Friday, June 30, 2006

Conservative Pundits Argue For Renewing U.S. Office Of Censorship

A U.S. Office of Censorship?

It may sound like something out of a George Orwell novel. Many liberals would say the media censored itself during the run-up to the Iraq War, much the same way journalists censored themselves during World War II, the only time in U.S. history when an office of censorship existed.

Conservatives, following a string of front-page news articles in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and elsewhere, are barking loudly that censorship is what the country needs -- at least while we're fighting the "war on terror," for however long that lasts.

I wonder -- and I'm not being completely facetious -- how fondly the right-wing fringe remember the 1940s. The country was at war, and the nation didn't question FDR's decisions. FDR was able to prevent refugees from Europe from entering the country. And we had a government office for censoring the press. Good times?

Fox New Radio host Brian Kilmeade improbably argued that in the fight to defeat those who would take away our freedoms, the U.S. should take away our freedoms instead.

Kilmeade, on yesterday's broadcast of Fox News Radio's Brian & The Judge, told co-host Andrew Napolitano:

KILMEADE: See, I'm more into the ends justifying the means. And what they do is you can sunset this, Judge. The same way they have the Patriot Act sunsetted. You put up the Office of Censorship. You get a consensus to journalists to analyze and then you realize what FDR realized early. Winning is everything. ... You're in love with the law, but I'm in love with survival.

***

Perhaps not coincidentally, E.D. Hill, co-host of Fox News Channel's Fox & Friends, brought up the Office of Censorship concept yesterday. Hill, who usually co-hosts the show with Kilmeade, had this exchange with Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ):

HILL: What about -- in the past, we have had, at times, an Office of Censorship, where people review what is about -- is something that was -- it's going to be big, you've got to run it through and say, "OK. Does this hurt our country or is it of, you know, news value?

Thankfully, Hayworth still believes in the First Amendment.

HAYWORTH: Well, E.D., I don't know that we need an Office of Censorship.

16 Comments:

Anonymous Gideon S. said...

I think Hayworth would loooove an Office of Censorship, he just wants to make sure that it gets a better name this time around, so it's easier to sell.

1:20 AM  
Anonymous Norquist Nemesis said...

How much you want to bet Faux declares the "War on Terror" officially ended the day after a Democrat is elected President.

12:09 PM  
Anonymous Prag said...

Hey, off.my.brainwaves!

12:09 PM  
Anonymous zbdent said...

With the sub-heading "America lost, al Qaeda won" . . . oh, wait, that was Cheney's VP re-election strategy . . .

12:10 PM  
Anonymous Prag said...

Hopefully, after the next election... They'll get their wish.

But, their silencing will be done by a simultaneous act of "tuning-them-out" by the viewing public.

12:10 PM  
Anonymous MadHound said...

Why do these people hate our country, our Constitution and our freedoms so much? Osama must be laughing his ass off, for under Bush America is quickly devolving into the tyranical, fascist, theocratic state that he always wanted us to be.

Face it, the terrorists won. Can we bring the troops home now and start restoring our country to what it once was?

12:12 PM  
Anonymous genie_weenie said...

This is what the Rulers always wanted the Government to be and have fought for since 1776 to implement. There have been some years where the Ruling Elite have made spectacular gains: Alien & Sedition Acts 1798, Suspension of Habeas Corpus 1861, Federal Income Tax 1913, Espionage Act 1917, but 9/11 provided the Coup d' Grace for the Dream which was America...

C'est La Guerre...

12:12 PM  
Anonymous Skidmore said...

That Wall Street Journal editor on Washington Journal said something along the same lines this morning. Must be a new talking point.

12:12 PM  
Anonymous Cassandra said...

The Wall Street Journal certainly threw the NYTimes under a bus.

12:13 PM  
Anonymous Prag said...

You see... There's this, um, conflict of interest... There at the WSJ.

12:13 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Well put, MadHound.

1:55 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Good to know that nothing has changed over here. You are, for the most part, still a bunch of whining, radical left-wing-nuts who can't get beyond your anger and hate long enough to write anything even vaguely intelligent.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye! :P

5:01 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Wow, what an intelligent response. I feel I received insight into another point of view. Bravo, Trinity!

Let's analyze this immature post:

"whining, radical left-wing nuts who can't get beyond your anger"

-- but Trinity saying this doesn't show off his anger, right?

"to write anything vaguely intelligent."

-- but Trinity won't offer any alternate facts to show how JABBS got anything wrong in his analyses.

"You are the weakest link. Goodbye!"

-- how original. I suppose it's better than mindlessly carping "liberalism IS a mental disorder" or some other shit.

Trinity can go back to enjoying the distortions, half-truths, simplistic explanations and hyperbole of his hero, Mark Levin.

Within this bubble, President Bush is almost always right, liberals are un-American thugs trying to destroy the country and give aid and comfort to the enemy, the ACLU is filled with communists trying to take over the country with the help of liberal activist judges, and anyone who disagrees is a hate-monger.

Of course, what Levin won't tell you is that two-thirds of the country disagrees with Bush, and about 80% of the country disagrees with Vice President Cheney. More than half of Americans want to see troops out of Iraq -- and Gen. Casey has a redeployment plan, just like the Democrats. A majority of Americans disagree with the Bush economic plan, which has overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and corporate America.

But according to Trinity and his hero, Levin, none of that matters. Truth doesn't matter -- because I can point to a set of facts and be told that I'm a liberal elitist for relying on them, versus the "truthiness" that Levin prefers.

So goodbye, Trinity. Thanks for the memories. Any time you want to debate facts and ideologies, you're welcome here.

5:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You're in love with the law, but I'm in love with survival."

What a bunch of pussies we have in charge of things!
Do they honestly believe a bunch of misfits like Al Quieda, with 1,000 to 5,000 members, is going to take down a country with a 300 million population and a standing military of more than 1 million soldiers?
Are the disheveled mobs in Iraq really looking beyond their own particular piece of hell on earth to launch an attack on the US mainland?


Folks like Kilmead are either lying fear-mongers or they are absolute cowards. Either way, they should be ignored.
Who was the congressman who said the First Amendment means nothing when you're dead?

To paraphrase Patrick Henry, give me liberty or give me death, asshole.

4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's to any member of our beloved Democracy seeking to implement an Office of Censorship.
You are welcome to leave the U.S. at any time.
Just get the hell out of here.
And please, let the door hit you on the ass good and hard on the way out.

6:00 PM  
Blogger hjhhjhjlhjhjkhjk said...

I take issue with the insistence on calling these people journalists. They are not. But by hanging on to such outdated terms, we the people serve only to assist with the avalanch of false "reporting" that has buried america in recent years. So long as the propagandists continue to be referred to as journalists, the citizenry will continue to consider propaganda as journalism.

12:40 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares