The New York Times is worried about propaganda? They invented it!

As most know, I oppose Bush and his Neocon pals’ attempts to destroy our Constitution. I also did not like the way the NYT would always back any new political correctness measures championed by the former Hypocrite-in-Chief, Bill “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” Clinton.

The media in America is mostly controlled by a few multinational corporations who have agendas that are at odds with the best interests of our People. Strong antitrust action is needed to break-up these media conglomerates. We need a policy that promotes local independent ownership of media and restrictions so that no corporation can own more than a single media outlet in any given market. Rush “What Oxycontin?” Limbaugh hates the idea of local media ownership because it would likely mean that his bullshit would only appear in a hand full of markets, if we had independent owners.

Neither party has championed the idea of breaking up the media oligopolies, because they fear the power of these few megacorporations. I suspect they also have too cozy a relationship in some cases; for example the Democrats with the NYT and the Republicans with Fox.

It is up to the citizens to demand that we have a truly free press. Media consolidation is not merely a threat to our Republic, it is already destroying the very foundation upon which our Liberty was established. Americans can not self-govern if they only receive propaganda, regardless of who is in power at the time.

Demand that Congress clean house over at the FCC and that we break-up the media oligopolies, so that information and ideas are no longer under the control of the few multinationals. Start locally. Is your radio and TV stations locally owned? Probably not, but they must be under local independent ownership if the People’s interest are to be served.

Posted by J. Tyler Ballance on 20 April 2008 @ 6am

I appreciate the spirit of your comment, Tyler, even if I think the solution is a pipe dream. That said, don’t you think there’s a significant difference between goverment and private manipulation of the news?

Posted by MB on 20 April 2008 @ 8am

Sounds like the analysts provided a little balance to the media coverage.

Posted by I.Publius on 21 April 2008 @ 6am

FCC breakup of private institutions for the sake of the public smacks way too much of socialism for my liking, Tyler.

Posted by Jason on 21 April 2008 @ 8am

Antitrust laws socialist, too? Or the whole idea of private use of public airwaves requiring some benefit to the public?

Posted by MB on 21 April 2008 @ 11am

The whole idea of forcing those who have been successful in using entrepreneurship and personal effort being forced to sacrifice it for the “greater good” is a bit socialist. I think the FCC needs to tweak its regulations and allow the market to be more friendly to smaller entities like community stations, but breaking up the hard work of people who made it happen doesn’t help anyone in the end. One needs money to access the public airwaves. Speech is free, forum is not.

Posted by Jason on 21 April 2008 @ 3pm

Sounds like the analysts provided a little balance to the media coverage.

And surely it’s the place of the Pentagon to make sure the media’s coverage is “balanced.”

FCC breakup of private institutions for the sake of the public smacks way too much of socialism for my liking, Tyler.

Damn that socialist Theodore Roosevelt and his Republican party for injecting this sort of socialism into our country.

Posted by Ben C. on 21 April 2008 @ 3pm

Jason, does it occur to you that maybe those who have been successful in using entrepreneurship and personal effort have benefited from society and thus owe a bit to its upkeep? That perhaps the existence of an educated and healthy population, a reliable system of laws, and general security might have something to do with it?

(And what do you mean “allow the market to be more friendly to smaller entities like community stations”? What would you have the FCC do?)

Posted by MB on 21 April 2008 @ 4pm