Justo un mes después de la proclamación/coronación en el Mall, Rush Limbaugh publicaba, también en The Wall Street Journal un artículo intencionadamente titulado Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free, con un subtítulo que no se quedaba detrás: “As a former law professor, surely you understand the Bill of Rights.”
Algunas perlas del artículo, en mi modesto entender desde la lejanía, son:
- Empieza así de claro: “I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?”
- Enlaza con el subtítulo, recordando algo muy conocido por allí, pero a lo que por aquí apenas nadie da importancia: “As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government.”
- Se sincera: “Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected.”
- Recuerda una cuestión técnica, que por aquí ha derivado en ideológica: “The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals”
- Y acaba esperando: “We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?” Ventajas del idioma, esa espera es ambigua: does he await, or does he hope?
Ya en marzo (seguimos en el mismo periódico), se publicaba el artículo The White House Misfires on Limbaugh, de Kart Roven, presentado, para que no hubiera dudas, como “the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush”.
El articulista denunciaba las actividades de la Casa Blanca, específicamente encaminadas y dirigidas contra una persona, Rush Limbaugh. Desde luego, no es nada positiva la opinión que muestra sobre el equipo del presidente, ni sobre la imagen que se transmite de él: “The West Wing looked populated by petulant teenagers intent on taking down a popular rival. Such talk also shortens the president's honeymoon by making him look like a street-fighting Chicago pol instead of an inspirational, unifying figure.”
Sin embargo, el propósito del artículo no es lo que al principio parece, lo que nos da la oportunidad de retomarlo en otro momento.
Y en eso llegaron los idus de marzo, y al día siguiente, de casualidad, me entero de una noticia.
Algunas perlas del artículo, en mi modesto entender desde la lejanía, son:
- Empieza así de claro: “I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?”- Enlaza con el subtítulo, recordando algo muy conocido por allí, pero a lo que por aquí apenas nadie da importancia: “As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government.”
- Se sincera: “Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected.”
- Recuerda una cuestión técnica, que por aquí ha derivado en ideológica: “The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals”
- Y acaba esperando: “We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?” Ventajas del idioma, esa espera es ambigua: does he await, or does he hope?
Ya en marzo (seguimos en el mismo periódico), se publicaba el artículo The White House Misfires on Limbaugh, de Kart Roven, presentado, para que no hubiera dudas, como “the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush”.
El articulista denunciaba las actividades de la Casa Blanca, específicamente encaminadas y dirigidas contra una persona, Rush Limbaugh. Desde luego, no es nada positiva la opinión que muestra sobre el equipo del presidente, ni sobre la imagen que se transmite de él: “The West Wing looked populated by petulant teenagers intent on taking down a popular rival. Such talk also shortens the president's honeymoon by making him look like a street-fighting Chicago pol instead of an inspirational, unifying figure.”
Sin embargo, el propósito del artículo no es lo que al principio parece, lo que nos da la oportunidad de retomarlo en otro momento.
Y en eso llegaron los idus de marzo, y al día siguiente, de casualidad, me entero de una noticia.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario