The Idiots at FreePress.Net: Part II

In case you haven't read Part I, please click here to do so. Today, I'm going to continue my analysis of this ridiculous and idiotic organization that thinks it can save the media by destroying the economy in the process.

While media technology has advanced in the 42 years since public broadcasting was created, the need has only grown for noncommercial, not-for-profit media, available free to the public with a mission to inform, educate, inspire and engage.

I want my readers to take a very close look at the language this organization is using. As you can see, it has radically Progressive undertones. It is now evil to make a profit in order to sustain business. When did we get to the point where we started to hold disdain for the very mention of profit? Profits buy the things businesses need to thrive. Without them, you inevitably fail in the marketplace - unless the government steps in to turn your bankruptcy into bureaucracy. These people at FreePress.Net have no clue what kind of impact their actions will have on the economy if they get their way. On top of that, their plan for government-controlled media has a specific agenda; a Progressive agenda, might I say. The information, education, inspiration, and engagement received is far from unbiased: its purpose is to indoctrinate the masses with socialist propaganda in order to manipulate society into succumbing to Progressive ideals. After all, these taxpayer-funded outlets have a "mission," do they not?

Despite their value, public media are under constant threat. They are chronically underfunded and under assault by lawmakers who would silence critical voices and cripple alternatives to the commercial media.

The words in bold are clearly methods of making people believe that massive spending bills, high taxation, and big government is the answer to our problems. If you expand the government's role in the media, won't you just silence critical voices and cripple alternatives even more? After all, that's what the government does and will continue to do. Why give them more power to do so?

The headlines are bleak. Tens of thousands of journalists have lost their jobs in just the past few years. Major dailies throughout the country have been shuttered or gone bankrupt, and it seems only a matter of time before a major American city wakes up without a newspaper on anyone’s doorstep.

Maybe these outlets would be able to thrive if they were allowed to make a profit? Just a thought. I know, sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

The erosion of American journalism hinders the public’s right to know: Without quality journalism that holds our government and corporate leaders accountable, our democracy suffers. But the state of journalism isn’t natural, inevitable or acceptable.

More Progressive nonsense! First of all, it isn't groups of people who have rights; it is individuals who have rights. To say that the public has a right is like saying that everyone is one in the same, something our Founders regarded as a complete fallacy when they wrote our Constitution. It is the individual who has the right to pursue knowledge by any means possible, but that doesn't mean he or she entitled to free TV, free radio, and free internet. Although that would be nice, the economic consequences are disastrous. We can't afford all of these entitlements anymore, even if taxation was at a one-hundred percent level across the board. Giving people things for free isn't really "free" if you're stealing from someone else. As for the talk of accountability, what these people are saying is that government should interrogate and silence people who do not meet the government's idea of what is acceptable and what is not. All these people want is more bureaucracy. Someone has to tell these people that we are a Constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Our media system was shaped by political and public policy decisions made by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission in Washington. Lawmakers and regulators at these agencies rubber-stamped the bad deals that led to the unchecked consolidation and crushing debt that now threaten the health of our press.

For once, I actually agree with these idiots, but I don't have the same solution in mind. More government is not the answer to our problems if big government was the problem in the first place. That's just common sense.

The search for solutions to the crisis in journalism calls for a national journalism strategy premised on the idea that newsgathering is a public service – not just another commodity.

Do you like socialized journalism the likes of the Soviet Union and China? If so, then you're in for a wonderful surprise. If not, enjoy the ride while it lasts. Thank you, and have a fabulous day! Leave your comments below.

The Idiots at FreePress.Net: Part I

I never thought I'd actually be calling people idiots for their political beliefs, but the folks at FreePress.Net are absolutely out of their minds. What I read literally made me want to throw up. I don't understand these people in the least. What they're calling for almost seems like a government takeover of the media for the sake of getting it out of the hands of the "greedy" corporations. I want to briefly present some of the idiotic remarks I found on the site - and trust me, they are idiotic - and then explain why their idea of a solution only perpetuates the problem they claim they want to prevent.

