How Mainstream Media Destroys Democracy, What To Do About It

Assuming that FR lacks the resources to mount its own Supreme Court case, can we not at least submit a "Friend of the Court" brief raising the above points?

Is that needed? McCain-Feingold was rendered moot by Hussein by his credit-card overseas fundraising plot and his switch from public limits to unlimited private without losing a stroke. Perhaps our best tactic is to assume it never was a law, which is what our opposition does. Whenever we engage in a fight with the opposition and agree to use logic and the rule of law, we start out handicapped. The old Soviet Union was notorious for that tactics: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."

As far as the threat of the fairness doctrine, a similar tactic may be our best strategy. Simply ignore it. We have the technology and the expertise to go around them. Offshore servers, satellite radio, etc. They can't put us all in jail. With respect to the internet, a recent survey showed more people would prefer to give up their TV's than their internet connections. Government may have waited too late to try and control the internet. It's now Too Big to Fail.

"Civil disobedience" is a far more credible threat from the marginalized than from the comfortable. We just sell our stocks - and then FDR junior just uses the resulting disruption as justification for why the old ways just don't work anymore, and we need to be more like the Soviet Union than Russia is. Everything will be Bush's fault, in the same way that everything was "Hoover's fault" when the Depression hung on for Roosevelt's first two terms.
Let's face it, satellite radio is a ghetto in the sense that its receivers are very far from ubiquitous. I for one can't recall having seen one in the wild. We need Talk Radio to be accessible on mainstream receivers that everyone can casually tune in. And certainly the "Fairness" Doctrine was imposed before and, having never been declared unconstitutional, will always hang over our heads as something the socialists will make seem to be a legitimate option. Chuck Schumer's fascist comment comparing conservatism to pornography needs to be slapped down. Obama's approach will be to attack the stations carrying Talk Radio with the same sort of "community action" that did so much for the country by "eliminating redlining" so that banks had to lend money out without serious expectation of repayment. We will need serious unity to face that threat down.
The solution I propose is to go on the attack against the Fairness Doctrine before Obama and Schumer can even get off the ground. A SCOTUS holding that the government cannot enforce its opinion of "objectivity" on the public discourse would IMHO carry that attack forward very well - and let's face it, the modicum of conservatism in the Kennedy Court (that's what it is, when Justice Kennedy's opinion is always the majority opinion), plus a very marginal toehold in the Senate (depending at best on people like John McCain and Olympia Snowe), is all the government we have any hope of influence in at the moment.
A SCOTUS holding that the government cannot enforce its opinion of "objectivity" on the public discourse would have the following implications:

protection of FR.

protection of Talk Radio on the AM band where it now flourishes.

weakening of the legitimacy of Homogeneous Journalism^TM, in the sense that the FCC would not have the authority to label broadcast journalism "in the public interest." And that, IMHO, would convert "the public airwaves" into property the ownership of which the government could not condition on "good behavior" of the broadcaster. Which sounds awful to Chuck Schumer. The present system is of course far worse.

I wholeheartedly agree we need to be in attack mode - always. The attacker sets the terms of the conflict.

I’m not so sure we can be marginalized if we adopt a civil disobedience theme. They do not control the information distribution system any more. Notice how the recent stock market swoon since election day was able to be blamed on Hussein’s election. Our side was proactive and effective in blaming it on him. We just have to have the stones to do it.

One of the first things that needs doing is ALL beltway “conservative” pundits need to be publicly executed, metaphorically speaking. They do nor nor have they ever represented conservatives. What they say or think is of no moment. I am convinced Rush Limbaugh moved to Florida to prevent the New York media culture from neutering him.

While I have reservation for the “law” and “courts,” a proactive move would at least be a form of attack.

And we need to attack every day all day.

While I have reservation for the “law” and “courts,” a proactive move would at least be a form of attack.

And we need to attack every day all day.

