Control freak pols v. the First Amendment

Seth at the Obstructionist [by the way, why don't people use their names? aren't blogs driven by ego?] makes a smartly proper parallel between two moves by control-freak politicians who want to manage our media: Mitt Romney wanting to put a V-chip in all our computers to wash our collective mouths out with soap and John Edwards wanting to stop the purchase of the Wall Street Journal because he doesn’t like the politics of the purchaser. They are, indeed, birds of a feather, even if they do not flock together: They want to control our media, what we read, what we own, what we say. That’s downright unAmerican.

  • http://deleted Mike G

    Yeah, both parties belong to the Nanny State Party, in case you hadn’t noticed that from a Republican president signing a great big prescription drug benefit or Democrats denouncing video games and rap music.

  • http://investigativeblog.net barry

    right, so one wants to police people’s free expression, and the other wants to stop the rapid decrease of political viewpoints in the mainstream media, and they’re somehow doing the same thing?

    Preventing Murdoch from owning all of the media is preventing people from controlling our media. Not liking Murdoch’s perspective isn’t the reason, not wanting to only hear Murdoch’s perspective is.

  • Don

    More birds of a feather: George H W Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, George W Bush, John F Kerry, and Howard Dean ALL attended Yale (to major in GROUPTHINK?).

  • Gray

    “by the way, why don’t people use their names? aren’t blogs driven by ego?”

    Just because this is your motivation for blogging doesn’t mean all bloggers have to be powered by this, Jeff! :-P

    And, imho, it’s perfectly understandable that there are bloggers, and even more commenters, who want to add their two cent to the discussions without being pulled out into the spot lights with all its negative implications (stalkers, death threats, impact on the job…). Hmm, honestly, I’m surprised you don’t see this side of the problem. Lack of empathy? :-/

  • http://caffeinesoldier.blogspot.com Gray

    “John Edwards wanting to stop the purchase of the Wall Street Journal because he doesn’t like the politics of the purchaser.”
    My BS alarm went off when reading this, so I checd your source. And, indeed, what did Edwards REALLY say?
    “The reality is that Americans deserve more news outlets –- not fewer. It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this merger and other forms of media consolidation.”

    So, Edwards speaks about the negativ impact of Media consolidation, and you are twisting his words to make a cheap point that candidates from both sides are equally fighting the right to Freedom of Speech.

    Come on, Jeff, this is really below the usual level of discussion the Buzzmachine is known for. Do you have some personal problems with Edwards? What’s behind this unfair attack? Maybe you don’t like his haircut???
    :-/

  • R Rainey

    Gray, you are being willfully blind or gullible. Do you really expect a presidential candidate to come right out and say we should stop a transaction because of the viewpoint of the buyer? This is the same guy who led the charge to keep the D debates off Fox. He did not bemoan any other mega transaction in the media world. News does not own another major US newspaper, so there is no print consolidation going on. And he’s in favor of returning the fairness doctrine, which would have the effect of shutting up talk radio. Guess what? Both of his priorities would just “happen” to silence conservative public voices. Hmmm. Get real: There is no media consolidation issue here, but there sure is a megaphone issue here.

  • Andy Freeman

    > “The reality is that Americans deserve more news outlets –- not fewer. It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this merger and other forms of media consolidation.”

    I’d be a lot more impressed by that sentiment if it wasn’t one-sided.

    None of the folks “concerned” about media consolidation have any problem with big media that favors them.

    The right would happily trade fox and talk radio for the major newspapers, npr, and the other networks. What? Those conglomerates are different?

  • Eric Jaffa

    Opposing media consolidation is a pro Free Speech position.

    It means that when people speak out, a small number of owners can’t end their careers.

  • http://deleted Tansley – addendum

    Two losers – two loser-type ideas.

    Does anybody SERIOUSLY think either of them has a snowball’s chance in you-know-where? With ideas like THESE?

    Still, it’s nice of them to torpedo themselves for us…

  • Andy Freeman

    > Opposing media consolidation is a pro Free Speech position.

    Like I wrote, the folks upset about Murdoch aren’t opposed to media consolidation. They’re only upset about Murdoch.

    That’s not a free speech position.

  • Eric Jaffa

    Andy Freeman -

    I’m a liberal. Do you assume that I’m loyal to NBC Universal and don’t support breaking it up?

    I do support breaking it up, along with other media conglomerates.

  • http://www.exclusivelynannies.com/ The Nanny

    It’s interesting that politicians are still keen on controlling the media. Many folk gain their information from the web now through Google searches. If you want to colour peoples perceptions of whatever, the way to do it isn’t so much through the media now as it is have your site come up first in a Google search. Politicians don’t seem to have cottoned on to that yet.

    BB