Thursday, December 09, 2010

We don't need FCC cops or Copps

Michael Copps, a member of the FCC, is sick of conservatives having access to the public as well as tired of angry cable talk or talk radio. And his solution is for unelected bureaucrats such as himself to be able to decide who should be able to talk to us.
The FCC's Michael Copps suggested last week that a "public value test" should determine who holds broadcast licenses for television and radio. Speaking at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, he said he was looking for "a renewed commitment to serious news and journalism."
This is what Copps considers adequate public values to get a broadcasting license:
"Prove they have made a meaningful commitment to public affairs and news programming, prove they are committed to diversity programming, report more to the government about which shows they plan to air, require greater disclosure about who funds political ads and devote 25% of their prime-time coverage to local news."
Well, one man's "serious news and journalism" is another man's censorship. As IBD writes, it is all about a free press.
We're weary of the hard-left bias ever so present in the media. We're fed up with celebrity treatment of all those on the left and contempt for all those on the right who aren't Republicans in name only. We've had enough of a press corps that makes no effort to understand economics and keeps promoting tired, freedom-choking, statist ideology.

We've been frustrated, as well, by networks that keep framing the issue — by 6-to-1, according to the Media Research Council — as a debate about "tax cuts for the rich" rather than a simple continuation of current rates.

And we're still dismayed by the media's refusal to look into Barack Obama's thin background during the 2008 presidential campaign, while digging up everything they could on Sarah Palin to portray her as an inexperienced ditz.

But there's another difference between us and Copps: We're not willing to use the police power of the state to force the outcome we prefer.
Exactly. Why should an appointed bureaucrat be the one to determine what information should be allowed to be presented to the American public? That's a very scary concept. Tyrants always claim that they're acting in the public benefit. They just don't want to let the public to be the ones to decide what is in their true interests. They're the enlightened ones who can make such difficult decisions for us.

It is truly disturbing that such a man with such views should be in a position to have any say about our communications system.