Media owners influence how women and people of color are portrayed in the media.

I know this may seem like a small statement the organization is making - and it is true - but it already shows you the scope these people are looking through. Notice that they choose to victimize two groups that are continuously victimized by the government: women and minorities. I am appalled at how women are exposed as objects on television, but this statement leaves out another problem in our media: the portrayal of men and white people. I'm sure there are many sincere, wonderful males out there who compare themselves to the males on television and don't see themselves as "manly" enough for the rest of society, even though it doesn't really matter how masculine or feminine you are. The organization is clearly trying to use "diversity" to push its agenda so that it can use women and minorities as pawns for their own gain.

But these massive conglomerates – like General Electric, Time Warner and News Corp. – only care about the bottom line, not serving the public interest. And allowing these few firms too much control over the flow of news and information is dangerous for our democracy.

Again, notice the language. The agenda seems reasonable on the surface, but if you look at the language closer, you will definitely notice some collectivist and Progressive rhetoric that has been used for years by politicians who are shredding our Constitution without an ounce of shame. The phrase "public interest" is often used to justify collectivist ideas, principles, and policies that define the interests of every individual despite the fact that individuals have a relative viewpoint on what is truly in their best interest.

High-speed Internet access is fast becoming a basic public necessity, just like water or electricity.

This was the idiotic rhetoric I was speaking of. Can anyone explain to me how high-speed internet is just as important as water? I guess if we don't drink enough internet, we'll suffer from dehydration. Uh-oh! Although I am using a high-speed internet connection at this moment, I can honestly tell you that I survived without high-speed internet for years, and I didn't even come close to dying. Really? Yeah, really! I'm serious. Nothing happened to me. In fact, I've even lived without the electricity that these collectivists claim is a "basic public necessity" for long periods of time through some of the most horrible blizzards we've experienced in years (so much for global warming). To claim the internet as a necessity is one thing, but to call it a basic public necessity is even worse. Anyone with half a brain knows that no one "needs" the internet.

We need to keep the Internet free, open and neutral. Network Neutrality is vital to ensuring that everyone can connect and share content freely, that we can access the information, visit the Web sites and say what we want online, free from discrimination or interference.

And that is why, supposedly, putting it in the hands of the government is an even better solution. In fact, the government already partially controls the internet through special interests, the Patriot Act, and the FCC for crying out loud! This solution would just give them more control.  If you honestly think that the government is going to be more fair and balanced, you have no idea who controls our government: bureaucrats, special interests, global corporations, and the Federal Reserve. The solution advocated by FreePress.Net would give the government the ability to silence and interrogate opposition, peek in on personal conversations and networking sites, and give the president the executive power to shut down the internet at will. We already have this so-called "network neutrality," but the solutions advocated by this organization, and by members of the Obama administration, would go far beyond that. In fact, Obama's FCC "Diversity" Czar has said that the widely unpopular Fairness Doctrine doesn't go far enough. Although repealed a few years back, elements of the Fairness Doctrine still exist today, and if we let the government have more control over the media, who knows what will happen? Oh, maybe I'm worrying too much. The government already has massive influence over the media. A complete takeover would just be a few steps away.

The way to stop the slide and improve broadband access, service and choice is to pass a comprehensive national broadband plan that is focused on putting our digital future back on track. A national broadband plan would protect Internet freedom and foster competition by bringing new providers into the marketplace, driving economic growth and innovation, and bringing universal, affordable broadband access to all Americans.

In a nutshell, that pretty much means socialized internet. Supposedly, the internet should be "free" for everyone by making all citizens pay into the system, regardless of how often they use the internet or whether or not they use it all. What these idiots don't realize is that setting up a "comprehensive national broadband plan" would require trillions of dollars funded by taxpayers, borrowing, and increased printing of money, leading to hyperinflation, bigger debts, and the very destruction of the U.S. dollar. That's not exactly "free," now is it?

Well that's all I really have time for today. This is just scratching the surface. I know you're in shock, but please leave your comments below. Thank you, God bless you, and have a fabulous day!