Posted on

Beware of socialism in any new broadcasting legislation


Fri, Mar 16. 2012

Editor: In response to my article called “Beware of defenders in any new broadcasting legislation”, on page 34 in the Searchlight newspaper, edition of Friday, March 24, 2012, Hawkins Nanton maintained his zaniness, worst yet coupled with socialism in an article called “Exposing the one-eyed view on media legislation”.{{more}} See page 8, Midweek edition of the Searchlight newspaper, Tuesday February 28, 2012.

By detailing his employment history and professional training, Nanton attempted to commend himself to the public as the automatic choice of trust “on affairs of the media”. Now I ask the question: Who would the public trust? The public should trust those who have a habit of speaking the truth and standing in defense of the rights and freedoms of the people.

Training in specialization from various organizations is very good, but often, principles of justice and simple common sense are sidelined and neglected, even overlooked for the sake of policy position. There is not much to trust in that.

Like a typical socialist, Nanton argued that “the state has the right to put checks and balances in place to lift the standards of broadcast media.” – Question: Who is the state? Answer: Representatives of the people, men and women of like passions like all of us. Such people subject to their personal biases and to their flawed judgment so that when they make laws. Some of these laws are unjust and reflect unfairness, yet they hide behind the guise of expertise. We the people never elect representatives like ourselves to tell us what we can’t see or can’t hear. We never elect common people like ourselves to take away or curtail our freedoms, especially freedom of speech and expression. Indeed, it is freedom of speech and expression in our lives that have been translated into political freedom with the right to vote. Therefore, we never elect people to use covert, technical terms to rob us of our freedoms.

Obviously uneducated on inalienable rights and freedoms, Nanton accused me of coming “under the title of protector of rights and freedoms…in the absence of the framework of responsibilities.” Now what is responsibility in media freedom? We also ask who are the guards of our responsibilities? and who will guard those guards? The American founding fathers learned by experience that responsibility is a moral value held by much of the people in the public and the people are not stupid so that they are not able to judge themselves and exercise restraint or correct those who refuse to exercise that restraint. But freedom is necessary for such exercise.

When it comes to matters pertaining to the media, a few guidelines is what the public needs, but too many government plastering our mouth to censor our thoughts to form their ideas of the ideal society is tyranny. The problem has always been too much government, too much laws and too much interference in individual rights and freedoms. Western civilization has worked this out a long time ago. This is why communism and socialism fell in the early 1990s. But today in the twenty-first century there are a few technocrats with regressive thinking who have forgotten the lessons of the past that is not so distant. Such people living in democratic countries use the democracy and freedom of speech that they have to vilify the genuine exercise of rights and freedoms while they support and vindicate socialist tyrannical states like Cuba. Our writer needs to spend a little time in Cuban prisons for exercising freedom of speech then perhaps he might wake up.

In his conclusion, Nanton called on the “wannabe media experts to stop taking a one-eyed view on matters of the media”. Our writer must recognize that Socialism is one-eyed, this is why they can only see the interest of the government. Experts that learn theory and not from practical experience are always “wannabe experts”.

Jeanell A. James