Fairness Doctrine vs Citizen Journalism

Recognizing the threat of China's growing online community, Chinese President Hu Jintao called in January for the Internet to be "purified", and the government has since launched a number of online crackdowns. Image Credit: AFP

Fairness Doctrine vs Citizen Journalism

Here in the good ol’ USA, we have members of our congress walking the halls complaining about the success of “Talk Radio” and how it needs to be regulated. A recent account observed that senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Hillary Clinton (D-CA) were conversing about how the “Fairness Doctrine” needs to re-implemented in order to curb the free market influences that rule the popularity of this broadcast and communications medium.

This doctrine grew out of concern back in 1949 because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available. Broadcasters had to make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they had to allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Federal Communications Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

It is funny how our currently elected leadership waxes philosophical regarding the limitation of free speech in the face of the communications landscape that exists today. The focus on the success of Talk Radio and the Fairness Doctrine leaves behind the rest of the singularly liberal forces that exist with mainstream broadcast television, newspaper print media, and the educator class that run our universities.

Oh!, And let us not forget the freedom of speech and communication that has become the “Wild West” landscape of the internet. How will our elected leaders like Boxer and Clinton address the internet in light of this concept of the “Fairness Doctrine”? … Maybe they can draw on the experience the political leaders in China.

Excerpts from Agence France-Presse via Breitbart -

'Citizen journalism' battles the Chinese censors
AFP - Jun 24 11:44 PM US/Eastern

In the strictly controlled media world of communist China, "citizen journalism" is beating a way through censorship, breaking taboos and offering a pressure valve for social tensions.

In one striking example this month, the Internet was largely responsible for breaking open a slave scandal in two Chinese provinces that some local authorities had been complicit in.

A letter posted on the Internet by 400 parents of children working as slaves in brickyards was the trigger for the national press to finally report on the scandal that some rights groups say had been going on for years.

The parents' Internet posting was part of a growing phenomenon for marginalised people in China who can not otherwise have their complaints addressed by the traditional, government-controlled press.

"The phenomenon of 'citizen journalism' suddenly arrived several years ago," said Beijing-based dissident Liu Xiaobo, who was one of the student leaders of the 1989 Tiananmen democracy protests.

"Since the appearance of blogs in particular, every blog is a new platform for the spread of information."

He cited the example of a couple in the southwestern city of Chongqing who became known as the "Stubborn Nails" in April because they refused to leave their home until they received adequate compensation from the property developer who wanted them out.
----
"That case was first revealed through blogs," Liu said.

Also in Chongqing, parts of the city were this month set on fire following the beating of flower sellers by the "chengguan", city police charged with "cleaning up" the city's roads.

Witnesses to the beatings had appealed to local television journalists, but nothing was broadcast.

The incident only became known outside the city thanks to photos and stories published on the Internet, sparking anger among China's netizens.

"It's fascism," said one, while another mocked: "The inhabitants of Chongqing are truly naive, the Chinese media is all controlled by the Communist Party, they decide what people know."
----
Recognising the threat of China's growing online community, Chinese President Hu Jintao called in January for the Internet to be "purified", and the government has since launched a number of online crackdowns.

"The department of propaganda has sent out regulations to try and control the opinions being spread on the Internet, but every citizen has the right to criticise or to take part in public affairs on the Internet," said Zhu Dake, a professor at Shanghai Tongji University.

"The government has to accept the criticisms of the people, it can no longer react crudely like in the past."

Julien Pain, who monitors Internet freedom issues for Reporters Without Borders, is less optimistic.

"One cannot truly say that the Internet in China is becoming more and more free, because at the same time as the development of citizen journalists, the government finds ways of blocking or censoring content," Pain said.

Reporters Without Borders, which labels the Chinese government an "enemy of the Internet," says about 50 cyber dissidents are currently behind bars in China.
Reference Here>>

At least here in America, we have the First Amendment in our Constitution.

