Commentaries
|
 New Media, Old Bias Viewpoint DiscriminationTopics: Media, Religion & Society With all the new media options, you’d think media bias wouldn’t be a problem for Christians. Well, you’d be wrong. Listen Now | Download
Back in the old days — say, 10 years ago — Christians used to complain about liberal media bias. The newspapers and networks had a stranglehold on what was considered news. And because most members of the national media were part of the liberal cultural elite, polite indifference was usually the best we could expect. Now, of course, all that has changed, right? The mainstream media monopoly has been broken up. You don’t have to rely on ABC, NBC, CBS, or The New York Times to get your news — or to air your views. Technological advances have opened up amazing communication opportunities through outlets like the Web, Facebook, Twitter, smart phones, and more. But as encouraging as this democratization of communication has been, we’re still facing viewpoint discrimination, and in some ways it’s harder than ever to root out. The National Religious Broadcasters, the respected evangelical trade group, has issued a new report warning that religious content faces a “clear and present danger of censorship” from Facebook, iTunes, and other new media platforms. The NRB’s Craig Parshall says, “With the single exception of Twitter, all the new media platforms and services that we examined have issued written policies governing citizen users that are clearly inconsistent with the free speech values of the U.S. Constitution.” Strong words, but proof isn’t hard to find. Remember how Apple dropped our Manhattan Declaration iPhone app because gay-rights activists had complained about the Declaration’s support of traditional marriage? That was not an unfortunate aberration. The NRB report notes, “Of the 425,000 apps available on Apple’s iPhone, the only ones censored by Apple for expressing otherwise lawful viewpoints have been apps with Christian content.” Then there is the discriminatory policy that Google has just introduced. The Internet search giant has excluded churches and other so-called “proselytizing groups” from free or discounted access to several of its tools, including e-mail, that other nonprofits receive. Meanwhile, the report says, Facebook has partnered with gay-rights advocates to halt content on its social networking site deemed to be “anti-homosexual.” Friends, that means that traditional Christian teaching about homosexuality and marriage may soon be off limits on Facebook That’s censorship. The NRB report says all this is not just a question of protecting religious liberty. It’s also an issue of free speech, which is supposedly what the new media are all about. That’s why the NRB isn’t looking to sue anyone or pass a new law. No, it’s hoping to convince the new media companies to live up to their best ideals and change these injustices voluntarily. But the NRB could use our help. First, please get a copy of the report, “True Liberty in a New Media Age,” and share it with your friends. You can get a link on our website. Then contact your Internet service provider and other new media platforms and let them know you support free speech and religious liberty. Ask them what their policies regarding religious speech are. Then let them know, politely and firmly, what you expect. And share your free-speech views with other users. Let’s encourage members of the new media to practice what they preach, and of course, we’ll do the same.Further Reading and Information
True Liberty in a New Media Age Religious broadcasters complain of viewpoint censorship Discounting Charity |
Discover more: Search our family of websites.
PRINT
RSS
Comments:
My point is that Facebook and iTunes don't have policies at odds with the Constitution regarding freedom of speech. As a matter of fact, both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution support their right to issue guidelines restricting what can be printed or said in their media properties.
I point this out because it's usually Leftists who scream about violations of their free speech rights when conservative media outlets refuse to publish their screeds. Surely you wouldn't want NAMBLA to have the right to demand that it be allowed to publish articles on Breakpoint.
So while I very strongly support your efforts to speak out on issues, I believe your position on this one is poorly thought out and could seriously backfire on the cause of conservative and religious voices to avoid efforts by the government to apply such pogroms, no misspelling, such as the Diversity in Media Ownership bill, the Cybersecurity Act bill, and the Fairness Doctrine on conservative and religious media.
Censorship is when government authority directly or indirectly engages in acts to abridge the right of free speech or of the press. It can happen thru private media if the government sets up policies requiring media to impose certain standards or requirements on speech.
Such comes under the definition of fascism. Here's a good definition of fascism that I found. Fascism is an economic model in which the state dictates the utilization of privately held assets to achieve public policy goals. It's not that difficult to see how government could regulate and oversee media outlets so as to tilt matters to the government's agenda. Please remember that fascism is one side of a coin in which the other side is socialism.
Therefore, I hope you write another article clarifying what constitutes censorship and the MSM's attempt with the help of Fabian socialists in the government to crowd the Right out of the Public Square. It's not censorship in the legal sense but it is from a certain worldview.
Roberto E. Benitez
Major, USAF, Retired
Omaha, NE
Reconnav@aol.com
A politically incorrect conservative curmudgeon Christian