One wants to avoid falling into the deep, dark conspiracy well — where the hermeneutics of suspicion dominate one’s thinking, and practically everything of major importance that occurs in the sociopolitical domain is regarded as a nefarious plot foisted upon a victimized public. Yet, skepticism is often warranted when a political party is credibly seen to cherish a particular agenda to which it does not openly admit, but which it pursues with clandestine intent in its political and economic policies. This is demonstrably the case with the statist, left-leaning Democratic Party. It has tried to camouflage its raison d’être, but with diminishing success. At least, so far.
Its far-left activism was originally quite cleverly sandboxed, leading many voters to believe Democrats had in mind a reasonably centrist and inoffensively liberal set of undertakings. We’ve heard a lot of talk, for example, about the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would subject talk radio to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission. Presumably, equal distribution of time and content would be ensured for all groups on the air. But it did not take long for people to be disabused. Commentators quickly understood this was a subtle ploy to pressure and restrain conservative radio hosts advocating a political position contrary to the reigning Democratic program.
A rumor subsequently circulated that federal authorities might be considering a bailout for the struggling legacy press. For diverse reasons, including the ideological doctoring of the truth, the mainstream media is unable to compete with the Internet, no more than scribal copying or woodblock printing could rival the invention of movable type. Ostensibly, patronage is justified because a vigorous free press is necessary for the maintenance of democratic institutions. True enough. But since the MSM are in the pockets of the Democrats — essential in promoting the election of Barack Obama — the motive behind such a putative rescue package is blatantly evident. The move has nothing to do with guaranteeing the preservation of a free society, but with empowering a particular party’s supporting apparatus.
The latest effort to monitor and influence the flow of information involves the concept of “net neutrality,” which amounts to the administrative regulation of Internet usage. According to this new version of the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC would exercise custody over bandwidth capacity, thus theoretically limiting access to specific sites which the surveilling agency deems problematic or in violation of “hate speech” laws. As journalist Patrick Richardson points out, a project of this nature would turn the Internet into a utility commanded both by government legislation and punitive fee structures. The result would clearly be a public relations plus for the Democrats — and a means to neutralize the impact of the conservative message in the infosphere.
The connection between the Fairness Doctrine, an MSM bailout, and “net neutrality” is by no means coincidental. The problem for the Democrats is the uncontested power of the alternative media — webzines, webinars, blogs, and news aggregators — that were instrumental, to take a famous instance, in bringing about the defeat of the disingenuous John Kerry in the 2004 elections. Without the intervention of the electronic vox populi, the Swift Boat phenomenon would have been a decidedly slow boat. Coupled with the ubiquitous dissemination of talk radio, the Net has become a distinctive threat to the hegemony of the MSM, and thus a growing menace to a doctrinaire president, the Democratic Party, and the socialist agenda they have embraced. Obama’s America seems indebted to China in more ways than one.