The courts are the only place where facts and logic are supposed to prevail. Everyone else is openly political; at least the courts are embarrassed by facts and logic when they ignore them.
I am not urging a remedy nearly as radical as the ill which I propose that the court address. You and I know how destructive Homogenous Journalism is. And I think that a lawyer could point to a Supreme Court case in which the linchpin of Homogeneous Journalism - the AP - has been found to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. But I propose no more of a remedy than that the Court state that the government has no authority to treat Punch Sulzberger as the establishment, but must respect the First Amendment rights of Jim Robinson and Rush Limbaugh on exactly the same basis that it respects the First Amendment rights of Punch Sulzberger.
That remedy would entirely delegitimate McCain-Feingold because that "law" would deprive you and me of rights which it would respect in the case of Homogeneous Journalism. It codifies the imposture of Homogenous Journalism that only it is "the press." "Freedom of the press" is a right of the people, not of the unborn (as of the writing of the First Amendment) Associated Press and Punch Sulzberger.

To the extent it would showcase a logical argument, I think taking it to court could a good idea.

But I'm not so sanguine about a decision that would be favorable to us. I don't know if that would happen, but the risk is there. If we pick a court fight, we better be sure we would win, otherwise we're worse off.

I must disclose that my opinion of "The Law" has become a bit more jaded over the past 2 1/2 years after being exposed intimately to North Carolina's "judicial system" and its behavior during the Duke Lacrosse Frame. And this from a native of Louisiana, once the gold standard for political/legal corruption.

All this is about power. Raw power. Homogeneous Journalism™ once had it all. The MSM easily had as much power as elected government at any level. Then they became an extension and enabler of government once they agreed to share power. Sort of a 'peaceful coexistence.'

And now they're facing a degradation of that power.

I think we have the technological tools to debate them and win. What is lacking is the conviction of most of our conservative "leaders."

my opinion of "The Law" has become a bit more jaded over the past 2 1/2 years after being exposed intimately to North Carolina's "judicial system" and its behavior during the Duke Lacrosse Frame.

Certainly understandable - but as you well know, that was as much a riot by Homogeneous Journalism as it was anything else. That was journalism acting in its capacity as the Establishment, passing judgement irrespective of the facts of the "case." That is a perfect example of abuse of power on the part of the Nifong - and his power derived directly from his relationship to Establishment Journalism.
We-the-people need SCOTUS to declare that freedom of the press is an elementary right of the people - at root, freedom of the press is the right of any person not merely to voice his opinion but to spend money and use technology to promote his opinion. Under the Constitution the government does not have right to oppose the right of any person to promote his own opinion in competition with any Establishment.

Homogeneous Journalism™ once had it all. The MSM easily had as much power as elected government at any level. Then they became an extension and enabler of government once they agreed to share power. Sort of a 'peaceful coexistence.'

My take on the relation between Establishment Journalism and the government is that journalism's inherent motive is to attract attention and to be considered important. Failure to do that is financial failure and political failure, and what other motive would remain to journalism apart from success in at least one or the other of those things?
Given that motive, and given the means at journalism's disposal, what would you expect journalism to do? I put it to you that you should expect journalism to criticize all the businessmen, and the police and military, who might in the natural order of things be considered more important than journalism.
Now consider the motive of the politician - to promote in the people the idea of his importance and competence. The politician who goes along with journalism in criticizing and second guessing the people who have responsibility for getting things done and working to a bottom line instantly has an ally in journalism. The politician who opposes unfair treatment of businessmen has an instant enemy in journalism. So when the Republican conservative is in power, absolute "it happened on his watch" responsibility is the rule. And when a Democrat is in power, his "good intentions" - and certainly not his incompetence - are all that matter.
To me, that line of reasoning has a lot of explanatory power.

To me, that line of reasoning has a lot of explanatory power.

I agree. Additionally, 'journalism' has attracted the largest concentration of Marxists - outside academia - that can be found today. Reading all the comments and blogs and such from those laid off is instructive. Most of them haven't a clue as to how wealth is created. Nor do they care. They've been indoctrinated into believing what they do is a calling and their existence should be guaranteed by the Collective.

