Free Speech Fades in America
by Brian Jennings
There is growing alarm among talk radio personalities and executives nationwide as the Obama administration embeds socialistic values into the American mainstream. Thanks to President Reagan, broadcasters have been free from the Orwellian Fairness Doctrine for over twenty years. The number of talk stations has grown from 125 to now over 2000 thanks to his great wisdom of repealing this doctrine which muzzled free speech. Radio and Television owners simply didn’t want to risk being turned into the FCC and potentially lose their broadcast license if they said something controversial. I worked for twenty years under this doctrine and we never broached major controversy – free thought and expression was tightly controlled over the airwaves. When Reagan dropped the restrictions, Rush Limbaugh and a multitude of other conservative hosts emerged and succeeded because there was so much pent up demand by those who felt their views negated by restrictions and by the overwhelming liberal media bias. Now, Democrats want to restore speech restrictions and it is simply covert censorship.
The FCC will soon have a 3-2 Democrat majority. It’s no secret that two of the Democrats serving on the FCC favor restoring balance to talk radio – in other words, they would move conservatives out and balance them with liberals. They call it balance and diversity, but whenever government regulates free speech, it is censorship. Whenever government proscribes a certain amount of speech, it is speech control. John Madison who helped craft the First Amendment would roll over in his grave.
This debate is one of the hottest topics on radio today and with the White House declaration of war on Rush Limbaugh there is almost a fever pitch in Washington by Democrats to take back the airwaves because they think conservatives dominate talk radio and Fox News. That’s true. But, we don’t dominate the rest of the media which includes hundreds of NPR stations, the liberal network Air America, dozens of cable news and public affairs channels, dozens of magazines, 1400 newspapers, and tens of thousands of Internet sites.
On any given day, Americans can get any point of view anywhere which makes the argument for control of American airwaves moot, at best. Yet, the debate is moving ahead and Democrats are carefully writing language for regulation of our broadcast media. It is personal for them. They want to control it all and they want to eliminate conservative views from the media.
I’ll be writing more about this in the days and weeks ahead and through my contacts in the media will soon be publishing a book entitled Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio from Simon & Schuster on May 5th. I hope to share key content with you and keep you posted on the fight for free speech under the new administration. In the meantime, look out for the speech terrorists. Check this out from the liberal censors on the left. It states bluntly what they want to do – muzzle the right. At least they get a gold star for their honesty.
The ongoing “War on Words” by the left in America is intensifying on many fronts. Stay tuned.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
161 Comments
Hear, hear — literally.
Caveat Emptor:
The Fairness (so-called) Doctrine is radioactive for the Dems right now; Barry doesn't want a street brawl with Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Ingraham and the others. It looks, smells, and is censorship- plain and simple. No, what we must be vigilant about is the back door approach already under way. Namely 'local ownership' amd 'ownership diversity'
(dontcha love the aphorisms this lot comes up with?) amongst other initiatives.
Namely they would take control of the radio stations from ClearChannel and Evergreen and other syndicators who have found manna from heaven with conservative talk. Don't laugh- there is already money in the porkulus bill to achieve this end. Yeah, you bet- taxpayer money- our money- will be used to buy stations so they can give us Air America 24/7 without worrying about the bottomline.
Once again we Chicagoans are guilty of sending Ofiicious Left Wing Bureaucrat Dick Durbin (look in the dictionary under officious bureaucrat and you will see his picture) to DC and this is his sneaky stuff…
This is dangerous- more than you might think. Spread the word, good citizens…
With the war looming, a good defense is a strong offense. It's time to dig in for the long haul.
Support the troops, support conservative talk radio.
When I brought this up on a Baptist discussion forum (dominated by liberals) I was told that the Fairness Doctrine was an internet rumor analogous to the whole Madeline Murray O'Hair nonsense. In other words paranoid nonsense and what a fool I was to believe anyone is trying it. Granted I wondered why there was so much smoke if there was no fire. Is there a concrete response? Is this rumor? Or can we point to specific things specific people in Washington are saying and doing that indicate yes indeed there really is a Fairness Doctrine and someone is/someones are trying to put it into effect.
