Now I'm going to bypass all that "run for your lives" rhetoric and I'm going to get to the part that I'm really interested in:
The media is the biggest battleground. From the point of view of most progressives, right-wing voices - and often very harsh ones - dominate the airwaves, newspaper and magazine columns, and the web. This is not the place to go into the lopsided tally of right-wing pundits and talk-show hosts vs a few isolated liberals; the imbalance has been well-documented elsewhere.
From the right’s point of view, though, the media still has a liberal bias, which the right chooses to address by pursuing the rare bastions of independent journalism and opinion.
In the centrist media, Dan Rather has been a favourite target ever since he sharply questioned George Bush senior (then vice-president) during the 1988 presidential campaign. His mistakes in reporting on George W Bush’s National Guard record during the 2004 campaign were amplified and exaggerated by a relentless series of attacks on right-wing radio and television and in magazines like The Weekly Standard and The National Review, until he resigned. (The right-wing “blogosphere” also claimed CNN’s Eason Jordan after repeatedly distorting his remarks about US soldiers killing journalists in Iraq). With the retirements of Tom Brokaw and Ted Koppel, and the illness of Peter Jennings, the remaining generation of network anchors who cut their teeth as working journalists is effectively gone.
With respect to Gara LaMarche, I don't think he knows what he's talking about -- and attacking the blogosphere isn't going to do him very good. As long as the media is concentrated in the hands of the few, there will always be bias. As long as there are regulations on media -- no matter how impartial these regulations are -- there will be bias. The problem isn't that the FCC is biased; the problem is that there is an FCC at all. While liberals are trying to gain balance in the media through use of bureaucracy, this won't make the media balanced.
The solution of free expression is reform. Why should I have to pay a licence to start my own television network? Why should only the very filthy rich decide which content to produce? Why should such organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA decide which media by which I can view their content?
Funny enough, it is in the most socialistic of countries that old style intellectual property laws are strongest in effect. In Sweden -- left-wing bastion that it is -- it is against the law to download copywritten content. Even if you already own said content. In my native Canada, we haven't had satellite radio for two years due to my country's draconian "Canadian content" rules. Do you call this balance?
You have a problem with balance in the media, eh? How about becoming an advocate for Free culture? Oh yes, you get offended by the Rush Limbaughs of the radio and the Ann Coulters. How about starting your own radio show -- and make your media free to share for all to listen. Nothing is stopping you. Here on LiveJournal, we have literally millions of people who broadcast their opinions -- live and ready to consume. There is Wikipedia, Opentunes, and Ourmedia. Lots of places and means to communicate your message.
The only reason why there is is a battle over media is because every political ideology wants to shout down the other political ideology. And to do that, there has to be control over how we receive our media. I'm sorry, buddy. I think you are a whiny little crybaby who, yet again, seeks to gain control over media by arguing about "balance".
You want balance? Let everyone (and by everyone I mean not just yourselves) express themselves however they see fit. That means deregulation. That means getting rid of red tape. That means -- GASP! -- less government.