Timothy Birdnow

Ace of Spades makes an interesting suggestion; banks and financial institutions are forced to issue disclosures of possible conflicts of interest, so why aren't journalists? ItAc is not a way of regulating speech so much as of enforcing transparency from the people who supply the news to America.

The Wikileaks dump showed considerable collusion between the Democratic Party and media people. These mediosa types lie about their "objectivity" and seduce many Americans. As of a few years ago half of all Americans still got their news from the network news services. If there are conflicts of interest the public has a right to know. Wasn't that the motto of Walter Cronkite or some such?

This proposal is fraut with danger, because it could be used to nickel and dime the little bloggers (such as yours truly) out of business. (Granted, I'm not in business at all, but you get the point.) But the sysem we have in place is no longer viable, as the Democrats now have control of the major media outlets. That has to change.

There should be a registration of formal for-pay journalists, and a disclosure requirement under the law. Bloggers offering independent opinions should not be subject, any more than entertainers or whatnot. I include liberals in Hollywood or musicians or whatnot. Jon Stewart included. But he should have to say his opinions are just that and his show is for entertainment purposes only.

The jounrnalists who are working for licensed outlets and who have access should have to pony up with the info.

The sad fact is American media is worse than Pravda was in the old Soviet Union. They were at least "offical truth" (which is what Pravda means) and so people knew to not beleive them. But our media claims to be unbiased, yet they are pure propoganda machines. That MUST change!

I've been saying this for years, and yet many conservatives never saw the danger. Too many figured that talk radio (on the a.m. dial, which had been a dying medium) and a few scribbling blogs, and one middle of the road cable outlet was adequate. Wrong. While we fought political wars and sometimes won the Left crept into the minds and hearts of the children through "cool" cultural things (like rap music or television shows) and we couldn't stop it because they owned the media, which would never mention this as a problem. So much of the media's power is to get at underlying attitudes and control the language. You can't get homosexual faux marriage without using phrases like "marriage equality" first. If they are doing that on the news programs we lose. There has to be a way to call it out.

Control of the dissemination of information is key to the success of liberalism. We have to break their monopoly, or any political victories we have will be short-lived.

Ace's suggestion may be a good start.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 491 words, total size 3 kb.