Government officials, reacting to the growing voice of conservative news outlets, especially on the internet, are angling to curtail the media's exemption from federal election laws governing political organizations, a potentially chilling intervention that the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is vowing to fight.
“I think that there are impulses in the government every day to second guess and look into the editorial decisions of conservative publishers,” warned Federal Election Commission Chairman Lee E. Goodman in an interview.
“The right has begun to break the left’s media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like the internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet communications,” he added. (Z: can someone tell me how many more conservative outlets there are on the internet than liberal?)
Noting the success of sites like the Drudge Report, Goodman said that protecting conservative media, especially those on the internet, “matters to me because I see the future going to the democratization of media largely through the internet. They can compete with the big boys now, and I have seen storm clouds that the second you start to regulate them, there is at least the possibility or indeed proclivity for selective enforcement, so we need to keep the media free and the internet free.”
All media has long benefited from an exemption from FEC rules, thereby allowing outlets to pick favorites in elections and promote them without any limits or disclosure requirements like political action committees.
But Goodman cited several examples where the FEC has considered regulating conservative media, including Sean Hannity's radio show and Citizens United's movie division. Those efforts to lift the media exemption died in split votes at the politically evenly divided board, often with Democrats seeking regulation.
Liberals over the years have also pushed for a change in the Federal Communications Commission's "fairness doctrine" to cut of conservative voices, and retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has delighted Democrats recently with a proposed Constitutional amendment that some say could force the media to stop endorsing candidates or promoting issues.
“The picking and choosing has started to occur,” said Goodman. “There are some in this building that think we can actually regulate” media, added Goodman, a Republican whose chairmanship lasts through December. And if that occurs, he said, “then I am concerned about disparate treatment of conservative media.”
He added, “Truth be told, I want conservative media to have the same exemption as all other media.”
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.
This makes me think of what a horrid precedent the Rutgers situation with Condi Rice set. We've all talked about the negativity of the media and insults to the Right. I guess we were RIGHT all along.
Can we get around this? Is this HOLDER? HOW can this be happening IN AMERICA?
Z
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
60 comments:
Can't have anyone or anything defying the Ministry of Truth.
Tyranny.
Methinks it may depend on just whose "Ministry of Truth" one is referring to.
Fascism.... http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/
NO, this is NOT the same America, this is the new America, where Mob rules, and we have these Jerk-off Liberals, Libertarians, Socialists, Progressives, running around the streets like the Dirty Hippies did, making their own rules and destroying the country.
The "same America"? No, not by a long shot!
Censorship, loss of our Freedoms, the president lying, cheating , getting Blow Jobs from Interns, cover-ups, spying on our own citizens, IRS spying, phone taps, the worst Race relations in 25 years, Obamacare, killing other Country's leaders, no way, this is NOT the America that I once knew.
RN,
Start with the tab "Modern Newspeak" at this site.
My Conservative friends, before you bad mouth our country because of it’s current president, try living somewhere else, where there is No choice and truly No hope. we mus instead count our blessings, because we live here in America,
The morning that I woke up knowing our country continued to be greatly divided, because of the re-election of Obama and that emotions were running high and I checked in on my favorite social media sites to see how everyone was faring.
my mood quickly turned to disgust when Isaw that Obama was again to be our president. And i thought, what are we going to do, How will this country survive?
This was indeed a sad and tragic day for our nation.
Disappointing? Sure. But we are bigger than this, we WILL survive and we will prevail. So hang in there America, keep strong.
Copy-and-paste spam: May 8, 2014 at 4:40 AM.
Always On Watch said...
"Copy-and-paste spam: May 8, 2014 at 4:40 AM."
YES, indeed....
Googled it and found that it originated from a blogger named. " Capt. Fogg of The Swash Zone with a few changed words.
Georgie Bushie said..."Censorship, loss of our Freedoms, the president lying, cheating , getting Blow Jobs from Interns, cover-ups, spying on our own citizens, IRS spying, phone taps, the worst Race relations in 25 years, Obamacare, killing other Country's leaders, no way, this is NOT the America that I once knew."
