Tag Archives: fairness doctrine

What Makes A Successful Broadcaster? Chris Baker Shares His Views!

By Jeremy Griffith

There’s exciting news for fans of CDNews Radio! Steve Hamilton and Stevie West joined the programming lineup Monday with their show “Getting Hammered”. Their first guests were Dark Side Host Kira Davis and Virginia’s Chapter of Americans For Prosperity Rep Audrey Jackson. It was a great premiere! Hear it for yourself  on the podcast here.

Steve and Stevie join a team of talented amateur blog radio hosts on CDNews Radio. Other popular shows include “In Deep” with Michelle Ray, “Married to the Game” with AI Politics, and “The Dark Side” with Kira Davis, just to name a few. Check the schedule to find your favorite show, or listen to one you haven’t heard yet.

Radio Host Chris Baker

Radio Host Chris Baker

As CDNews radio expands its lineup, we wondered, what does it take to make a successful, entertaining show? Well, I remembered an interview I did a few years ago with some great advice for broadcasters. Here is radio broadcast talent Chris Baker, formerly of KTLK FM in Minneapolis with advice for the new broadcast enthusiast. His interview is both enlightening and entertaining. Watch the never before seen interview here.

Breitbart TV Editor-In-Chief Larry O'Connor

Breitbart TV Editor-In-Chief Larry O’Connor

Breitbart TV Editor-in-Chief and Blog Talk legend Larry O’Connor successfully made the transition from one of the highest rated Internet radio shows to terrestrial radio recently. So, we wondered if that was a future possibility for some of our favorites, like our own Kira Davis for example. Time will tell, so tune in and listen! Conservatives and libertarians are not alone as long as we have great Internet Radio hosts like those on CDNews Radio, available on Blog Talk Radio.

Baker announced he will host the new afternoon drive time for Omaha, Nebraska radio station, 1110 KFAB. His first day as host will be February 11, 2013.

Larry O’Connor can be heard on FM 105.9 WMAL in Washington DC.

The Equality and Fairness Doctrine. Is it Racist?

The left in America has pushed this Equality and Fairness doctrine for decades believing that it is needed in America because America is inherently a racist nation.  One belief by Liberals is that employers or the bourgeoisie are naturally racist against those of “color.”  When someone goes in for a job interview, and there are multiple applicants to that same position, an employer makes a decision on who is best qualified for that position based on the applicants abilities.  If all of the applicants have the same abilities, then the employer uses the interview as the deciding factor.  Liberals in America tend to insinuate that employers higher less individuals based on the color of their skin, than on their ability. This might happen in a extremely small percentage of cases in this great nation.  However, that said, for Liberals to force employers to employ individuals based on the color of their skin regardless of their skill, is a terrible idea for both the employee and employer.  Why? You are creating an entitlement mentality in the person who is being employed. In turn, they will believe that they deserve certain privileges in life based on the color of their skin.  That alone is contradictory to what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted in American society.  Dr King, wanted people to be judged by the content of their character and NOT the color of their skin.  This is not lost to the American Left.  The left does not care about fairness or equality in the terms that most Americans understand it, period.  It is about power and control only.  If the left cared about individuals succeeding in America. They would  would support the Constitution and the rule of law, where everyone has an “equal” chance based on hard work, and merit, not the color of their skin.

     Going back to what I was saying about being bad for the employer that is forced to higher someone who may not be qualified for a job, yet has to take that individual on as an employee because of some arbitrary quota. Let us say, for instance, that this person does not have the proper skill set to perform the task at hand.  If person A(has blue skin color) works for an employer that produces widgets and has green skin, notices that person A is not performing the task that is required. The “bourgeoisie” then has to take time away from his work schedule to try and speak with person A about their bad job performance.  Now, person B(green skin) may face a lawsuit, because person A was given this job based on the color of his/her skin color.  So now the employee will feel entitled to this job, when individuals are given special considerations over another person or group of individuals who can actually perform the task at hand, it creates an entitlement mentality.  So now, the “bourgeoisie” or the employer is unable to fire person A because of their terrible job performance.  Person B is forced to either continue to employee Person A who cannot perform the tasks that are needed, or find another position that Person A can handle, thus creating another problem that could bring about a lawsuit.  If Person B tells Person A that his skill set is not up to par with the standards of the business or the other employees, Person A will consider it to be a “colorist,” statement,  not a racist one, because we are all the same race, proven by procreation.  So now, enter groups like ACLU, NAACP, any group willing to rocket themselves to the center of a problem that was based on the very laws that were forced on the country in the first place, under the guise of “fairness” and “equality.”  How is it fair to employ someone based on the color of their skin and not merit?  What happens if they quit and try to get another job, and cannot, because they have no actual set of skills to perform at higher job levels?  This creates a perpetual problem that no one in this country is really addressing. When conservatives do try and address the underlying issue, Liberals throw the race card around, because they cannot defend their own policies that actually add to any racism in America.  When you constantly tell a certain group of individuals that they are entitled to something, base on how they look, they finally believe it.  Then the problem of racism continues and does not get better.  Which brings me to a few individuals who help perpetuate the problem of “fairness” and “equality.”

