Those of the Left rarely like to admit or acknowledge that they are of the Left.
Witness their repeated vacillations on what they call themselves. It was “progressive” – until people figured out what that meant and loathed it.
So they bastardized the classical definition of “liberal”
– until people found out what they meant by that and loathed it.
So they are now back to “progressive” - hoping that no one remembers how much they loathed it the last go ‘round.
So too is it with the Leftist grievance groups. The assemblages that exist aren't really to promote their alleged agenda items – but to grow government, and demonize and silence those who stand opposed to their so doing.
To give you but one example of this misdirection, let us consider the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The name says it all, right? They purport to stand for the “Advancement of Colored People.”
But they really do not.
Where, for instance, has the NAACP been over the past two plus decades
with regard to the myriad racist slurs
against black Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
Here’s where: They were at their convention
calling him a "pimp" and a "traitor" to the black community
No Advancement for this Colored Person, apparently.
Why? Because Thomas is a strict Constitutional constructionist – which means less government. And, again, the NAACP is really about the advancement of government – and the demonizing and silencing of those who oppose the more government agenda.
So they don’t object to those slandering Thomas – they join them.
There are innumerable examples of this for each and every Leftist “issue” group.
Which brings us to the Media Marxists.
Behold Free Press
, Public Knowledge
, Media Access Project
, New America Foundation
and the other groups - that pretend to be interested in advancing the “public interest” in media and communications policy.
The “public interest” is in fact a legislative term which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with taking into consideration when enforcing said policy.
A term so nebulous it can mean virtually anything.
For the Media Marxists, its abased meaning is - much more government injected into every form of media and communication, and the demonization and silencing of those who oppose the more government agenda.
To give you but one example of this, let us look at the leaders in the Media Marxist field – Free Press.
On the wired Internet?
Free Press has led a long-run push
to get the FCC
to illegally regulate the Internet
– which has been since its inception government-free - so as to then impose Network Neutrality
On December 21, the FCC did their bidding
On the wireless Internet/cellular smart phones?
Yet Free Press was apoplectic
with the FCC’s aforementioned Internet power grab - which they decried as lacking enough government lording over the wireless Web.
So they relentlessly
(you get the idea) banged the drum.
And on April 7 the FCC again did their bidding - illegally voting themselves
into the wireless data (read: Internet) over-lording business.
On talk radio?
Free Press co-sponsored the patently absurd 2007 pseudo-report The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio
Which is a how-to guide for Leftists to use the government to shut up and shut down conservative hosts – who hold the public’s interest and garner audiences - so as to make room for Leftist hosts – in whom the public could not be less interested.
One of the co-authors of this censorship field manual, by the way, was the Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chavez-loving
, white dominated media
-obsessing Mark Lloyd
– who is now the FCC’s inaugural Orwellian-named “Chief Diversity Officer.”
On the news media?
Free Press has long advocated
for exponentially greater funding of government media – oops, I mean public radio and television.
You know, the unbiased folks who think the less government Tea Party is made up of “xenophobic,” “racist, racist people.”
Government media is of course pro-government in all things - including (especially) its “news.”
If you want to turn a watchdog into a lap dog, have the government buy the dog food. Free Press wants the government to be in the Purina mass-manufacturing business.
On free market media in general?
Free Press incessantly stands opposed
to nearly any private sector merger of any two or more parties that have anything to do with any (not just news) media.
Because in the age of:
- Broadcast, cable, satellite and Internet television
- Broadcast, satellite and Internet radio
- Print and online newspapers and magazines
- The glorious information and entertainment copiousness that is the World Wide Web
What we really
need to worry about is - too few media outlets.
Consuming our innumerable media choices is like trying to drink from a fire hose – and Free Press behaves as if we’re marooned in the Sahara Desert.
Free Press would very much like to outright block
all the many mergers they oppose
. But their perpetual fallback position is to hold them up – leaving them hanging like a piñata so that big government and often unlawful “conditions” can be beaten out of the at-the-point-of-a-gun parties.
The recent Comcast-NBCU merger
was just the latest obnoxious example of this latter objective. Pages and pages of concessions were excruciatingly extracted from the regulatory captives. Many of which were never authorized by Congress - and just illegally imposed via FCC fiat (a la
We are about to again witness this Free Press thuggery
with the pending AT&T/T-Mobile merger
. Same big government brutality, different day.
The underlying theme throughout is the advancement of as much government as possible - all the while as much as possible disrupting the free market and destroying or silencing those opposed.
Under the fraudulent guise of advancing the “public interest.”
By which they of course mean government
After all, Media Marxists are... Marxists. And growing the government interest is what they do.