I was listening today to conservative Mark Levin’s Audio Rewind, and noticed an interesting contrast.
He started out complaining about how conservative voices like his were increasingly being excluded from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other platforms.
And then he went on to extensively quote from some democrat/progressive who’d written a newspaper article somewhere.
So while democrats were trying to silence conservatives, here was a conservative giving a democrat an extended platform for his views. Here was a conservative who was effectively promoting a democrat.
So if you look at the democrat/progressive media you’ll only hear democrat/progressive points of view. And if you listen to conservative media you’ll also only hear democrat/progressive points of view! The democrat/progressive viewpoint is completely dominant.
Of course Levin was quoting the democrat with disapproval. But he was extensively quoting him all the same, repeating him for a new audience.
Is that really the right approach?
It reminded me that, now that I no longer have a TV licence, I no longer watch any TV news. I don’t listen to any radio either. I get all my news from multiple internet sources. So I have no idea what the BBC or Channel 4 have to say about anything (except what I learn secondhand). So the BBC has no influence on me.
I think this is crazy. If I was a broadcaster (and in a small way maybe I am), I’d want as many people as possible to hear my opinion. It seems to me that the BBC wants to have its cake and eat it: it wants me to listen to it, but it also wants me to pay to listen to it. No wonder there’s a lot of talk about reforming the BBC, funding it some different way.
But even if the BBC was free to air, and I could watch it if I wanted to, I don’t want to listen to it. And I don’t want o listen to it because it doesn’t speak for me. Or, to be more exact, it doesn’t speak for smokers like me. The BBC despises smokers. We’re a disapproved minority. We’re only fit to be lectured on how our filthy habit is killing us. They’ll speak up for blacks and gays and lesbians and all the other approved minorities, but they’ll never speak up for smokers (or drinkers or fatties).
Even if they paid me to listen to them, I still wouldn’t do it.
I’m gone, and I’m never coming back.
And the more I’m denied hearing other disapproved voices, the more I want to listen to them. The more dominant one voice becomes, the less I want to hear it.
So it seems to me that the best way of ensuring that anyone gets a hearing is to ban them from broadcasting.
I listen to Michael Savage in part because he’s banned from visiting Britain. What greater boost can there be than to be banned?
Some people may remember that in the 1960s, when BBC radio was completely dominant, new “pirate” radio stations like Radio Caroline started broadcasting from boats moored offshore. They were very successful, and eventually the BBC was forced to start broadcasting the same disapproved music (of which there was a lot about in the 1060s). The pirates won.
I suspect that the same will happen with conservative voices. The more they’re silenced and banned and excluded, the more people will want to listen to them.
And it would help if people like Mark Levin would simply articulate a conservative point of view, and stop complaining about what liberals and progressives are saying. I don’t want to know what they think. I’m sick of hearing them.