(In quasi-defense this person acknowledged there are efforts to change ownership rules. The effect being more "local ownership" and less "networks" and thereby less conservative talk radio. I see.)
This will be difficult to fight since Barry and the Dems have changed laws and strategically put their goons in the right places.
Let me add, that I cannot put in writing how angry it makes me that the left is trying to styfle free speech through this act. Beyond that, my blood pressure probably won't let me comment.
"covert censorship" … not so covert. If this doesn't scare you, you must be unconcious. … and people wonder why people like Glenn Beck are getting traction.
The saddest part is that it won't be enforced in an unbiased manner. Conservative talk radio will be held to this standard, while the liberal MSM will get to continue to be unabashedly liberal. If that happens it could be game over.
I am willing to take up arms to protect the bill of rights. A move like this could incite civil unrest. Hmmmm, is Obama preparing for that already with some of his plans?
I say bring it on. When they attempt this, it will be contested all the way up to the Supreme Court, and it will be ruled unconstitutional.
Then the Leftist turds can quit dreaming about a country where they get to decide who has 1st amendment rights.
A lot of Republicans and Christians (note I didn't say "conservatives") will agree with the fairness doctrine because they are afraid/uncomfortable with "hate" speach. I know Christians who don't like Rush because he's controversial and abrasive, etc.
That has been the crux of my argument when I've brought this up with libs. Who decides? Who's idea of fair applies? How do you guarantee an equal number of listeners? How can it be balanced if we turn off the radio every time a libera comes on.?
That has been the crux of my argument when I've brought this up with libs. Who decides? Who's idea of fair applies? How do you guarantee an equal number of listeners? How can it be balanced if we turn off the radio every time a liberal comes on.?
Obama has stated repeatedly that he opposes re-instating the Fairness Doctrine. Relax: it's not coming back.
NOPE – you twisted all the facts: There's 100 less production companies serving 500 channels on TV than in the 1970's when we had just three TV networks and UHF. All US programming — total of companies providing shows is an ALL-TIME LOW of 65 companies. (In the 1970's, there were 165 prodco's making TV shows…it WAS fair and balanced.)
Ronald Reagan killed free speech; consolidating all radio and TV via media conglomerates. Radio stations are lead,by evil, Clear Channel – spewing hateful hip-hop at minorities and cheesy GOPblessed music-product, as controlled by a privileged few Producers… Other Radio conglom is Evergreen – anesthetizing us with boring, repetitive Oldies, lame R+B and freaky country music produced like it's hiphop!
Five Hollywood studios control everything. You think Fox, GE(NBC), CBS/Paramount/Viacom, Disney/ESPN and Time/ Warner Bros. work outside the government? You're mistaken — that's why the GOP's "liberal media" concept is a JOKE. If media were liberal — the past 20 years would 've been FUN …and honest.
GO OBAMA
Socialistic values? HA – How many knee-jerk words can you use on this site.?..and of course there's alway your obligatory liberal reference! Funny how there we virtully NO protest songs on the Radio for the past 20 years of the Iraq war huh? — but during Vietnam we had hundreds on the air……despite the fact Republicans and Democrats are/were against the Daddy Bush Iraq war, huh?
Fact is: the GOP, as lead by Reagan – the longest-running President of the Screen Actors Guild (where he got his training to be president of the US! ) has held back the country culturally for over 25 years.
Now it is going to end!
The flood of propoganda on Talk radio — well, it's really hate radio, right? — is the work of Reagan…24/7 repetition of moral dilemmas in which the puclis has no decison in the outcome — this is the GOP definiton of NEWS — i.e., like the hateful commentaries on stoopid NOT- Hollywood site …
Guess what ? Pretty soon you will stop dressing like it's 1987 because it will stop feeling like your same old tired life as we take a quantum leap into, gulp! the acutal 21st Century!!!!!!!!
Like Obama hasn't gone against a "promise" he's made before?
As a democrat, I know I should be saying: yeah, yeah, whatever…but I can't Jennings is right, this whole Fairness Doctrine crap is nothing more than censorship. What floors me is how those who, for good or for ill, would style themselves as liberals, would be the driving force behind such measures. The very definition of being "liberal" should mean you are all for free speech and a neat wanton anarchy of expression of ideas. It just goes to show that politics isn't about serving anything or anyone, it's about latching onto which ever ideological train will get you reelected and donate the most cash.