....
Yes, don't we just miss the days of ignoring actionable intelligence and letting thousands die then lie our way into a war, tortured and killed hundreds of thousands more. I just love when wingnuts complain about the very things they are most guilty of to deflect from the truth.
Stupid Con said, "It’s about the abuse of a powerful megaphone for selfish ends, with potentially disastrous consequences"
Oh, good grief. Any idiot can see that Hannity's show is nowhere equivalent of shouting "fire" in a public place. As a matter of fact, his show is no more repulsive than "Hard Ball" with whoever does that show.
Both feature hard core political opinions, and Stupid, you need to get used to freedom of speech. You sound like a little boy who is denied candy before dinner.
This whole FCC thing had its origins in the old fairness doctrine when television stations were forced to air competing opinions. In other words during a campaign, if one party bought time on a tv station, the station had to make sure that other parties had the same access at the same price. The policy turned out to be ineffective, and was rescinded.
Once upon a time, there was a study and a corresponding book written by a guy named, Timothy Groseclose in which he showed that most news outlets are left leaning. He used a methodology that was able to discern just how liberal or conservative a news outlet really was.
As far as censorship, I speculate that a lot of this stuff is creditable to John Podesta. His fingerprints, and those of Soros, are all over many of the political travesties advocated by The Center For American Progress which Podesta was chairman. This orgnanization is reputed to have more influence on the Obama Administration than others.
Any move in this manner would be reprehensible. Antithetical to the principle of the 1st Amendment and liberty writ large.
That is not to say that any move of this sort is in the actually in the offing or could come to fruition, being unconstitutional on it's face.
This must be because the MSM is so "Fair and Balanced"?
Should start with Herbert Gans' Deciding What's News.
Anonymous, we DID "live somewhere else," we lived HERE in America when the scandals we're experiencing today weren't happening. Were their scandals? Sure. But we didn't feel threatened by story after story.
By the way, I have lived in Europe; many of us have.
I want to live HERE again.
I'll be back later, folks.
Please focus on the story: the deflection and strawmen are boring.
We need to THINK ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THIS STORY.
And think now, also, of how there is a story in the Wash. Examiner that the IRS also is AUDITING for political purposes.
Please let's hope we can get out from Holder's nightmare of self-serving goals.
I can't understand why the left would be concerned about it. with all the conservative outlets we still got Obama again(still wonder about that)
Unless they just want us all to "behave" ,meaning total loyalty to the party
I think it's darnright frightening that the FEC chairman has to warn America of problems coming to conservatives because they're gaining on the leftwing internet blogs/information.
What's more frightening is how few people even got the information in my article.
And, let me address my leftwingers here:
Have you nothing to say about this? Does it not stop you in your tracks to America's divided now by news outlet?
There was always the big city paper whose pages included THE NEWS. Few bylines, just THE NEWS.
Maybe on page 18, there was the OPINION SECTION, where we could read two sides of some of the more important issues.
Since EVERYBODY has a byline, it's become ALL OPINION; I've thought the byline was guilty for years and I'm only surer about that today.
Who CARES who wrote THE NEWS? writing THE TRUTH isn't sexy, is it. But give someone a byline, and brother, you are going to hear THEIR crafty little opinion, sometimes subtle, sometimes not to subtle.
That's wrong.
And, there's Bret Bozzell, who's trying to keep up on media leftwing bias but I emailed him a few months ago, asking "Why are you bothering? You get grant money to study it, but SO WHAT? Who CARES enough to change anything?"
I'm sorry, but what a waste of time.
In the meantime, I believe it's called Media Matters, is a leftwing advocate which gets a LOT of their articles published....pinning down the Right.
http://mediamatters.org/
Check it out; no real information, just leftwing prevarication of FOX and anything Conservative.
Actually, it's kind of funny!
http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/05/07/foxs-laura-ingraham-invokes-benghazi-in-discuss/199212
PLEASE PLEASE check out the page above.
It's got a limited quote without the next few words of Laura Ingraham, which made perfect sense.
This is an example of media matters...you won't be sorry.
You'll hear the very interesting video , it's short, and you'll see what THEY say she said and what she REALLY SAID. I'm surprised they attacked the video; I guess they're counting on your not watching it.
Probably, with leftwing readers, they can be assured they're not going to be inquisitive enough and will just by the leftwing lie of a headline. SO SAD!
WOW
Absolute, 100% scorched Earth annihilation of the libturd media by the righteous Trey Gowdy. This is an asswhipping out of the Antebellum. Should be repeated 100 times a day - drill into everyone's head how inferiour ALL liberals are.
Z: To specifically answer the question you posed, No, it is not just Holder. This is a threat not only from the FEC, but also the FCC.
See my previous comments about the FCC and the Fairness Doctrine. The Democrats have been trying to resurrect the Fariness Doctrine for some time to control the Hannity's and O'Reilly's.
One of the big things of which you should be aware is that your blog could be folded into a category where you would either have to stop publishing, or present equal opinions when you do publish.
I think the proposal is bigger than just Hannity, or any particular point of view. The strange thing is that liberals don't realize that ideas like censoring would also work against them.
I don't ever remember government agencies being as political as they are today under the Obama administration. Each was supposedly created for a certain job, not to promote a certain political party.
Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
@Bob --- The Democrats have been trying to resurrect the Fariness Doctrine for some time to control the Hannity's and O'Reilly's.
-----
I don't think you have any idea what the Fairness Doctrine is.
Has nothing to do with making the Vulgar Pigboy embrace socialism.
Ducky, it's not Bob who needs to look into the Fairness Doctrine.
This was largely about demanding someone like Hannity have a quick and clear alternative to anything he had on his show.
Bob explained it. You need to read his comment again.
This will help.
fairness doctrine
Houghton Mifflin
n.noun
1.A basic tenet of the licensed broadcasting industry in the United States that ensures reasonable opportunity for the airing of opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.
Of course, the grand thing is that FOX nearly always DOES have the opposing viewpoints.
Bob, come to think of it, it'd be MSNBC or CNN or any of the networks who SHOULD be squirming about the Fairness Doctrine.
And, I meant to say FCC. oops
@z --- Have you nothing to say about this? Does it not stop you in your tracks to America's divided now by news outlet?
------
The only thing that stopped me in my tracks today was the full chocolate cannoli at Maria's.
As for the division of America. Am I concerned about being divided from kid, mustang, Samuel Huntington and a few others? No. I'm not interested in that America.
Am I concerned about media which cuts me off from some reasonable conservatives like Rational Nation? Yes but as long as we have the fringe pointing to Laura Ingraham as a source of news it's going to be bleak.
Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. The right wing is past even wanting to uncover something substantive. They want one thing ... to be angry and they have the media to keep them in a froth.
It is intensely sad.
@Ducky: "I don't think you have any idea what the Fairness Doctrine is."
It looks like I misspoke. I conflated the Fairness Doctrine with the Equal Time rule.
"The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. "
That from Wikipedia. Also, see below:
"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced."
Notice the parallel requirements for equal time and balance. Broadcase stations must sell political advertising time to all candidates running for the same office. I think this is an equal time rule effect.
The Fairness Doctrine USED to require broadcasting events of public interest, and doing so in a balanced way. This is what the Dems want to ressurect.
If Sean Hannity were required to present not only his opinions, but also those of Chris Matthews, this is what they want. This is the " balance" they seek.
Ducky, your comment was precipitous. I was in the broadcast industry for about seven years as an engineer, and one time as an announcer. The Fairness Doctrine was fodder for conversation in pretty much all stations at that time.
Ducky said, "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. The right wing is past even wanting to uncover something substantive. They want one thing ... to be angry and they have the media to keep them in a froth."
There's a song in there, somewhere. It will be Hillary's song.
Look at the time-line, Ducky. Within hours, the Whitehouse, CIA, State, and the Pentagon all knew who attacked Benghazi and why. Congressional testimony tells us this, and most recently Rhodes' email confirms it.
The video that nobody can remember, today, had nothing to do with the attack, and there was no spontaneous protest at Benghazi. There was just the attack.
Five days later, Susan Rice lied when she blamed the video. Later, and continuing his blustering excuses, Barack Obama continued to lie by blaming the video.
Most importantly, Hillary Clinton publicy, and vociferously blamed the video at the memorial service for the Benghazi victims of her incompetence.
We know they lied and you know they lied. What were they covering up? Obama was covering up his failure containing terrorism which he had been bragging about.
It's that simple, Ducky. It is an impeachable offense for Obama because he did it to maintain a false narrative during his campaign. It is more than an embarrassing thing for Hillary. It is a career killer.
There was a cover-up, and it is continuing to this day.
So, what thing of substance do you mean in your comment?
Obama wasn't even in the situation room when he should have been. Nobody seems to know or hiding something. I think he was probably preparing for his big liberal fund raiser the next day because apparently holding power and being popular is more important than the actual job of being President
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS-TnM
Sorry here is the link
Lisa, thanks, I'll look at the link when I get back; I need to run now.
Bob..thanks for that. Equal time is pretty much fairness doctrine...see my dictionary definition.
Laura Ingraham is no source of news any more than Chris Matthews, Ducky. If you'd heard her, you should know that. She's opinion.
If you didn't know that, you haven't heard her, so let's all try to be more educated on the subject before expounding, okay?
We should all be so lucky to live in the Mustang/Sam Hamilton/Kid world, as you put it.
My GOD, do I wish.
Faith was honored.
The Constitution was understood and adhered to.
The Culture hadn't become the cesspool liberals have allowed and flourished in.
Minorities were not expected to do less well than the majority.
I could go on and ON.
It's telling you wouldn't live in that world.
And very sad.
Sad for me, too, since it won't return.
The lesson here is that if the people are adamant about maintaining their freedom of speech, even if it means writing blogs, sending emails, or even going back to publishing paper pamphlets, that is what they will do. A free people refuse to be told to sit down, and shut up. Not even the loud jeers or asinine and mocking comments of the Looney left will deter a free people from speaking their minds.
Now of course, that is only the tip of the iceberg, for we have a government today that will buy up millions upon millions of rounds of ammunition in order to deny ammunition to the American people, and I would not be surprised if the government started buying up paper in order to curtail the publication of pamphlets ... or even giving up control over the internet.
And what a surprise ... it is also the same government that pretends disgust at the IRS scandal, and then mocks anyone who is outraged by it, calling it “right wing” rumor mongering; the same government who proclaims there is nothing to be learned from digging into the Benghazi debacle further; the same government that conspired to sell firearms to Mexican drug cartels and then attempted to blame it on American gun owners.
Who in their right mind can trust a government such as this? Well, actually ... no one. Except that commie rat Duckie.
Looney Left Indeed!!!
The problem with any rule to 'make' media stop endorsing people or ideas (climate 'change' for example) is you can't do that without absolute control over content, verbiage and tone. This idea is from long before Holder was even wearing short pants, but I have no doubt he'll be cheerleading.
How do you 'control' this? While libel laws control some, what about this example from today's Business Week: "Last year the conservative Heritage Foundation had more influence on the direction of the Republican Party than just about anyone else— "and not necessarily for the better." They then talk about Ted Cruz and Jim DeMint getting up spine to defund Obamacare.
The "and not necessarily for the better" editorial is obviously not news but opinion. What's the antidote? An open press, of course. You can't stop Business Week from being snarky any more than you can stop CBS from choosing not to cover some really big stories that would hurt 'their' guy. Only the totalitarian state dictates what you cover and what you say.
That totalitarian impulse feels free to elbow its way around anywhere now. As evidenced by this warning. So, as they used to say in the Soviet Union there is no Pravda in Izvestiya and Izvestiya in Pravda. (There is no truth in the news and no news in the truth.)
