The NY Times Editors Deceitful Ways

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

“The day when the network commentators and even the gentlemen of the New York Times enjoyed a form of diplomatic immunity from comment and criticism of what they said — that day is gone. . . . When their criticism becomes excessive or unjust, we shall invite them down from their ivory towers to enjoy the rough and tumble of public debate. . . . The time for blind acceptance of their opinions is past. And the time for naïve belief in their neutrality is gone.”

The NY Times editorial board continues apace with its “radical” ideas and misconstruing of reality for who knows what cause. This morning they’re babbling on, yet again about a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court; a Supreme Court with a “radical new majority” that “has grown more conservative by the year.”

The 5-4 ruling struck “down voluntary programs to integrate schools in Seattle and Louisville, Ky.” Which the board believes and screams that this is a complete and utter reversal of the now famous Brown vs. Board of Education and a return to the ugly days of segregation.

The editorial board in its efforts to misguide readers and control thought fails to track its own reporting on the decision within the pages of The toilet Paper that reflect a more neutral and matter of fact tone with:

“the decision makes clear that race cannot be the factor deciding whether a student will be allowed to attend a particular school, he said, the court left some room for districts to take race into account.”

According to the article, Gary L. Ikeda, the general counsel for Seattle Public Schools said:

‘“A majority of the Supreme Court affirmed the principle of diversity in public education.”’

Raj Manhas, the district superintendent of the decision and what they will do to abide by it with the room left “for districts to take race into account,” said:

“the district already was taking steps to encourage racial diversity through other means, including placing highly sought after International Baccalaureate and dual-language programs in locations where they are likely to draw a diverse student body.”

Prior to the decision school districts used a variety of tactics in the effort to maintain diversity such as:

“setting numeric ranges for racial representation in schools, strategically locating schools to attract specific racial groups, setting aside some seats in magnet programs for students of a particular race or forbidding transfers that would tilt a school further into dominance by one race.”

These very efforts are what brought the case up in the first place by:

“parents whose children were not allowed to go to the school of their choice because of plans that seek to keep racial balance within a particular range.”

The editorialists don’t feel parents or people in general can or should make decisions for themselves that the individual considers appropriate. Rather than apply a self-imposed fairness doctrine, they will paint the decision and an action of bad, racist, backward moving conservative activist judges. There is no need to allow for a dissenting voice in an effort at painting a broader picture as that does not toe their Liberal line of painting all things Conservative EVIL.

Rather than acknowledge the decision as it is, the board colors their opinion with this broad stroke close (italics mine):

“There should be no mistaking just how radical this decision is. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said it was his “firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.” He also noted the “cruel irony” of the court relying on Brown v. Board of Education while robbing that landmark ruling of much of its force and spirit. The citizens of Louisville and Seattle, and the rest of the nation, can ponder the majority’s kind words about Brown as they get to work today making their schools, and their cities, more segregated.”

Justice Stevens harks back to the good old days of being on what he obviously considers the right side of the decision, yet this is 2007 not 1975. Meanwhile, we the people of the nation should prepare for a return to full blown segregation, race riots and all the evil that the “radical new majority” of the court represents.

Some food for thought that the papers editors don’t want anyone eating would be that:

“Many of the nation’s largest urban districts now have so few white students that any large-scale effort at racial balance would be impractical.

New York City was largely unaffected by the decision, although officials in the Department of Education said they were considering using the ruling to seek legal action to overturn two court orders from the 1970s that placed racial quota systems at eight middle schools in Brooklyn and Queens.

Chancellor Joel I. Klein has said those quotas are antiquated and no longer reflect the makeup of the neighborhoods, which have seen white flight and the arrival of scores of new immigrants.”

To the board, like immigration it’s a question of black and white and all others that realize there is more to it and race really isn’t the underlying issue are just ignorant racist rubes. Count on the board members to continue to misrepresent, deceive and disorganize as it’s the only way for them to fight armed with nothing.

For opinion beyond this site and the Times; read Peter Kirsanow’s “Seattle Grace, A setback for racial bean counters” and The Editorial from NRO “Diversity without Decrees.”

Fairness Doctrine and Illegal Immigration

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

 

“All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so.” Harrison Bergeron – Kurt Vonnegut Jr, 1961

Any news or daily information of worth loses the interest of the media by day two, hence the need to reach for documents from ancient history which reveal from the archive of The Heritage Foundation, October 29, 1993, “Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair.”

FAIR on the other hand Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting has an article, er opinion piece “The Fairness Doctrine, How we lost it and why we need it back,” from early 2005 arguing the opposite of The Heritage Foundation. In an official and very legal opening FAIR quotes from the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision:

“A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a…frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.”

Read the rest here if interested…

Heritage speaks to the decision as well:

“The fairness doctrine’s constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster’s First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule’s constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine “inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate” (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC’s action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress.”

Faulty Premise #1: The “scarce” amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.

Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.

Faulty Premise #2: “Fairness” or “fair access” is best determined by FCC authorities.

Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is “fair” nor enforce it.

Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.

Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.

Simple Solution
If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.”

Ultimately, it would be government regulating what we should hear, whether just for a couple of shows during the course of a day or not. One group of people would tune out as another would tune it. If Liberal talk radio fails it is not because of Conservative talk radio; yet because of its failure and because of Conservative talk radios success regulators from the federal government would decide how to even things up or dumb it down so to speak.

The American people, the majority of which can as of this morning breathe a sigh of relief with the vote against cloture on the one-stop-shop-fix-all-comprehensive immigration bill; albeit for different reason. What the American people can not rest easy upon is the new rise from both sides of the aisle, although mostly from the Left of political renewed interest in seeing the “doctrine” put back into play.

From reactions and statements by the Senators involved it truly appeared to gall them that the American people were really getting into their craw. We can expect to hear more of the same clap trap rhetoric that we heard during the “rush to pass” that which they hadn’t felt a rush to pass up until recently.

The politicos are more interested in regulating what we hear, now more than ever…”hell hath no fury like a blue blood scorned…”