Even Senators John Kerry, Dick Durbin, and Diane Feinstein and their wishes to stop the "hyperbole" coming from a free and open media with a fairness doctrine ... will not be able to "purify" the American communications landscape.
(ht: The Museum of Broadcast Communications and Fox News)

Democrat Hypocrisy Laid Bare

That is how those who oppose the war "support" the troops -- they "slow-bleed" them dry. Or they declare that the lives laid down by those troops were "wasted," as Senator Barack Obama did last Sunday. Photo: Barack Obama in South Carolina - 2/16/07 Image Credit: Jack Jenkins

Democrat Hypocrisy Laid Bare

A question posed by the opinion columnist, Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, yesterday is a great question indeed:

“WHAT DOES IT mean to support the troops but oppose the cause they fight for?”

Really … What Does It Mean?

At least the Senate got it almost right when they unanimously approved General Petraeus so that they were in support of the military commander for Iraq … then stopped the non-binding resolution from passing with a 60 vote majority.

But what does it mean, really?

Excerpts from The Boston Globe -

Irreconcilable positions: support troops, oppose war
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist February 18, 2007

No loyal Colts fan rooted for Indianapolis to lose the Super Bowl. No investor buys 100 shares of Google in the hope that Google's stock will tank. No one who applauds firefighters for their courage and education wants a four-alarm blaze to burn out of control.

Yet there is no end of Americans who insist they "support" US troops in Iraq but want the war those troops are fighting to end in defeat. The two positions are irreconcilable. You cannot logically or honorably curse the war as an immoral neocon disaster or a Halliburton oil grab or "a fraud . . . cooked up in Texas," yet bless the troops who are waging it.

But logic and honor haven't stopped members of Congress from trying to square that circle. The nonbinding resolution they debated last week was a flagrant attempt to have it both ways. One of its two clauses professed to "support and protect" the forces serving "bravely and honorably" in Iraq. The other declared that Congress "disapproves" the surge in troops now underway -- a surge that General David Petraeus , the new military commander in Iraq, considers essential.

It was a disgraceful and dishonest resolution, and it must have done wonders for the insurgents' morale.
----
That is how those who oppose the war "support" the troops -- they "slow-bleed" them dry. Or they declare that the lives laid down by those troops were "wasted," as Senator Barack Obama did last Sunday.
----
And like most political gaffes, it exposed the speaker's true feelings.

And why wouldn't Obama feel that way? If an American serviceman dies in the course of a war that toppled a monstrous dictatorship, opened the door to decent Arab governance, and has become the central front in the struggle against radical Islam, his death is not in vain. It is the sacrifice of an American hero, the last full measure of devotion given in the cause of freedom. But if he dies in the course of a senseless and illegitimate invasion -- which appears to be Obama's view of Iraq -- then his life was wasted. If that's what you believe, Senator, why not say so?
----
Smart people who work hard become successful, John Kerry "joked" last fall, but uneducated sluggards "get stuck in Iraq." Osama bin Laden is beloved by Muslims for "building schools, building roads . . . building day-care facilities," Washington Senator Patty Murray explained in 2002, while Americans only show up to "bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan." Obama's Illinois colleague Dick Durbin took to the Senate floor to equate US military interrogators in Guantanamo Bay with "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags," and similar mass-murderers, such as "Pol Pot or others."

It goes without saying that many Democrats and liberals take a back seat to no one in their admiration and appreciation of the US military. But there is no denying that a notable current of antimilitary hostility runs through the left as well.

Examples are endless: ROTC is banned on elite college campuses. San Francisco bars a historic battleship from its port. Signs at antiwar protests urge troops to "shoot their officers." An Ivy League professor prays for "a million Mogadishus." Michael Moore compares Iraqi insurgents who kill Americans to the Minutemen of Revolutionary New England.

America is a free country, but it is not the Michael Moores or the ROTC-banners or the senatorial loudmouths who keep it free. They merely enjoy the freedom that others are prepared to defend with their lives.

It is the men and women who volunteer to wear the uniform to whom we owe our liberty. Surely they deserve better than pious claims of "support" from those who are working for their defeat.
Read All>>

Politics? Or Conscious Acts Of Treason ... ?

As stated in a speech by John Kerry, delivered on the Senate floor on Nov. 9, 1997, as recorded in the Congressional Record. "Plainly and simply, Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to get away with his antics, or with this latest excuse for avoidance of international responsibility". Image Credit: www.john-kerry.com

Politics? Or Conscious Acts Of Treason ... For Simple Political Gain?

