Brent Bozell, Free Speech Hypocrite
February 19, 2009 5:27 pm ET by Jamison Foser
So, Media Research Center has a new "Free Speech Alliance" through which it is urging President Obama to "Oppose All Govt. Radio Censorship." MRC President Brent Bozell released a statement saying Obama "should state his opposition to the use of any FCC regulation with the intent of censoring talk radio. He should also guarantee a veto of any bill that will silence free speech on the airwaves."
That would be the same Brent Bozell who brought you the Parents Television Council, a group best known for urging the FCC to crack down on the broadcast of words Brent Bozell doesn't like.
So when Brent Bozell and MRC talk about opposing "censorship" and ensuring "free speech on the airwaves," keep in mind that what they really mean is that they want to protect speech they like, and censor speech they don't like.
Here's Stephen Colbert's take on the Parents Television Council. Brent, you may want to leave the room -- Colbert gets a little free-speechy.
Come on Oscar you know the difference between voluntary and government imposed. Anyway, tell me where this comes from:
"According to the Communications Act of 1934, which sets the guidelines for the use of this public property, programming must be in the "public interest," i.e., serve a common publicly recognized good. It has never been supposed by the Supreme Court that broadcasters have an absolute right to air whatever they wish with no responsibility to the public interest."
Is it the prelude to a crazy leftist plea for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine?
or
Is it a part of the PRC's mission statement? http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/fcc/main.asp
Thanks to the PRC I now know that I am missing tons of explicit sex and full frontal nudity on broadcast television. And yet I seem to always miss the good bits that they are demanding be shut off.
Being on the radio is NOT about free speech. Nobody has an absolute right to a radio show. Nobody. The FCC, as we know, already bans the use of some words, images, and actions on the radio, and the TV broadcast airwaves. Even IF the FD was brought back, it wouldn't ban what Brent and his fellow right wingers are saying it would ban. It would not end right wing conservative talk radio, not at all. It wouldn't end anyone's talk radio shows. Actually, I think if the FD were brought back, talk radio would sound a lot more like talk radio shows that I hear from liberals. On almost every liberal talk radio show that I've heard recently, almost every day, they have on someone who is in opposition to what they believe in, and they engage in civil discourse, and debate on the air. I hear liberal talk show hosts let conservative callers on the air, all of the time, and again, they debate with them, civilly.
Now, I'm not a proponent of the FD, and don't care about it at all, because as I've said, it wouldn't really change anything anyway. The majority of bloviators would just keep on doing what they've been doing, and once in awhile would have someone on to "debate" them, which would mean a FoxNews fair and balanced approach no doubt. Meaning, someone that they know is either a pushover, or will end up agreeing with what they're saying.
The FD wouldn't change anything. And it's not about free speech anyway. To even suggest so, is ridiculous.
Leave it to detestable media matters to compare apples and oranges.
Obscenity and political speech are not the same thing and the former is not protected by the First Amendment.