wonderful concept for street corner orators. It doesnt work out to well when everybody has an electronic soapbox:
These two articles are as good as youll find anywhere. The topic of freedom of speech is mentioned in connection to freedom of the press:
