Group called Free Press embraces federal censorship
It takes a certain kind of witless cynicism for a group that calls itself “Free Press” to demand that the federal government censor broadcasters in their coronavirus coverage. But here we are.
Last week, the leftists behind
Free Press petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to impose restrictions on how media outlets cover President Donald Trump’s daily briefings on the worldwide pandemic. The group argues that the president is spreading dangerous falsehoods at these news conferences, and thus government regulators must step in to protect the public.
Among other things, Free
Press contends Mr. Trump’s quasi-endorsement of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 could potentially threaten the health of millions of Americans.
As a remedy for its many grievances, the organization asked that the FCC — which is empowered to oversee radio and television stations that use the public airwaves — either prevent broadcasters from airing the briefings uncensored or force them to include disclaimers when Mr. Trump speaks. Presumably, the “disclaimers” would have to meet the approval of the bluenoses at Free Press.
Fortunately, the FCC reacted quickly and decisively to this inane proposal. On Monday, the agency told Free Press to take a hike.
“At best, the petition rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the commission’s limited role in regulating broadcast journalism,” an FCC statement explained. “And at worst, the petition is a brazen attempt to pressure broadcasters to squelch their coverage of a president that Free Press dislikes and silence other commentators with whom Free Press disagrees.”
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai echoed those sentiments: “The federal government will not — and never should — investigate broadcasters for their editorial judgments simply because a special-interest group is angry at the views being expressed on the air as well as those expressing them. In short, we will not censor the news.”
Perhaps the Free Press petition was a Peta-like publicity stunt intended to draw attention to the organization’s complaints and objectives. If that’s the case, however, it remains a spectacular failure and instead shines a bright light on the latent authoritarianism forming the foundation for much of the progressive agenda. Commandeering the power of the state to limit opposition voices under the guise of protecting the downtrodden has recently become tres chic among American leftists.
For now, however, the linguistic legerdemain of “Free Speech” stands starkly exposed, much like those of the repressive German Democratic Republic or the hermit kingdom that labels itself the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. What’s in a name? In these cases, plenty of disengenuous bunk.