     When we become a nation of men and not laws, we enter into situations as I just finished explaining.  President Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, all call for “fairness” and “equality” on the basis of white versus color , rich versus poor, Liberal versus Conservative, and yet none of these arguments are based on merit.  If you have worked hard and earned a good living for yourself, based on merit and the free market system, then it was because of all those other people that you accomplished what you now have.  So now, you must pay more in return for your hard work, to benefit the collective.  If they really wanted equality, why cannot I have fifteen minutes of air time on Al Sharpton’s XM radio show?  Why cannot I not sit in the Oval Office?  The reason being, is, I am not qualified for those positions, not because of my skin color, but because I do not have the proper skills to fill those positions.  I have not worked hard and earned those positions based on the merit of my hard work.  When did those ideas get flushed down the drain?  Why has this culture of dependency and Liberalism taken over such a great nation.  Look at the differences between America now and fifty years ago.  The difference is more people worked hard for what they have.  Now a large portion of America works harder to get what they did not earn.  Why? Liberalism is a parasite on American Tradition, it is a culture of “emotion,” and “collectivism.”  No where in the Left Wing Parties ideals is it based on the merit of the individual.  They draw their ideas from the ten pillars of communism.  If they had any original thoughts, America would not be able to compare so much of their rhetoric to the fallen Soviet Union.

     The past few months in this country have been ridiculous to watch.  So many leaders of the Black Community, on the left of course, are saying that asking an “individual” for their identification card to vote is racist.  Why would they say this?

     One: It is about power and control over the minds of democratic voters, period.

     Two: When Conservatives try to bring this topic up and ask for evidence to prove that this would actually suppress the vote of the black community.  They(leftists or Communists) just continue to throw out the race card and race bait.  They cannot and do not ever offer evidence on how it would actually suppress the vote of minorities.

     Three: The left cannot win elections on merit or hard work, or even rational thought.  They have to use deceit and fraudulent tactics to win elections in today’s society. Even find a way to bring back the dead to vote for them.

     Four: If there was a way for us to validate those who vote, liberals would not be able to use organizations like ACORN to bus voters around the country to different polling stations to vote multiple times to win elections for them.  At the end of the day, America has to make a choice.  If you apply common sense to anything the communists on the left say, it falls flat at your feet.  However, if you want to live off of other peoples dime and hard work, then the left is for you.  If you believe America is racist, oppressive, arrogant, greedy, the Progressive/Liberal/Marxist Party is for you.

On the other hand, IF you believe America was based on the merit of the individual, the content of someone’s character, and NOT the color of their skin. If you embrace economic freedom, liberty, private property rights, voting laws that make sense, true equal opportunity.  Then welcome to the world of Conservatism.

 

SOPA/PIPA: “Fairness Doctrine” Tyranny Coming In The Back Door

SOPA/PIPA is another case of government control over what We the People will be allowed to see or hear on the internet. The “Fairness Doctrine” was thwarted by We the People through the outrage expressed to our elected members of Congress, ironically over the internet for the most part, so they have seemingly decided to come in the back door and “protect” us from unscrupulous vendors. That is great to a point but who is going to protect us from the government? Barack Obama and many members of both political parties consider We the People too stupid to know what is in our best interests.

Instead of going after the ISP’s and search engine companies like Google, why don’t they try a novel approach, something that has never been done in modern history? Why not enforce the laws on the books against fraud? I guess that is much too difficult of a concept for politicians to grasp.