Good question.

Now that the Democrats are in power over the Congress --- Hypocrisy RULES to the detriment of national security issues. The Democrat Congress does not believe that the military is up to the task of victory in Iraq and chooses to castrate their efforts as opposed to supporting their mission --- and this "surge" in hypocrisy is effecting some jello-kneed / round-heeled Republicans.

Typical of the “John Kerry Party” - the Democrats are of one voice about the surge strategy in Iraq when in saying “I was for it, before I was against it”.

Excerpts from The Washington Times -

Advocates of troop surge about-face in Congress
By Charles Hurt - THE WASHINGTON TIMES - January 31, 2007

For many in the Senate, they were for a surge of troops in Iraq before they were against it.

"We don't have enough troops in Iraq," Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said in 2005.

In 2004, he told NBC's Tim Russert some things he believes "very deeply."

"Number one, we cannot fail," Mr. Kerry said. "I've said that many times. And if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos, that can provide the groundwork for other countries, that's what we have to do."

He no longer believes that now. He is among at least a dozen Democratic senators who in the past have called for more troops in Iraq but now support a resolution condemning President Bush's plan to do just that. Many Republicans who voted for the war now plan to support a no-confidence resolution, including Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who in the past had warned that the war would be a long, tough slog and that Americans should "speak with one voice."
----
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. has for years advocated increasing the number of troops on the ground in Iraq. But after Mr. Bush offered his proposal to do that earlier this month, the Delaware Democrat drafted a resolution rejecting the idea as not "in the national interest."

In June 2005, he said, "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."

"They're going to need a surge of forces," he said in another interview.

By last week, Mr. Biden had reversed his war strategy.

"The president and others who support the surge have it exactly backwards," he told reporters.

As late as last month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was still open to the idea of a surge.

"If it is for a surge -- that is, two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year -- then sure I'll go along with it," said the Nevada Democrat who voted for the war in 2002. "If the commanders on the ground said this was just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that."

After Mr. Bush laid out his plan to increase troops, the Democratic leader flatly rejected it.

"The surge is a bad idea," Mr. Reid said on CNN's "Late Edition."

Democrats say that the time for a surge has long passed and now that the war has become so bloody and so unpopular, it's time to pull the plug.

"The bottom line is that you cannot unscramble an omelet," House International Relations Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, California Democrat, said yesterday.
----
Mr. Hagel, who is considering a run for the presidency and has been one of the harshest critics of the war and the Bush administration's handling of it.

"There is no strategy," he said last week. "This is a pingpong game with American lives."

But he hasn't always opposed the war. He voted for it.

"There are no easy answers in Iraq," Mr. Hagel said on Oct. 9, 2002, before voting to authorize the war. "The decision to commit our troops to war is the most difficult decision members of Congress make.

A veteran of the Vietnam War, he also warned his colleagues that an Iraq war would be a long, tough slog.

"This is just the beginning," he said. "The risks should not be understated, miscast or misunderstood. Ours is a path of both peril and opportunity with many detours and no shortcuts."

And Mr. Hagel warned them against sowing seeds of division with hot rhetoric.

"America -- including the Congress -- and the world, must speak with one voice about Iraqi disarmament, as it must continue to do so in the war on terrorism," he said. "Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions."

Mr. Hagel co-authored the resolution with Mr. Biden rebuking Mr. Bush and his "escalation" plan.

Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, also has drafted with others a nonbinding resolution that condemns the plan but, he said, does so more gently.
Read All>>

If you are FOR having our country stand and aid the continued freedom of the 95%+ majority of the 25,000,000 liberated people of Iraq (who have also voted to be free - 3 times), sign the pledge and get active in persuading Congress to continue to support the mission of our troops.

At the web site TheNRSCPledge.com more than 30,000 people signed the pledge of non-support for individual senators and the NRSC in the first three days of its operation. Thousands of bloggers have joined on as well. We, at MAXINE, expect the numbers to grow, and the memory of the votes of next week to remain strong for years to come.