And every one of them are union types.

The DukeLax Frame exposed how the Durham Power Structure and the local media partnered to obtain a political outcome. Their "legal system" was not sufficiently sturdy to withstand the strain. It is on a smaller scale what is ongoing nationally with the Media as an active partner with the Collective.

With respect to the SCOTUS, I ask why must we go hat in hand to them to ratify a right which we were born with? Do we not empower them to control us when we ask their permission to do something we already can do? I say we just speak out as we please and defy them to come after us.

It's similar to the Heller case. I'm glad we won it, but what if we hadn't? Why give them the power, I ask?

Perhaps I'm too belligerent, but I think it worth noting.

Perhaps I'm too belligerent, but I think it worth noting.

It is a question to be respected. But the Heller case did succeed (tho some would argue for the flat-out abolition of gun registration, rather than merely "shall issue").
And in any event we do not face the same risk in seeking a rehearing of McConnell v. FEC for the simple reason that we already bear the burden of the adverse result of McConnell. And, whether you think it prudent or not, the Republican Party (or some subset thereof) is even now bringing the issue raised by McConnell v. FEC back into the courts. So in that sense the issue is out of our hands anyway, and the question is now whether the courts will burden us with yet another rebuff to our peading for relief from McCain-Feingold.
And as SCOTUS is constituted following the resignation of O'Connor, Justice Kennedy - in the minority in the court's erroneous 5-4 holding against McConnell in McConnell v. FEC - is now dominant. So there is lively hope of success in that suit. But even if SCOTUS were to overturn McConnell, that would hardly guarantee that SCOTUS would issue a broad enough ruling to protect the people's "freedom of the press" rights to FReep and to have Talk Radio be on an equal footing before the law with "objective journalism." So I suggest a "friend of the court" filing along the lines of my #54 which would suggest to the Court (i.e., to Justice Kennedy) a rationale by which the Court could settle the issue in a way which is readily defensible (far more so than Heller, which required a patient Justice Scalia to give the country a history lesson on the meaning of the language used in the Second Amendment) and congenial to the majority now sitting on the Court (again, essentially Justice Kennedy).
In summary, that rationale is that:

"freedom of the press" is a right of all the people, and each of them individually - and not limited to a subset thereof as yet unborn in the framing era.

"freedom of the press" is not limited to the technology of printing circa 1792. It includes the high speed printing press developed since the 1830s - and it includes telegraphy, telephony, movies, radio, Xerography and television developed much later, the PC Internet today, and whatever communication technology may extend those capabilities in as yet unexplored ways in the future. If anyone can use the Internet and put up web sites, everyone (who can afford it) can put up web sites.

The government does not get to elevate some people to privileged status officially recognized as "objective" or any other title of nobility. Anyone can claim to be objective - but no one may be obliged to defer to any such claim. People who make such claim do not, no matter what the weight of their purses or the printing presses or other communications equipment they may own or even the number of others similarly situated who may be in concert with them in making such claim, thereby attain even to the credibility of witnesses under oath. Let alone to that of the verdict of a jury. They are still only people with no authority over their fellow citizens, and no part of the government.
Accordingly any law (and McCain-Feingold in particular) which purports to restrict the right of the people, or any one of them, to spend money to propagate opinions (and most unambiguously, political or religious opinions explicitly mentioned in clauses of the First Amendment) is no law enforceable under constitutional government. Or else, the exceptions in McCain-Feingold for "the press" apply to all the people and not to a privileged subset of them.
That would be the limit the holding which the case brought against the FEC by the Republican Party would immediately reach - but it would be a shot across the bow from SCOTUS delegitimating any threat to Talk Radio or Free Republic. I think it could be worth serious investigation as to the possibility of using the Republican Party's suit to ask SCOTUS for just such a ruling.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.