...which only proves the President's point.
 |
| Asking why you are not 50 points ahead is also why! |
"Back in September of 2006, for the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Touchstone Television (a division of ABC) produced a two-part miniseries that looked, in great detail, at the events that led up to that tragic September morning.
Nevertheless, once the Clintons got wind that a network miniseries might commit the sin of accurately dramatizing some of their mistakes, all hell broke loose. The Clintons complained publicly and privately to their Disney/ABC pals.
And in an act out of outright McCarthyism, Senate Democrats threatened to revoke ABC’s broadcast license if the miniseries wasn’t censored to benefit the Clintons.
Not only did ABC happily comply, after its initial broadcast, ABC went even further in burying forever its $40 million investment.
Rather than risk upsetting the Clintons, Disney/ABC instead chose to cave to government threats and lose tens of millions of dollars in the revenue that almost certainly would have come from a “Path to 9/11” home video release and re-broadcasts, not just on ABC, but its other cable networks.".......
Accuracy in Media:
"Democrats went over the line in threatening to revoke ABC’s broadcast license unless changes were made to benefit former President Clinton and officials of his Administration. By taking this approach, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and his cohorts were acting like would-be censors.
In a letter to Robert Iger, president and CEO of the Walt Disney Company, the parent of ABC, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Charles Schumer, and Senator Byron Dorgan demanded changes in the film, saying,
“The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle [sic] obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.”
The message was unmistakable: change the film to please us or face legal and congressional consequences. And changes were made. But where were the cries from the media about Senator Reid & Company violating the First Amendment?".......
Now let's look at President Trump's statements:
"With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!"
"Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!"
Trump has the far better case. The Clintons got the network to obey. The #FakeNews Media covers up for the Clintons until they are absolutely forced to grudgingly report on their criminal acts. With Trump, they have to manufacture them.
Trump is asking a question: Is there anything, anything at all, that could cost a network its licenses?
Lying? Inciting the murder of police? Leaking Top Secrets? Cheating in Debates? Funding Presidential Assassination Porn in the Park? Anything at all?
I know--what if a network were caught Red-handed colluding with Russia? That's now the Crime of the Century-- unless of course you're Obama and Hillary, who colluded with Putin for eight long years, second only to the Ayatollah.
CBS once fired Dan Rather for forging documents and inventing sources. What if CBS had said "We're not firing Rather. In fact, we want all our reporters to act that way." Well, that's essentially what Trump is facing.
Everybody has a right to freedom of speech--but not everybody gets a slice of bandwidth from the government. Or, say, press credentials to ask questions at a White House briefing. I'd like to ask some questions, myself. "Believe me."
Meanwhile, this whippersnapper sums up the Left's real position on Freedom of Speech:
"I am arguing against conservatives right to be heard and accepted. If conservative arguments were strong, they would be convincing, and if they were convincing, they would not meet political opposition. If conservative arguments were strong, they would stand without desperate appeals to the idea of "free speech."--Princeton junior Ryan Born, The Daily Princetonian (where Hamilton once argued this point with mobs).
First, that's a circular argument: "If I agreed with you, I would find you agreeable." Get your tuition money back, sonny.
Secondly, the argument that "Only the Strong Should be Heard!" sounds familiar; oh, yeah--every dictator who ever lived.
Melt, Flying Monkey, Melt.
President Trump is not asking to spy on reporters like the wiretapper-in-Chief Obama did.
He's not demanding editing rights on docu-dramas like the Clintons successfully extorted from ABC.
He's asking for an appropriate grievance procedure where seditious phonies and world-class Professional Liars do interact with appropriate authorities. .
That's not censorship. It's called "Petitioning the Government for a Redress of Grievances".
Keep looking; it's right next to "the Freedom of the Press".
Trump is asking a question: Is there anything, anything at all, that could cost a network its licenses?
Lying? Inciting the murder of police? Leaking Top Secrets? Cheating in Debates? Funding Presidential Assassination Porn in the Park? Anything at all?
I know--what if a network were caught Red-handed colluding with Russia? That's now the Crime of the Century-- unless of course you're Obama and Hillary, who colluded with Putin for eight long years, second only to the Ayatollah.
CBS once fired Dan Rather for forging documents and inventing sources. What if CBS had said "We're not firing Rather. In fact, we want all our reporters to act that way." Well, that's essentially what Trump is facing.
Everybody has a right to freedom of speech--but not everybody gets a slice of bandwidth from the government. Or, say, press credentials to ask questions at a White House briefing. I'd like to ask some questions, myself. "Believe me."
Meanwhile, this whippersnapper sums up the Left's real position on Freedom of Speech:
"I am arguing against conservatives right to be heard and accepted. If conservative arguments were strong, they would be convincing, and if they were convincing, they would not meet political opposition. If conservative arguments were strong, they would stand without desperate appeals to the idea of "free speech."--Princeton junior Ryan Born, The Daily Princetonian (where Hamilton once argued this point with mobs).
First, that's a circular argument: "If I agreed with you, I would find you agreeable." Get your tuition money back, sonny.
Secondly, the argument that "Only the Strong Should be Heard!" sounds familiar; oh, yeah--every dictator who ever lived.
Melt, Flying Monkey, Melt.
President Trump is not asking to spy on reporters like the wiretapper-in-Chief Obama did.
He's not demanding editing rights on docu-dramas like the Clintons successfully extorted from ABC.
He's asking for an appropriate grievance procedure where seditious phonies and world-class Professional Liars do interact with appropriate authorities. .
That's not censorship. It's called "Petitioning the Government for a Redress of Grievances".
Keep looking; it's right next to "the Freedom of the Press".
No comments:
Post a Comment