Baysider makes an excellent comment. We seem not to have progressed very far from the 1930s when there were “Democrat” newspapers, and “Republican Newspapers.” If anyone wanted a balanced view, they would have to read both papers, or two opposing views news magazines. Today, print media appears to have been replaced by televised media ... most of which are liberal, statist, anti-American formats with utterly whacked out talking heads, and only one that offers an attempt of a balanced view.
Whoever suggests that speech should be controlled (we’ve been hearing this from the left since 2006, by the way), runs the risk of fomenting violence in America. As Sam pointed out earlier, freedom-loving Americans are going to have their say. Any attempt to curtail free speech will lead to Americans expressing their views at the point of a gun. Maybe this is what the left really wants because after some violent push back, the leftist feds can drive in to Middleburg with their tanks, armored cars, military styled automatic weapons, and their spy drones, and relocate everyone to a FEMA collection point. If you give Orwell any credence at all, then this is not hyperbole.
"If anyone wanted a balanced view, they would have to read both papers, or two opposing views news magazine."
We haven't changed the paradigm a bit. We still don't get the news. We get the talking points of the two major parties. Two chattering chowderheads arguing over a topic is nothing more than party spin.
I'm surprised they simply haven't closed up cable 'news', and broadcast directly from Republican and Democratic HQ's.
@CI:
"Two chattering chowderheads arguing over a topic is nothing more than party spin."
Now...that sounds like an perfect Agnew retort....with a touch of onomatopoeia?
Funny.
Hmmm. Ducky prefers the company of a reasonable conservative. What is a reasonable conservative, exactly? Let’s see:
Rea•son•a•ble Con•serv•a•tive
1. Willing to sell his country out to those who hate America and willing to discard traditional values, such as integrity, hard work, and fidelity in order that we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
2. Holding a moderated point of view; fence sitter. See also, useful idiot and jerk off.
3. A person who is confused about what his country should stand for and is willing to become a lickspittle to the Boston bamboozler.
Well, it's been 'the democrat media' for decades Z'. Absolutely.
Nothing is going to happen until the libtards feel some pain and start flailing around like puppy dogs with a short circuiting shock collar and put a little effort into finding out what is going on/what has gone on, more than sitting around like a pile of dung watching afore mentioned democrat media and soaking it up like spongebobs.
The libtards have come out of the closets and have their sociopathic nature and fascism on full display without any fear of rejection. We have at least 3 generations of programmed and miseducated idiots plus all the older ones that probably never got any discipline when they were children, so they stayed children.
Bob "Both feature hard core political opinions, and Stupid, you need to get used to freedom of speech. You sound like a little boy who is denied candy before dinner."
It's a recurring theme isn't it?
Lisa, I don't believe obama was in 'the situation room' when they were off supposedly killing osammi either.
If you take a good look at that picture, obama's head is too small relative to the other people in the room and there are other problems as well, such as obama off in a corner seemingly with everyone else taking prominent positions around the table and in the room. Even if obammy didn't mind, they wouldn't have let it go down that way.
That pic is definitely shopped.
I agree with the majority, I don't want to shut anyone up. The best that could eb done and it couldn't be done, is force "news" media to proclaim at the beginning of their releases whether the following is opinion or actual news.
Course, the left claims everything is factual. beckel, wasserman-putz, chrissy mathews -the whole shootin match are pathological liars and make it up as they go along claiming "these are the facts".
Then the whole thing turns into a nightmare internet comment section where each side claims they are right.
Bottom line again is if people find themselves wore off than they were 4 and 8 years ago and don't put any effort into finding out why, then you're not going anywhere as a country. So, have some fun and protect your assets best you can while putting in your votes every 2 years and every time you open your wallet. Try to talk some sense into young people.
Spending any time on people like RN or duck et al is a complete waste of time. What else can you do.
Mustang, please consider this: lots of people are 'suggesting' that speech be controlled (and not in the way our mothers told us to watch our tongue) and training people to accept violence in doing it. As in a recent case at UCSB.
Colleges are today's indoctrination camps in speech control. They are flooding the culture with students like the Swarthmore twit who wrote (of a conservative speaker who spoke with the very liberal Cornel West) that she was “really bothered” with “the whole idea … that at a liberal arts college we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.”
