Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) says Congress should “drive A Stake Through The Heart” of depression-era censorship and deny all federal funding to the FCC if they wish to restore the fairness doctrine. (0:17)
By Suzia van Swol, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service
During a press briefing on the fairness doctrine, Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says that,
“we can celebrate a victory of sorts today, after taking a message to the American people about radio censorship, the potential of muzzling radio talk show hosts, we were able to force a vote this week on the broadcasters freedom act that would bar the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) from bringing up what is misnamed the fairness doctrine.”
Four women from Code Pink, a group that protests injustice and the Iraq War, discuss their encounter with staff of the House Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and the United States Capitol Police at a hearing in which former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove failed to appear under subpoena. The women were told to remove clothing with political statements and hats under threat of arrest. The women accuse the committee of censorship and say that Rove suffers no consequences for failing to come before Congress while they are threatened with arrest for expressing their right to free speech. (4:12)
Kimmage talks about the “seeming variety of views” of websites promoted by the Russian government, which masks the lack of accountability toward people in government. (0:55)
The conference revolved around the issue of whether we can expect to encounter an era of liberalization when Dmitry Medvedev becomes president next month. Daniel Kimmage, Senior Analyst for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, began the event by showing a mini propaganda film from the Russian government that was inundated with pro-Russian images calling for people to participate in government. He focused on certain false assumptions people have of authoritarian regimes, such as that they 1) insist on a single party line; 2) want total control of the media; and 3) fight freedom online by restricting access to websites. It was interesting to learn that such is not the case for Russia. By walking the audience through the “United Russia” website, Kimmage demonstrated how the Kremlin approach incorporates the use of an ideological umbrella, with seeming variety and real accountability and democracy missing, and virtual politics, through various methods of marketing that create an illusion of choice but a reality of control. The most appealing aspect of Kimmage’s argument, however, was that instead of restricting websites, the Kremlin floods the internet with them to provide a wealth of attractive “alternatives,” and let opposing voices sound but be drowned out by the deluge. By doing this, the Kremlin can avoid an outcry over censorship while still controlling the ideology market.
Andre Piontkovsy, Visiting Fellow of the Hudson Institute, tried to provide a more optimistic view or the situation, stating “Freedom is better than no freedom.” The fact that the Russian people are given the opportunity to sift through the state sponsored propaganda and find the actual alternatives, the fact that they actually exist, is better than nothing.