This reminds me of gun violence. How do we solve the problem of violent crimes committed with guns? Someone with my apparent lack of intelligence would suggest we imprison the criminals with very long sentences, or just execute them when the crime calls for such punishment. What is the answer the government comes up with? Well, let’s just take guns away from those not committing crimes so we don’t have to be concerned with them killing the criminals. And when government bureaucrats violate the existing gun laws we can promote them and then use those violations as an excuse to continue on our merry gun ban crusade.

These bills aren’t about protecting We the People or legitimate businesses from criminal activity. That can be done by enforcing existing law. This is about controlling what we see, what we hear, and how citizens communicate with one another. The “Arab Spring” came about as a result of dissidents communicating over the internet through social network sites, instant messaging, and texting. The powers-that-be in our government have seen what can happen when people communicate freely and share information. Open lines of communication are a danger to despots and every dictatorship in the world controls the internet access of their subjects.

I remember Obama giving a speech at a college in which he stated that “information is dangerous”. I have always been taught that information and knowledge are invaluable tools to make our lives better. It seems that Obama and most of the members of Congress weren’t taught the same lessons in their younger years. If they manage to get this legislation through they will be able to control everything that crosses our computers.

As the “Fairness Doctrine” sought to control us and make sure we were exposed to Marxist doctrine, this legislation will be used to prevent We the People from having free access to each other and to the information we need to make decisions beneficial to our lives. We will no longer be able to thwart tyrannical legislation, or regulations dictated by bureaucrats, because we will not know about them unless the government deems them safe for public consumption.

I am not surprised to find out that the biggest proponents of this legislation are the major television networks, and include Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX News. Why would the owner of a “conservative” news network want to prohibit the free flow of information? Shouldn’t FOX News and its owner be in favor of freedom of the press? I guess the reality that they are losing millions of viewers because they don’t tell the truth, don’t tell the whole story on issues, and ignore any story that doesn’t fit their template has alarmed them to the point that it needs to be acted upon.

Internet news sites such as Conservative Daily News, The Drudge Report, The Post & E-mail, and social network sites pass information much faster, more efficiently, and more completely than any or all of the major media networks. With the advent of internet news the major media companies can no longer slant the news to suit their Marxist ideology, nor can the ignore news that is not to their liking or doesn’t fit their agenda.

The free flow of information is critical to any free society. Once a government controls what information citizens have access to tyranny is right around the corner. Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all dictatorships that keep their citizens enslaved and in darkness by keeping them from the knowledge of how the rest of the world operates. After the uprisings in 2009 Iran clamped down on social network media to prevent dissidents from organizing more protests and other dictatorships have long been bastions of tyranny by preventing any citizen contact with the outside world, or each other.

Obama and his minions have seen what happens to dictators who allow the free flow of information to their subjects. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Kadafi in Libya are prime examples of what happens when dictators allow their subjects to communicate without restrictions. I am curious to see what the future brings to these countries when the Muslim Brotherhood takes over and installs the tyranny of Sharia law on their people. Those who took to the streets for freedom may find themselves under the thumb of rulers just as brutal as those they overthrew in the “Arab Spring” uprisings.

Iran is a good example of an uprising that came about because of internet access and how the government acted to prevent it from happening again. Outside contact has been as restricted by Mahmoud Ahmadinijad and the mullahs as it can be and severe punishment awaits anyone caught communicating without government sanction. The very rulers who turned their backs on freedom seeking Iranians in 2009 now seek to impose the very same restrictions on their subjects, namely We the American People.

This legislation, as usual, is not a partisan attempt at subjugation. This legislation is supported by many members of Congress in both political parties, and who I suspect have no idea what is in the bills. Since they don’t have time to read anything they vote on it is incumbent on We the People to find out what is in the legislation and spread the word of warning through internet news and social network sites.

We must stand up once again to protect the freedoms bought with the blood of generations of patriots from the Revolutionary War to today. If we do not have the courage to stand for freedom, the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots since 1776 will have been wasted and future generations will be sentenced to a life tyranny, suffering, and poverty. To this cause I pledge “my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor”; to the cause of freedom for future generations. Every American owes their utmost opposition to this legislation in honor of those who have gone before us and for the freedom of those who will follow us.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
January 19, 2012

The American Dream in Ones and Zeroes

“What is Damaged Hearing?” I ask Ezra Dulis, or rather tweet him (because isn’t that how we all talk these days, through any means other than actual talking?).  He sends me a link to Damaged Hearing, a local radio show out of Colorado, hosted by Louis Fowler.

