Democrats: the media should control speech
By Brian Kirwin | Wednesday, August 6th, 2008 | Catch-AllThis is one of the many reasons Democrats should never, ever be given power. Our friends at RK link to an environmentalist whacko website who attacks conservatives, and reprints this fine quote steeped in American tradition:
Politically, they seem to have a winning argument in part because the media simply isn’t policing the debate (RK)
Policing the debate????? The media is supposed to be the debate police? In what country?????
While the left squashes dissent and ousts those who aren’t Obamaphiles, it’s clear they think if anyone doesn’t drink the kool-aid of the left, consequences should be in order.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
6 Responses to "Democrats: the media should control speech"
Speaking fo “policing the debate”, have you seen the moderator *cough* line-up for the presidential debates?
Good grief.
It’s practically the same line-up of speakers at the democratic convention. Why do we allow them to do this to us? It’s frigging rediculous.
“Why do we allow them to do this to us?”
Because it doesn’t matter. McCain is going to wipe the floor with Obama, even if they get Bill Clinton to be the referee. The independent voters of this country can see though the Bravo Sierra of the socialists, and the more biased the referee, the more turned off the independents get to the socialist candidate.
As Rush says, we can beat them with half our brains tied behind our backs, just to make it fair.
If “policing” was what he meant, i definitely disagree with the mentality that word implies. However, if the intention was more “refereeing” or analyzing, then shouldn’t that be the ideal role of the 4th estate?
No. Who referees the referees? Who died and made them the officials?
I doubt the founders would want the media deciding what kind of speech was in bounds and what was out of bounds, and who gets tossed from the game. The press has the same freedoms we all have – to say whatever we want.
The first amendment didn’t make the press the referees of the rest of us.
(No, must not say it, must not…)
Brian, you’re right.
(Ugh, i hope i never have to do that again.)
I misspoke – even referee is not the right word. Analyze is better, though i don’t even know if that is correct. But the gist of my belief is the role of journalism is to serve as an unbiased (that wonderful utopian word) or at least un-influenced source of information to the public. Yes, there are all sorts of bias in journalism. But there should be an essential disconnect between the subject of the information and the channel of dissemination. A tie of influence between the two twists journalism into propaganda.
Hurt, didn’t it?
Media can never be unbiases or uninfluenced. Even by simply deciding what the topic of conversation is, media shows its bias even if they are fair in how they cover that topic.
“Tonight, we’ll discuss education, health care, the environment and the Iraq War”
It’s called agenda setting, and it stacks the deck while seemingly being unbiased.
The only answer is to have a plethora of voices, which I commend you for bringing yours to the table, Jeremy.
The less monolithic the “media” are, the better.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.