Speaking up against our would be soviet overlords.

Having seen the fall of biased opinion tabloid Newsweek (good riddance), left-wing extremist propaganda mills have united to form a new organization called, ironically, "Free Press"... They dub themselves a "media reform group" and demand that taxpayer fund their raving lunacy as more and more Americans are tuning off their vile propaganda in disgust and turning to real news sources.

To convince us that it IS democratic to have taxpayer funded propaganda they cite the liberalism index (accidentally mislabeled "democracy index"), which shows the USA being 18th place in the world for "being democratic" (that is "democratic" as in "a member of the US communist party called the Democratic Party", not being a free nation that represents the people).

To ensure that funding is not ended when parties switch, said left-wing extremist propaganda mills suggest that untold billions be funneled into a trust fund in their name so that they could be funded entirely from the interest on that money. In hopes that if their funding is canceled, the stolen from taxpayer money in the fund would not be confiscated and remain theirs.

The organizations all paint themselves as a vital resource, citing a made up on the spot statistic that it would take 20 years after their fall before new technology / services spring up to fill the void, and that for 20 years the USA would be completely without news, which would hurt its ability to function as a representative democracy.

The issue that said left-wing extremist propaganda mills are also using obsolete methods of communication and that their more modern internet based counterparts thrive is not even mentioned. Sadly, their imminent failure cannot be attributed to American's wising up alone, but also to many die hard left-wing extremists finally embracing the 21st century and its methods of communication and moving on to internet based news (the linked website is a good example).

To quote the first commend on said article: "If only the government had acted to save the buggy-whip and telegraph industries we'd now have a cheap and plentiful buggy whip stores and telegraphs in every home.  Instead we've got these gosh darned complex auto-mo-biles and talking telegraphs that don't even have wires.  Bah!"


Comments (Page 1)
on May 25, 2010

reserved

on May 25, 2010

This is my favorite comment

A government funded press? Can we say "conflict of interests"?

Conflict of interest it is. How do you get someone to give you more money? You kiss up to them. What's to stop these Gov't funded "public media" providers from only giving news that the Govt would approve of? Imagine if this was started today? They may as well call it The Obama World News.

on May 25, 2010

Charles is hot today! Another great comment!  What more to say? 

on May 25, 2010

Charles is hot today! Another great comment! What more to say?

Thanks. I just think the stupidity is so obvious on this that the only conclusion I can draw is the same one I always do. These kind of people believe the average American is stupid because they don't seem to have any problems demanding we pay for this.

on May 25, 2010

CharlesCS
This is my favorite comment

A government funded press? Can we say "conflict of interests"?

Conflict of interest it is. How do you get someone to give you more money? You kiss up to them. What's to stop these Gov't funded "public media" providers from only giving news that the Govt would approve of? Imagine if this was started today? They may as well call it The Obama World News.

+karma!

CharlesCS

Charles is hot today! Another great comment! What more to say?

Thanks. I just think the stupidity is so obvious on this that the only conclusion I can draw is the same one I always do. These kind of people believe the average American is stupid because they don't seem to have any problems demanding we pay for this.

How smart can the people who voted the american communist party into office be? For a democrat, every time a person votes for him it reaffirms his belief in their stupidity and his own superior (relatively) intellect.

The sheer amount of liberals who think this is wonderful idea and that we should do it is proof that stupid people are available in large quantities.

Also, this reminds me: http://xkcd.com/743/

The amusing thing is that I have received the "you just want to feel superior" response again and again when I explained to people about conflict of interest, the need to not hand of your infrastructure to specific individuals, etc... An essay or speech on why the DMCA, Trusted Computing Platform (ironic name), and so on are bad are met with blank stares, rolled eyes, and pretty much the exact accusations given in that comic.

on May 25, 2010

Also, this reminds me: http://xkcd.com/743/

Now thats funny. I agree, it's amazing how some people want you to stick to one thing or the other rather than being open to everything. I don't make a big deal if I get a .doc, .docx or .sxw file, I'll simply look for an alternative software to open it with if I don't already have one rather than advise them to provide a file format I can work with. There is nothing i can't find online.

on May 25, 2010

The amusing thing is that I have received the "you just want to feel superior" response again and again when I explained to people about conflict of interest, the need to not hand of your infrastructure to specific individuals, etc... An essay or speech on why the DMCA, Trusted Computing Platform (ironic name), and so on are bad are met with blank stares, rolled eyes, and pretty much the exact accusations given in that comic.

You know, maybe if we explained this concept to people by comparing it to having to live under one's parents roof and abide by their rules, then perhaps they would understand why you don't want to continue to hand over every to the Gov't to run. Mommy and daddy may always know best when you are young, but as an adult it's up to you to make the right choices.

on May 27, 2010

Can I ask how a government-funded press agency would be less independant (or "free") than one supported by sponsors that have their own interests?

on May 27, 2010

Cikomyr
Can I ask how a government-funded press agency would be less independant (or "free") than one supported by sponsors that have their own interests?

Do you really have to ask that question in light of Pravda, Die Zeit, and now the Venezuelan shenanigans?

on May 27, 2010

Do you really have to ask that question in light of Pravda, Die Zeit, and now the Venezuelan shenanigans?

Apparently....for some...you do!

on May 27, 2010

Can I ask how a government-funded press agency would be less independant (or "free") than one supported by sponsors that have their own interests?

Wow, just wow...

EDIT: you know what, I will will elaborate with some examples:

1. State funding means the concentration of power into one entity (the state), rather it being spread amongst many individuals (the various owners of the corporations)

2. Corporations are organizations communally owned by many people, called shareholders.

3. Corporation based news must maintain a certain amount of listeners/viewers to to maintain their income, the state just uses involuntary taxes

4. A propaganda mill that is costly to maintain, and would drain the funds of their individual benefactors if the drain was solely on them; but spread the drain amongst the entire population (via taxes) and its far more feasible to maintain.

5. The government is a few people in charge with their own interests; easy for those interests to converge enough to make it worthwhile to attempt to hoodwink the public.

Each individual corporate sponsor of news has their own unique independent interests that often conflict with each other and the government. There is no interest for them to cover up for each other, instead they should try to expose wrongful and misleading reporting by their opponents.

on Jun 03, 2010

A government-funded press will inevitably be made up of people who support a government-funded press.

 

on Jun 03, 2010

Can I ask how a government-funded press agency would be less independant (or "free") than one supported by sponsors that have their own interests?

In any given country there are more sponsors that have their own interests than there are governments.

Example in the UK shows that state-funded television produces superior entertainment (for some reason) but inferior, very very biased and often late news reports.

Maybe the (very very liberal) entertainment industry should be state-funded. That would do away with the 500% and more profits they make and produce better television.

 

on Jun 03, 2010

Maybe the (very very liberal) entertainment industry should be state-funded. That would do away with the 500% and more profits they make and produce better television.

Obama infomercials?  What is the difference today between state controlled and what we have?

Movies are a different animal so far, but TV is just quasi government agency as it is today.

on Jun 17, 2010

Dr Guy

Maybe the (very very liberal) entertainment industry should be state-funded. That would do away with the 500% and more profits they make and produce better television.

Obama infomercials?  What is the difference today between state controlled and what we have?

1. The "news" organizations that are acting as the non stop obama propaganda centers are all going bankrupt. They will not go bankrupt doing so with taxpayer money.

2. We have competitors to those news organizations (who are doing very well), such as conservative talk radio. Who would not be able to compete with taxpayer funds for buying of radio frequencies and thus be shut down when the government takeover of the press is finalized.

Meta
Views
» 773
Comments
» 16
Category
Sponsored Links