6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the
hands of the state. (emphasis mine)
Karl Marx- Communist Manifesto
With so many of the President’s advisers being either avowed communists, or at least functional communists, it was only a matter of time before I ended up quoting Marx. Up for discussion today, is the “Diversity officer” of the FCC, Mark Lloyd. He seems to have some interesting ideas about media. To illustrate this, here are some quotes from CNS News:
Frequently referencing one of his heroes, left-wing activist Saul Alinsky, Lloyd claims in his book that the history of American communications policy has been one of continued corporate control of every form of communication from the telegraph to the Internet.
“Citizen access to popular information has been undermined by bad political decisions,” Lloyd wrote. “These decisions date back to the Jacksonian Democrats’ refusal to allow the Post Office to continue to operate the telegraph service.”
“Citizen access to popular information?” Like the fact that millions of people choose to listen to Conservative talk shows? Somehow, I don’t think so. The phrase “popular information” likely means something very different.
Here’s some more…
“Corporate liberty has overwhelmed citizen equality,” he wrote.
Government, Lloyd said in his book, is the “only” institution that can manage the communications of the public, arguing that Washington must “ensure” that everyone has an equal ability to communicate.
“The American republic requires the active deliberation of a diverse citizenry, and this, I argue, can be ensured only by our government,” he says. “Put another way, providing for the equal capability of citizens to participate effectively in democratic deliberation is our collective responsibility.”
Sounds all “touchy-feely” and somewhat harmless, doesn’t it? This is loaded with liberal catchphrases that have a whole other meaning. For example, when he mentions “equality,” it has nothing to do with equal opportunity. He’ talking about equal outcomes, which is an entirely different concept. He’s talking about there being an equality of results and outcome, which is Marxist in nature. The idea is to bypass the citizen’s ability to choose what media they consume, as well as attempt to force feed leftist media to the people.
Think I’m exaggerating? Take a look at some more…
“We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork,” wrote Lloyd. “From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance.”
Lloyd proposes six initial goals for wresting control of communications from the corporate interests he claims control it. As his book details:
1. “End the federal subsidy of commercial media, particularly cable and broadcast television. Broadcasters should pay for the great privileges of a federally protected license to operate a business by using the publicly owned [radio or television] spectrum.”
2. “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded at a substantial level. The CPB board should be elected, [with] eight members representing eight regions of the country (New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, Plains States, Southwest, Mountain States, and the Pacific Coast) and a chairman appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” said Lloyd.
“This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. … Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs. … Spectrum allocations should be established that create clear preferences for public broadcasters ensuring that regional, local, and neighborhood communities are well served,” he added.
3. “The FCC should be fully funded with regulatory fees from broadcast, cable, satellite, and telecommunications companies. The FCC should be staffed at regional offices, matching those CPB regions, at levels sufficient to monitor and enforce communication regulation.
“Clear federal regulations over commercial broadcast and cable programs regarding political advertising and commentary, educational programming for children, the number of commercials, ratings information about programs before they are broadcast, and the accessibility of services to the disabled should be established and widely promoted.”
4. “Universal service support provided by all commercial telecommunications providers (whether they are classified as information services or not) to fund access to advanced telecommunications services should be expanded to all nonprofit organizations, including higher-level academic and vocational schools, community centers, and 501(c) (3) organizations unaffiliated with either business or government.”
5. “Postal subsidies should be fully restored to small independent nonprofits presses. Postal subsidies should be reduced for commercial and business operations. The postal service should be returned to congressional control with the central mission of ensuring that all Americans have access to the post.”
6. “Public secondary schools should be required to include civics and media literacy as part of their core curriculum. Testing on civic, media, and computer literacy should be required and national standards set.”
For those who think any or all of these recommendations might infringe on the free speech rights of broadcasters, Lloyd says his concern is not the “exaggerated” concerns over the First Amendment.
“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”
“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”
I think this man’s plans speaks for itself.
So, when he talks about “equal ability to communicate,” he is talking about changing the concept of media. It will go from hosts and personalities being able to say what they think, and the listener being able to watch what he or she wishes, to everyone doing what the government tells them to do. Additionally, he discusses “democratic deliberation,” which, in his way of thinking, completely undemocratic. Here’s why-in the free market, the people vote with their remote controls, radio dials, computer keyboards, ipod playlists, by which newspaper or magazines they buy (if they do it at all), and so on. The people get to choose what media they consume. That’s about as democratic as you can get…right? Not so, according to the diversity czar! According to him, the fact that people CHOOSE to watch FoxNews, CHOOSE to listen to Rush Limbaugh and the others, and are TURNING OFF the MSM in massive numbers is UNFAIR! He believes that Conservative media should be silenced, and that Public Broadcasting should be fully funded at the expense of the private sector. That’s real democratic, isn’t it? Would this put most, if not all, private broadcasters out of business? That would seem to be the goal. And what does that leave us with, a “public option” for media? What kind of programming would be carried by this newly expanded Public Broadcasting? I think we all know the answer to that.
Now, this czar likes to blame major corporations for the his perceived problems with major media. This is little more than a smokescreen. For example, if the major news/entertainment corporations were all powerful, and manipulating the masses, every movie they make would be a blockbuster… Every TV show would be a runaway hit… Every CD would go platinum…right? No, the fact that people choose to consume right media, and are doing so in ever increasing numbers, is the issue for the left. The corporations are irrelevant, because if the left had huge audiences, the corporations would go where the advertising revenues are! Now, if the this situation were reversed, and the MSM owned both the broadcast and cable/satellite arena, I doubt there would be much of a complaint from the left. You see, that would be fair! Just like it would be fair to the left once they ban any dissent.
This also neglects that the left has had a highly funded radio network, Air America. The DNC and the Unions funded it, and the result? No one listened! People demonstrated, with the radio dials, that they weren’t interested, and advertisers followed suit. Now that they have failed in the marketplace of ideas, they will attempt to force their ways into our homes, cars, computers and offices. He specifically says that he doesn’t care for freedom of speech, and attempts to discredit it. This is a classic Marxist attack. Their claim usually runs along the lines that the rich hide behind freedom of speech to exploit the little folks. They then use that as a justification to ban any ideas other than their own.
Now, if the left controlled all means of communication, would there have been Tea Parties? Maybe, but they would have been small, and the only thing we would have heard from the state owned media would be how terrible they were and how great it was when the government took them away. Would we already have single payer? YES! How else would the people have known what is in HR3200? How would we know that “public option” is meant to lead to single payer? How would we know what the President and so many others have said about single payer? Will rationing be covered, or just spun to suit the government? The right wing media is the only one covering the true agenda of this administration. Without it, we would be stuck with leftist cheerleaders that can be seen daily on MSNBC.
For the left, there is a functional aspect to controlling the means of communication. For the state to become all powerful, and for the socialist system to function “smoothly,” dissent must be banned. Since socialism creates such misery, such waste, such corruption, so much death, and “screws down everyone equally,” people discussing alternatives might be very appealing to the populace. Additionally, the left attempts to indoctrinate all citizens with public education from the earliest age possible. They have no desire to see all of that indoctrination be undone by someone talking about observable facts, pointing out corruption, and talking about a way of life that is not completely managed by the government. This causes the glue that holds the socialist state together, force, to melt away. Once the people loose faith, and in particular, their fear of the state, it collapses like the house of cards that it is.