I check it out, note the airtime and pledge to listen to the next broadcast before I realize when it comes on.  It overlaps the local radio show to which I am a call-in guest host back in Gary, IN.  Also, it comes right on the heels of Rush Limbaugh’s golden 3 hours, and I never miss Rush. In the afternoons I am sure to tune into Tony Katz’s spectacular radio show, because he has the liveliest chat room in the business.  I also always make it a point to tune in to Mark Levin’s show  because no one ridicules liberals quite like he does.  He’s my dose of “warm fuzzies” for the day.  At some point I’ll turn the dial to my local station, KFI, to make sure I’m staying up to date on the happenings in the state that common sense forgot, California.  If I’m lucky enough to be driving alone in the evenings, my radio is tuned to Dennis Miller so I can bone up on my obscure pop culture references.  I’ll usually end the day with The Stage Right Show with the lovable, loquacious Larry O’Connor.  He is a master at breaking down the tops news clips of the day, and his bevy of horrible southern accents somehow endears him to me even more.

This growing list of exceptional programming makes me think to myself, “How on earth can I fit in one more radio show? There is just too much good stuff out there.”  And it hits me.  What a wonderful problem to have!  The rise of the Internet has also meant the rise of conservative “new media” in a way no one could have predicted.  But isn’t it serendipitous?  The Internet is the great equalizer.  There are no fancy qualifications necessary for using this incredible medium.

One does not need a fancy pedigree from an approved school that costs a lot of money and offers degrees in womyn’s studies and masturbation techniques, or even a certain financial status. One only needs a computer and an Internet connection.  Navigate to any number of sites that offer free blog hosting, podcasting, or Internet radio services and voila!  You are now The Media.  It is the epitome of freedom.  It is the American Dream written in a series of 1s and 0s.  Who better to benefit from this amazing new freedom than conservatives, those who are most dedicated to defending true freedom of thought and expression in all forms.

The Right has effectively harnessed this freedom, this marketplace and managed to create an entire genre unto itself.  New Media.  It has blazed its own path, dependent solely on the passion and entrepreneurial spirit of the average American citizen. That just burns up the left.  You see ,it’s perfectly fine for illegal immigrants to bypass the moral and legal path to American citizenship. But bypass the path to political punditry and journalism that they spent decades crafting, perfecting and narrowing? Hogwash! Poppycock!  Noodles! Other ridiculous words!  They haven’t paid their dues! They haven’t been to the right parties and schools. It’s hardly fair for the Right to have unfettered access to public ears and eyes.  How will the average unsuspecting, unthinking American idiot be able to comprehend the truth of any news for themselves without being told what exactly is news in the first place.  Hence the liberal outcry for the return of the ironically titled “Fairness Doctrine”, which would necessarily stifle free speech and conservative new media in the process.

If liberals cannot successfully bring about the return of “fairness” they seem content, for now, to mock new media and it’s perpetrators.  Bloggers have been mocked mercilessly by mainstream sources as a bunch of college dropout slackers, sitting at their kitchen table in dirty pajama bottoms and slippers churning out ill researched hit pieces on treasured liberal icons (Note to Self: wipe down this table when you’re done, its still sticky from breakfast).  Never mind that bloggers and new citizen journalists armed with cell phones and camcorders have broken nearly every major American political story in the past two years – ACORN, NEA, Tea Party, union thugs, Planned Parenthood, and yes, Weinergate. Nothing to see here. Move along.  Do not stare the aging Gen X-ers with crumbs on their shirts directly in the eyes.  It will only encourage them.

The saddest insult I’ve seen levied against new media so far is the fact that there are so many of us.  I can’t count the number of times a liberal friend of mind has rolled their eyes or made Jon Stewart-face when I mention my blog or an acquaintance’s radio show.  “Oh everybody has a blog these days.  Big whoop!”  Maybe not everyone, but a lot.  For the liberal mindset that there is only so much room at the table, only so many pieces of the pie to be distributed, this presents a problem.  If you don’t get there first, you’ll be pushed out of the way by someone smarter and hungrier.  However, for Righties it’s different.  There is no pie to be divided; there are only individuals, and the more individuals adding their dishes to the table, the better.  In the end, it means a feast for everyone, not just for some.

