Posted by
Katy Grimes on Tuesday, May 05, 2009 4:52:56 PM
Last week I wrote a second time about how the Obama administration is attempting to backdoor the Fairness Doctrine through the FCC: I attended a recent meeting sponsored by The Sacramento Media Group and Common Cause, called a "community forum," supposedly to have an open discussion about media. The meeting was so closely controlled and manipulated, and we were silenced when we tried to speak up if it wasn't our "turn." They had "facilitators" at every table who tried very hard to direct the discussion topics. The meeting was filmed and sent to the FCC. Creepy."
A friend asked if he could post my column on the Sacramento Press internet site. The comments that followed are fascinating:
William Burg wrote: As I recall, Katy Grimes was a columnist for the now-defunct Sacramento Union (the weekly tabloid version, not the daily newspaper.) I suppose they consider any speech that isn't conservative enough to be "creepy," but keep in mind that we're talking about folks who think Adolf Hitler wasn't conservative enough.
What a charming fellow. I never said that non-conswervative speech was creepy; I referred to the proceedings and FCC filming as "creepy."
Sue Wilson, also posted several comments on my Townhall blog as well as this one left on Sacramento Press: "Who is John Galt?"
Is John Galt the heroic fictional Ayn Rand captain of industry whose vision and talent and profits were sacrificed to the many?
Or is this writer who calls himself "John Galt" uninformed that modern day real life captains of industry have neglected their vision and talent in favor of huge profits at the expense of the many?
There is a huge difference. So why don't most people understand it?
Why have people become married to their own points of view, shutting out all other possibilities? Why does a forum where each person is given the same amount of time to speak seem "creepy?" Why do people think that equal time for opposing points of view is somehow silencing speech?
Could it be that modern day captains of a deregulated media industry can shut out any voice they choose, even within the Republican Party they promote? That by manipulating masses with half truths, name calling and innuendo, they can confuse facts with fiction? That by labeling the media "liberal," they have created the boogeyman in the closet which disappears when light is shined upon it? That this recipe for deceiving and dividing us makes into huge profits, the people and the democracy be damned?
Free speech matters. So does respect. It is time for all of us to start talking with each other again, instead of shouting talking points at each other. It is a matter of national importance, and it is our responsibilty as good citizens.
It is time for a real debate over these issues. With both sides represented. Real free speech. Come on, Katy Grimes. You and me. I dare you.
She left several comments "daring" me to publicly debate her, after stating that she is an Emmy award winning journalist. I suspect that she's looking for a shot-in-the-arm to her career. There's nothing like a public debate with a conservative to get seething liberals to pay attention to a waning career journalist.
One of the event coordinators responded with his take on the purpose of the community forum:
Ron Cooper: To clarify, care was given permitting all attendees an equal time to speak in small groups and to the larger group at the end of the evening. No comments were censored and all media participants - consumers, owners, and managers - were invited to attend and speak on a level playing field.
The "Fairness Doctrine" has become a attack buzz word to those promoting the updated old adage "free speech is free to those who own a radio or television station". The Sacramento Media Group represents those local media consumers interested in reminding local media managers of their FCC mandated public interest obligations to represent the many "voices' in our community, fairly and accurately.
The public airways and channel frequencies are not owned by media corporations and should not be restricted to particular political philosophies. These "electronic highways" are owned by we the people of the United States and licensing procedures regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. Under the Bush administration, the FCC asked local communities to comment on the possible role of "Community Advisory Boards" for each television and radio stations in a market. Clear Channel is reportedly moving to establish their own version of radio CAB's around the nation. Clearly the restricted points of view by some radio and television ownership groups are being challenged by many Americans - left, right and center
In reading Katy Grimes' commentary, I commend her accurate explanation of SMG goals. However, I am baffled how the SMG goals, created in response to the FCC call for the possible formation of local advisory groups and reflective of diverse community interests, evoke the term "creepy".
Perhaps the sound of "free speech" is threatening or "creepy" to some. But for those who believe "more speech is always better", welcome to the new world of true participatory democracy and equal representation in the media for all points of view. Thanks to the growth of alternative media and Internet social networks, more voices are actively involved, greater range of ideas are expressed, and a healthier nation is the result.
What each of these people neglected to recognize is that by controlling when and how the attendees could respond, they were manipulating the outcome of the forum. By allowing the "facilitator" to interrupt people when they were speaking, they were manipulating the outcome. And by asking the very manipoulative questions they chose to ask instead of asking the attendees what we wanted to discuss, was manipulating the outcome.
This was a phony attempt to look as if they are addressing the Fairness Doctrine head on. It was an attempt to make the public think they are not in bed with Fairness Doctrine supporters.
In my column Welcome To Hugoland I shared the layout of the meeting:
As we walked in to the community center room, we had to decide which media table to commit to sit at: Television, Radio, Internet, Newspaper or General Media. My friend and I decided to be non-committal and chose "General Media."
The topics were:
Public Afairs
Diversity
Political Coverage
Community Input
Broadband Internet Access
See where we are going with this?
Bottom line, this "community discussion" tried to manipulate the participants into concluding that there is not enough Public or Community Input in the media, that diversity is not focused on enough, that everyone deserved to have broadband access in their homes so that the political coverage can be managed by the government.
The Sacramento Media Group openly supports the Fairness Doctrine. Why pretend not to? However, don't expect anyone who will be silenced as a result of government control of the media, to sit back quietly. And public "debates" are useless. There is nothing to debate. the government involved in the media any more that it already is will be a gross violation of the First Amendment. Silencing conservative journalists and bloggers is dangerous in a civil society. How can they not see that their tactics are exactly what Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and a myriad of dictators have done in their countries. Controlling the media.
There were several people sitting at my "general media" table who openly expressed their dismay at the failure of Air America, without acknowledging that it failed because listeners could not support it. NPR was also a favorite, and they did not see anything wrong with government support. When I spoke suggested that offering up "diversity" as a topic of dicussion was racist, heads turned. Why make news about the races (calling it diversity), and not just report the news? The majority of people at the table were supporters of "diversity" but could not explain what they supported.
This community forum was a carefully planned exercise in futility. They fulfilled their instructions from the FCC and accomplished nothing. I am looking forward to the next meeting (if I get invited back).