However, like the theory behind Communism, when applied in real life situations things aren't so cut and dried as you'd like to believe.
There is little dispute from either side of the political divide that the US media helped Obama win re-election. There is also little dispute that the media in America is a propaganda arm of the Democrat party and reflects
and promotes the leftist agenda.
You say the government has no business concerning itself with the content of any speech or who is speaking, outside of fraud, libel and false advertising.
But what if the government actually supports a biased media which has commonly been caught committing fraud, libel and false advertising? And doing so ON BEHALF OF THE RULING PARTY OF GOVERNMENT!
Who or what entity can prevent outside groups from abusing and misusing the media's traditional trusted place in our society to spread a worldview which is antithetical to our population who've already proven themselves readily malleable and vulnerable to manipulation?
It's like letting a fox loose in the chicken coop.
Let's be clear on who and what is behind Al Jazeera.
There are other signs of disturbing pro-Islamist bias. In the midst of the "Arab Spring" celebrations in Cairo's Tahrir Square on Feb. 11, 2011, some 200 men sexually assaulted CBS correspondent Lara Logan. Al-Jazeera English, which was credited by Hillary Clinton and other liberals for its ubiquitous coverage of the uprising, deliberately ignored the assault on Logan. When they were called out by Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart, Al-Jazeera English publicist responded that the network "believes as a general rule" that journalists "are not the story." Capehart then noted that just days before, Al-Jazeera touted a story on how "Domestic and foreign journalists have come under siege amid the turmoil in Egypt."
Then there's the case of honoring Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar. In 1979, Kuntar was imprisoned for shooting an Israeli civilian in front of the Israeli's 4-year-old daughter, and then bashing in the little girl's head with his rifle. In 2008, Al-Jazeera in Qatar threw a televised birthday party for Kuntar, then newly released in a prisoner exchange. An Al-Jazeera interviewer told Kuntar, "You deserve even more than this," then brought out cake and sparklers. The cake had pictures on it, and Kuntar declared the "most beautiful picture" on the cake was of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. "There cannot be anything more beautiful," he proclaimed.
Al Gore could see nothing but positive qualities in his buyer, putting out a shameless statement that claimed, "Al-Jazeera, like Current, believes that facts and truth lead to a better understanding of the world around us."
Gore rebuffed an offer from conservative radio/TV personality Glenn Beck to buy Current TV. Beck was told, "The legacy of who the network goes to is important to us, and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view."
Beck is not aligned with the Gore viewpoint, and yet Al-Jazeera is? Al Gore, too, would celebrate a child-murdering terrorist with a birthday cake? Why isn't this alignment controversial or newsworthy?
Then the story gets worse. While Beck told his listeners he was rejected within minutes, Gore became a lobbyist for Al-Jazeera. New York Times media reporter Brian Stelter revealed that to preserve the deal and his big payout, Gore went to some of cable distributors looking for an excuse to drop the low-rated channel, "and reminded them that their contracts with Current TV called it a news channel. Were the distributors going to say that an American version of Al Jazeera didn't qualify, possibly invoking ugly stereotypes of the Middle Eastern news giant?"
So dropping Al-Jazeera became anti-"news," anti-Arab and Islamophobic.
But the networks won't breathe a word about Beck, and never allowed a conservative or a critic of radical Islam to offer any criticism of either Al Gore the super-rich sellout, or his terror-enabling buyer. None dares express horror that the man who was almost president on 9/11 was allying himself with al-Qaida's video jukebox.
Last edited by marsden; 01-09-13 at 11:40 PM.
With censorship there is no way to know if you have access to all the facts and opinions on controversial matters. Without these facts and opinions you can not be an informed voter, and democracy is sham. Ultimately, the goal of all censors is to preserve the power of the people in charge of the censors.
The mainstream media is not leftist, it is corporatist and centrist. Many of you have never even experienced leftist media. Watch Democracy Now, listen to a Pacifica radio station or read the Guardian (British) or the Nation to see what the real liberal/progressive/leftist point of view really is. It is not very similar to the mainstream media in the USA.
If you don't trust the government or the mainstream media (neither do I, but in different ways), why would you trust whoever would be empowered to control access to mass media and ban Al-Jazeera?
The only way to effectively address this is to cultivate a media marketplace that provides more access to diverse opinions and facts. That is why net neutrality is so important. That is also the reason why I welcome the addition of Al Jazeera to more cable TV systems. It will provide people with previously unavailable content.
2. Again, more media diversity will get people closer to the truth than a narrow range of corporate sponsored opinions and facts. No one can stop people from putting out "bad" messages. People need to learn media literacy in school and seek out the most reliable sources of information. Education and freedom are the keys to a functioning democracy.
Of course. But what we have in the US, and elsewhere, is the media following their own political agendas through telling only half the story, restricting hiring of those who don't share their own points of view, or the self censorship of the public, the latter a commonplace occurrence with the Left.To me, that amendment is virtually the only thing that makes the USA a better place to live politically compared to much of the world.
And that is happening in much of the US Media today. As we have seen in the last Presidential election it is the media who decides the issues and what they report to the public. The Democrats know that full well, as does everyone else.With censorship there is no way to know if you have access to all the facts and opinions on controversial matters. Without these facts and opinions you can not be an informed voter, and democracy is sham. Ultimately, the goal of all censors is to preserve the power of the people in charge of the censors.
You're probably one of the few people alive who would say that.The mainstream media is not leftist, it is corporatist and centrist.
Everyone in the world has experienced Leftist media. perhaps you're unable to recognize it .Many of you have never even experienced leftist media.
Perhaps you're discussing degrees of leftism here.Watch Democracy Now, listen to a Pacifica radio station or read the Guardian (British) or the Nation to see what the real liberal/progressive/leftist point of view really is. It is not very similar to the mainstream media in the USA.
I don't think Al Jaz should be banned either but we should all recognize the effect media and propaganda has on the public. You only have to look at the historical anti Americanism in western Europe to know that.If you don't trust the government or the mainstream media (neither do I, but in different ways), why would you trust whoever would be empowered to control access to mass media and ban Al-Jazeera?