2012 elections are fast approaching, and they may well be the most important Presidential elections in modern history.  Its been well established by now that the mainstream media cannot be counted on to offer us a fair and objective look at the candidates.  We in new media, we citizen journalists will have to take up that mantle ourselves.  We’ve got a lot of work to do.  Go stake out some Internet real estate.  Start that blog.  Fire up that camcorder.  Get on your local radio station.  Some of us will be heard by thousands.  Some of  us will be heard by a few.  But we’ll all be heard by someone, and that’s the point.  Our voices will be heard, and every voice counts.  That’s new media.  That’s the spirit of individualism. That’s American.

Dangerous Precursors to Censorship: Government Stepping In

During President Obama’s election bid, the fairness doctrine garnered some of the spotlight.  Conservatives warned that the doctrine would censor the media and filter it of any messages the administration did not agree with.  The liberals.. well, that’s what they were hoping would happen.

Liberal media is facing the end of an era.  The three-network liberal oligopoly that owned nightly news broadcasts for decades is serving fewer and fewer news consumers, the left-biased newspaper industry is losing papers one-after-another, liberal radio shows such as Air America have been falling off the dial due to lack of interest and MSNBC’s heavily left-leaning messaging is falling on deaf ears.  The most-obvious liberal mass-media outlet, MSNBC, is facing ratings shortfalls and they are not improving.  MSNBC’s viewership is one third of Fox News and losing ground constantly.  From Mediabsitro.com:

All MSNBC programming was down double digits compared to Q1 of ’09. Monday to Sunday, MSNBC’s primetime for the quarter was down -15% in Total Viewers compared to Q1 of ’09 (-22% demo). “Countdown” was down -26% in Total Viewers (-42% demo), and “Rachel Maddow” was down -25% (-38% demo).

America is a right-of-center country and it should be no surprise that they prefer messaging that is in-line with their core beliefs.  Unions, community organizations, and other liberal groups would prefer the old days of liberal networks and print media being the only mass-media available.  To push for a return, those groups are asking the FCC to censor what we see and hear.  It’s clear that these groups believe that people are too stupid to discern good news from hate speech and that the government will need to do that for them:

A coalition of more than 30 organizations argue in a letter to the FCC that the Internet has made it harder for the public to separate the facts from bigotry masquerading as news. .. The groups argue the Internet has made it harder for the public to separate the facts from bigotry masquerading as news..

Although MSNBC is an obvious underdog to other less-liberal TV news outlets, it’s still an outlet and has opinion shows to balance those of more Conservative programming.  NPR isn’t dead by any stretch of the imagination and offers some left-of-center programming in that medium – the far left find that NPR isn’t near left enough, ya’ can’t please everyone).  Why the need to label anything they disagree with as hate speech?  Because, that’s what Alinskey told them to do.

If one government assault on new media wasn’t enough, the Federal Trade Commission is chiming in.  Now why would so many in the government, led by those chosen by President Obama, all be working towards the same end?  Mull it over.

The FTC published a discussion memo which it hopes to lead discussions on how government policy could save the print media industry.  Even though the introduction tries to say that all forms of media are equal, the entire memo documents the plight of newspapers.

The memo has some strange motives.  In one section, the letter actually discounts the tactic of taking newspapers to an online only model:

..many newspapers still receive approximately 90% of their advertising revenues from print advertising, with somewhat less than 10% coming from online advertising. Print advertising revenues still account for more than half of newspapers’ revenues. Thus, even though, in theory, newspapers could move to online-only and save approximately 50% of their costs (due to printing and distribution), such a move would not make economic sense.

What a catastrophically misguided assessment that is.  If a newspaper went online only, their print advertising revenues should convert at better than a 0% rate.  Does this socialistic, self-preoccupied gang of over-thinkers really believe that a newspaper that goes online couldn’t get at least a small percentage of their local, online ad customers to pay for online exposure?  Secondly, that comment dictates that they would only gain savings from print and distribution.  What about a modern, non-office workforce?  Think of all the office space not necessary as journalists, editors, formatters, ad salespersons, etc all don’t need a desk.  Think how small the office would be, how furniture costs, computer, phone, electricity… one could go on.   This comment is meant to provide protection for the dearest of liberal special interests .. unions.  If newspapers go all online, newspapers will have little use for union labor, and a work-at-home workforce will be nearly impossible to organize.

