When I write these blogs I try conscientiously to be as accurate as possible. If I am writing about something other than personal experience, or something about which I do not have substantial first-hand knowledge, I do as much research as I can, usually checking multiple sources online and, whenever possible, at least one written source (e.g: the Encyclopedia Britannica, a volume from my library, a technical manual, whatever). It’s the online research that leads me sometimes into paths of darkness I could never before have even begun to imagine.
For the previous blog about Hillary’s possible assault on the first amendment, I tried to do as much research as I could stand on the FCC’s planned (and subsequently canceled) “Critical Information Needs” program, and in the course of this I stumbled onto a well-known (even I had heard of it) self-described “progressive blog” which, out of Christian charity, I choose not to identify.
Progressive blogs, and even too many progressive mainstream news sources, tend to repeat the misinformation—or lies—that fit their narrative, regardless of how completely and often those lies may have been debunked. There also seems to be a willing suspension of disbelief when it comes to throwing mud at whatever the target of the day might be, so that ignorant or dishonest voices are lifted in shrill protest against problems that frequently don’t even exist. And when I say “shrill protest” I am being exceptionally kind and generous: some of the comments I read about the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and most of the comments about the NRA, were clearly the obscene products of severely disturbed minds, so I simply discounted them, but even making allowances for mental illness, there was a lot of plain, old-fashioned ugliness on that blog.
But what I stumbled across on this progressive blog that was relevant to the FCC, was shrill and indignant protest from a woman who was railing against the Right Wing [sic] press for opposing the FCC’s proposed “Critical Information Needs” study. I kid you not.
So let’s see if I’ve got this right. The FCC, under Barack Hussein Obama’s administration, not an administration noted for its strict, conservative constitutionalism, proposed to send out questionnaires to every news room in America, and to place bureaucratic governmental monitors in selected newsrooms, to ensure that news was reported in ways that the government felt reflected the needs of the community served by that particular news organization.
Are you with me so far? Do the words “Big Brother is watching you,” mean anything to you?
But the woman who wrote the piece I stumbled upon specifically cited—as her objection to the Right Wing [sic] press’s objection—the right and need for people to have unbiased and open access to the news. In other words, she felt it was wrong for the press to object to very real and direct influence by the government on the reporting of the news because she wanted the news to be reported without bias.
Okie dokie. I felt as if I’d fallen down the rabbit hole, or stepped through a mirror. Perhaps Winston Churchill was right when he condemned our American form of government by saying, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”