Im not convinced the Free Press scandal is on the up and up. The skeptic in me went ballistic when the folks in the media wrapped themselves in the First Amendment. My little skeptic could not help noticing that the government first picked on print press, the AP. That failed to gain traction with wise old owls who are hoarse from hooting Beware every time the media stooges for the government. Lets face a little reality here. There is good reason to believe that hard copies of AP stories are published by the US Government Printing Office.
Not long after the manufactured AP scandal tanked, the public was told the Justice Department went after TV; specifically the FOX Network. The myth that Hussein hates FOX lent credibility to Eric Holders commando raid on James Rosens Emails. Hussein is never going to be the smartest guy in a class for slow learners, but he isnt dumb enough to hate a network that gives his defenders more face time than does any of the liberal-leaning networks.
Why would the government run such an obvious scam? Answer: Something had to be done to convince every American that the press and the government are not one and the same.
Why am I so skeptical? Let me repeat what Ive been saying for years.
Do not confuse freedom of the press with free speech.
Obviously, the government owns the printing presses, and the TV transmitters, in every country. Long before TV took over the news business governments controlled radio and amplified sound:
From the governments perspective after WWII ended everything was fine. Media moguls and their employees collaborated with the government in growing the government. To be fair, you can make the case that print press still harbors one or two publications the government does not control. Not so with televison.
Television began replacing print in the 1960s. Hence, the government had it all until disaster struck in the form of free speech. The Internet replaced soap boxes and coffeehouse pundits. For the first time in history free speech for everyone had a tool; a tool the government fears because free speech became a real threat to totalitarian government.
Folks in the government, and in the media fear free speech, more than they fear getting cancer. Free speech gives away the very product government journalists are paid for NOT saying. On top of that the government never stops trying to regulate free speech, while freedom of the press was untouchable from the day it became an instrument of government propaganda. Think about that in relation to the AP/FOX scandals. It matters not that a free press and free speech are both guaranteed by the First Amendment; free speech is the governments enemy.
Journalisms vested interested in limiting free speech notwithstanding, every government loves protecting meaningless speech while I cant help noticing that all governments claim the absolute Right to define clear and present danger. In every form of government Dont shout Fire! in a crowded theater becomes Dont shout Fire! in an empty theater. Then Dont shout Fire!' and finally Dont speak at all.
Incidentally, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said dont falsely shout fire in a crowded theater yet liberals repeatedly omit the word falsely whenever they cite Schenck v. Ohio in order to justify limits on free speech. Schenck v. Ohio was overturned by Brandenburg v. United States.
Jonah Goldberg does not advance my separation of free speech and freedom of the press argument, but he comes close:
Not long ago I said It wont be long before the government comes up with a reason to control Internet content. Probably national security or some such thing.
Note that the Justice Department used national security leaks in its manufactured scandal. That makes me think the con job was the first step towards using national security to limit free speech on the Internet.
I know all of the wise old sayings praising the benefits of a free press. I also know there are no benefits when a free press becomes a government press. In short: If the press is not antagonistic toward government ALL GOVERNMENT there is no reason for a constitutionally-protected press.
Just so I am not accused of advocating anarchy. I am saying that never-ending attacks on ALL GOVERNMENT is the best way to hang onto limited government. Media does the opposite. Result: Calling the press a free press is the most successful government con job ever perpetrated by control freaks. For all of the freedoms Americans lost to media-approved collectivism many still believe the press is on their side.
Finally, the First Amendment gave the press all of the protection it needed, yet the press still became an instrument of government propaganda not at gunpoint but willingly, and even proudly in many cases. Its fair play for a media liberal to be proud of being a Socialist/Communist; it is a perversion when they corrupt the one and only justification for a free press in order to promote totalitarian government on television. Proof: There would be no welfare state, and no huge parasite class, had the media done its job. Nor would that freedom-killing Affordable Care Act have become law.
Not long after the manufactured AP scandal tanked, the public was told the Justice Department went after TV; specifically the FOX Network. The myth that Hussein hates FOX lent credibility to Eric Holders commando raid on James Rosens Emails. Hussein is never going to be the smartest guy in a class for slow learners, but he isnt dumb enough to hate a network that gives his defenders more face time than does any of the liberal-leaning networks.
Why would the government run such an obvious scam? Answer: Something had to be done to convince every American that the press and the government are not one and the same.
Why am I so skeptical? Let me repeat what Ive been saying for years.
Do not confuse freedom of the press with free speech.
Obviously, the government owns the printing presses, and the TV transmitters, in every country. Long before TV took over the news business governments controlled radio and amplified sound:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3C9iUaP51CI]Hitler Youth Rally Speech - Triumph of the Will 1935 (Subtitles) - YouTube[/ame]
From the governments perspective after WWII ended everything was fine. Media moguls and their employees collaborated with the government in growing the government. To be fair, you can make the case that print press still harbors one or two publications the government does not control. Not so with televison.
Television began replacing print in the 1960s. Hence, the government had it all until disaster struck in the form of free speech. The Internet replaced soap boxes and coffeehouse pundits. For the first time in history free speech for everyone had a tool; a tool the government fears because free speech became a real threat to totalitarian government.
Folks in the government, and in the media fear free speech, more than they fear getting cancer. Free speech gives away the very product government journalists are paid for NOT saying. On top of that the government never stops trying to regulate free speech, while freedom of the press was untouchable from the day it became an instrument of government propaganda. Think about that in relation to the AP/FOX scandals. It matters not that a free press and free speech are both guaranteed by the First Amendment; free speech is the governments enemy.
Journalisms vested interested in limiting free speech notwithstanding, every government loves protecting meaningless speech while I cant help noticing that all governments claim the absolute Right to define clear and present danger. In every form of government Dont shout Fire! in a crowded theater becomes Dont shout Fire! in an empty theater. Then Dont shout Fire!' and finally Dont speak at all.
Incidentally, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said dont falsely shout fire in a crowded theater yet liberals repeatedly omit the word falsely whenever they cite Schenck v. Ohio in order to justify limits on free speech. Schenck v. Ohio was overturned by Brandenburg v. United States.
Jonah Goldberg does not advance my separation of free speech and freedom of the press argument, but he comes close:
Not long ago I said It wont be long before the government comes up with a reason to control Internet content. Probably national security or some such thing.
Note that the Justice Department used national security leaks in its manufactured scandal. That makes me think the con job was the first step towards using national security to limit free speech on the Internet.
I know all of the wise old sayings praising the benefits of a free press. I also know there are no benefits when a free press becomes a government press. In short: If the press is not antagonistic toward government ALL GOVERNMENT there is no reason for a constitutionally-protected press.
Just so I am not accused of advocating anarchy. I am saying that never-ending attacks on ALL GOVERNMENT is the best way to hang onto limited government. Media does the opposite. Result: Calling the press a free press is the most successful government con job ever perpetrated by control freaks. For all of the freedoms Americans lost to media-approved collectivism many still believe the press is on their side.
Finally, the First Amendment gave the press all of the protection it needed, yet the press still became an instrument of government propaganda not at gunpoint but willingly, and even proudly in many cases. Its fair play for a media liberal to be proud of being a Socialist/Communist; it is a perversion when they corrupt the one and only justification for a free press in order to promote totalitarian government on television. Proof: There would be no welfare state, and no huge parasite class, had the media done its job. Nor would that freedom-killing Affordable Care Act have become law.