Another questionable entry states that newspapers are struggling do to manpower issues:

Staff downsizing has caused significant losses of news coverage. For example, coverage of state houses and state perspectives on news from Washington, D.C. has declined, as has coverage of local government issues, foreign affairs, and specialty beats such as science and the arts.

Imagine how many journalists they could add if they didn’t have to afford those expensive unionized print and distribution employees.

Ultimately, liberal media realize that they need a government bail-out.  The free-market system isn’t working for them (the demand part).  If they need to abuse federal hate speech laws to get a hand-out, they have no problem with that at all.

Next the memo seeks to demonstrate how news media that has gone online has not been able to create a sustainable business model.

Although dozens of newly created online news sites have found sufficient funds to keep going through the early years of their existence, virtually no sites have yet found a sustainable business model that would allow them to survive without some form of funding from non-profit sources.

Well this article demonstrates that not only did a formerly print newspaper go online, it’s online arm is much more profitable:

The Wall Street Journal Online has 731,000 paid subscribers, up 5.2% from the previous quarter, at $84/year. Yes, that’s a $61.4 million annual revenue stream.

Of course, liberals aren’t even going to discuss the success of the Wall Street Journal, they don’t believe it matches their messaging.  Then again, that may be why it’s also successful.  Well, what about The Guardian in the U.K.?  It turned a profit in … 2006!  It is not impossible to create profitable online news content, it just requires that there is a market for your style of content.

Now that the memo has worked so hard to put it’s ill-conceived justifications, here come the brain-trust that is the FTC’s recommendations.

Thus, this speaker suggests amending the copyright laws to create a content license fee (perhaps $5.00 to $7.00) to be paid by every Internet Service Provider on eaaccount it provides. He suggests creating a new division of the Copyright Office, would operate under streamlined procedures and would collect and distribute these fees. Copyright owners who elect to participate would agree to periodically submit records of their digitized download records to the Copyright Office.

Sure, at first, the submission of digitized download records is only those who “elect to participate”.  What happens when the government sees the benefit in having everyone do this?  Not everyone wants big brother watching everything they do online.  Highly-critical Conservative media could well be silenced by fears that submitted critiques of the government may bring down the wrath of the U.S. Government.  It could limit the “fair-use” of copyright material as fears of accidentally stepping over some subjective line could bring lawsuits or worse if the content isn’t favorable to the government.

Another recommendation should be no real surprise, give more direct federal dollars (read: your money) to *drum roll* NPR:

Public radio and television should be substantially reoriented to provide significant local news reporting in every community served by public stations and their Web sites. This requires urgent action by and reform of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, increased congressional funding and support for public media news reporting, and changes in mission and leadership for many public stations across the country

In the same FTC memo, the point had just been made that these subsidies get too expensive and are unsustainable:

Since that time, the amount of subsidies for newspapers and periodicals has substantially decreased. According to some, if the federal government in 2008 had “devoted the same percentage of the Gross Domestic Product to press subsidies as it did in the early 1840s, it would have spent some $30 billion to spawn journalism.

Several of the remaining proposals are just ways for the greedy government elitists to get their hands on more money:

  • Tax credits for hiring journalists
  • Citizen news vouchers only payable to non-profit media sources
  • Journalism grants to universities
  • Increase the postal subsidies for newspapers – remember that $30 Billion umber a few paragraphs ago?  This was the subsidy that would have caused it.
  • Tax on airwaves – had to know this would come
  • Additional taxes on consumer electronics – not sure what my PS3 has to do with journalism..
  • Spectrum tax – a tax on the way they sell the airwaves they are already planning to tax – these guys have no limits
  • Advertising taxes
  • ISP-cell tax – I think this is a tax on mobile phone data plans

Giant surprise, they have proposed more taxes than good ideas.  Give the money to the government so they can fix private entities.  That’s been working.  These taxes are intended to allow the government to funnel more money into the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (e.g. NPR).  In fact, this whole memo is a brainstorming document for how the government can get left-leaning, union-fed news media to be popular again.

People are going to watch what they want to watch, read what they want to read, and as they become more informed, the majority are turning away from the.  This tactic is just another attempt to force-feed the public their viewpoint.  If readers, listeners and viewers believed their commentary, they wouldn’t be in trouble.