She's going to carry that attitude with her to her future job as a legislative aid, social worker, human resources officer, or whatever. Wherever she goes she will join hands with the likes of the philosophy professor who says people who question 'global warming' should be imprisoned. And they will replicate themselves like a cancer. Until they run out of other peoples money.
Yes, we have a responsibility to do more than put our fingers in the dike. I wish I could be more sanguine about our chances.
Imp - "Now...that sounds like an perfect Agnew retort....with a touch of onomatopoeia?"
Damn it...you made me learn. I had to look up onomatopoeia.
Do you have 'word of the day' toilet paper or something? :)
@CI:
Explain that bud...but no...I have conventional paper...and I won't go any further than that by telling who's picture is on it. ;-(
Ann Coulter's?
My guess would be Hillary. I don't anyone could bear to market something with Nancy Pelosi's face on it.
Can someone (rhetorical question warning!) tell me why it's the left which seems more bent on closing down any speech that doesn't agree with them?
Ya, ya...some of you will bring up FOX, without having noticed that FOX nearly always has both sides' point of views and let's them talk, so please let's not go into that silly diatribe again.
The Left prides itself on KINDNESS, OPEN MINDEDNESS, etc....but boy, when it comes to open mindedness, we have lefties here slamming us so often, we have speakers who have pies thrown at them at universities, we have conservatives prevented from speaking when you all know how many liberals speak at commencement, we have students not respected for not being liberals...it's the oddest, strangest dichotomy in a liberal's head, I guess.
How the heck do they rationalize their reputation they like to tout of open mindedness with THAT??
pretty wild
Lisa, I just saw that video...boy, I wish Obama'd listened to Obama and his puppet master hadn't decided to keep backing him
@Duck & CI;
I said I wouldn't say. I will say this though...Duck...she's on one of my pillows, OK? Who's on yours Duck...Che, Lenin, Alinsky, Ayers, Mao or Chris Matthews?
And no CI...it's not Hillary. I see she's starting to sprout a beard.
:-)
@Z:
"we have students not respected for not being liberals"
Really? Where's that?
Imp, do YOU know a school where conservative students ARE respected?
The left has never been about free speech. They are about using the openings in a society to seize control. In ours, that's free speech. You know David Horowitz says they never got the kind of blow back and shutdown in his leftist days on campus that anyone who espouses traditionalist opinions gets now.
@Z:
Solly ...forgot my /sarc on tag.
I never had any issues at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.
Bay and Imp; (Imp, I had a feeling, but we do have to indicate sarcasm)...
It's so awful to hear about COulter getting pies thrown at her, conservatives being screamed down; how many stories can we list? I have family members who went to Columbia and said they just had to follow the politics of the prof in tests and papers and they did well...they just figured it's part of American education.
Odd. Coulter used to speak regularly at Loyola Marymount here in LA until the seniors who got the lecturers graduated and she hasn't been asked since. I have friends who are very close to her here in LA.
Bill Maher speaks regularly. And I know for a fact that he hits on the young coeds constantly, asks them to come to his hotel, has booze with him backstage, etc.
He's still asked.
no problem
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/08/ex-hgtv-hosts-if-our-faith-costs-us-tv-show-so-be-it/
I just read the sad story above. You'd better not be an outspoken Christian and expect a TV show. Trust me on that one.
Or be a gay football player.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/nfl-team-that-drafts-openly-gay-player-michael-sam-will-face-boycott-says-d-c-lobbyist-seeking-to-ban-gays-from-league-119382/
CI: Yeah, I don't like seeing that either. We have a lot better ways to spend our energy than pointing out the sin of a particular sinner. We should be pointing to the One who rescues us from our sin.
Man, what a relief that Christian groups are pushing back on that.
THAT is DISGUSTING. I have a hunch that guy's going to be sorely disappointed if he thinks Christians are going to boycott a football game because a gay's involved!
Baysider...that's exactly right.
Gee, Ducky, ya THINK? There have been gay players for years.
Forever
Post a Comment