I wouldn't call myself a liberal, but I'm certainly not conservative. Fox News is too conservative for me, I won't disagree that they tend to have a viewpoint which leans further to the right. OK, so rather than try and silence Fox, I turn the station to a different news channel. As stated above, there are many available to me to check out. I exercise my freedom of choice to change that station.
Censorship is censorship…period.
"that's a good 1" and "all wrong" (how appropriate) are excellent examples of utterly unprincipled people who only wish to crush dissent and eliminate all opposition. Check out their comments, complete with not-so-veiled threats, conspiracy theories, historical revisionism and gratuitous exclamation points. They would like their own voices to be the only ones heard, and perhaps they'll succeed, with the Teleprompter President as their ally. The purpose of power is, evidently, more power. Most illuminating.
You're confusing consolidation with censorship. Apples and oranges. Consolidation is something I disagree with. I also disagree with censorship of the kind you seem to think is "fair". Censorship is never fair or balanced. People on the left want to silence conservatives, when all they have to do is support the stations and networks who tell their side.
Except apparently, the public isn't interested in the left's message based on how well left wing talk radio and networks are doing. So you want to shut up the right. It's transparent and it will backfire. The genie is out of the bottle.
First the first amendment, next the second amendment. Watch.
If they manage to succeed here, it will be temporary because I doubt Obama will last one term. The Dems are destroying themselves quite well without any Republican help, so next election should be interesting. Laws can get overturned.
However, if they do succeed for a time, we should just challenged any and all left wing bias in the press. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
Mr. Obama is a Politician and a Politicians favorite tactic is Flip Flopping.
However, we shall see.
"John Madison who helped craft the First Amendment would roll over in his grave."
Shouldn't that be James Madison?
Really!
The GOP held back the Nation? Maybe they kept it from going off of the "Progressive" cliff.
I was not aware that the Iraq war started in 1989.
Hundreds of Protest Songs about Viet Nam? I don't think so. Tens maybe.
As for hate and propoganda, I read it in your writing
i will be looking for your articles. thanks!
your screen name describes your post perfectly
I agree!
James, if they succeed, conservatives need to use the act to immediately start filing suits against every single liberal television show, radio show, etc. Gee, CNN isn't fair, day time television doesn't reflect fair views, wow look at MSNBC. Fight fire with fire. Make this law so unweildy and oppressive that even the left starts screaming to undo it. That's the only way the left learns, when things blow up in their faces.
At the same time, challenge the law itself in court, and blast Congress with hate mail and phone calls — flood them with our displeasure.
As a Conservative Cristian Democrat, I am neither uncomfortable nor afraid of hate speach. I think that it is a sign of a lack of intelligence. The hate speach that has been spewing since December 2000 has been down right, no pun intended, disgusting.
Thanks. I was going to point that out if no one else did.
Yeah, yeah whatever. True to your name, AWAU. Next!
Except now that our dear congress (lower case for me these days) seems hell bent and determined to make laws to tax specific companies' bonus' (AIG) as they did today, I am sure that they will make sure that the "Fairness Doctrine" only regulates radio.
Truly Orwellian! Censorship and speech codes propogated by the same crowd that extolls "diversity" and "tolerance" and almost nobody gets the irony.
We are genuinely rushing toward Room 101. I just hope the re-education camp I get sent to has an open bar.
it would be interesting to see if those who think the MSM is actually conservative (yes! they exist, and are in government) would buy on to this argument… they believe PBS is a fair, if somewhat conservative and stodgy affair- Garrison Keillor is actually considered conservative programming because he adresses 'small town
America' which by dint is conservative. To these people the first amendment is to protect kiddie porn and the second is to (occasionally annd with restrictions) hunt ducks… We hope it doesn't come to this.
Unfortunately, as we saw here yesterday, there are those on the right that are trying as well.
The Fairness Doctrine is a bad answer to a bad problem.
Talk Radio is sophistry at its core. It is rooted in the fallacy of dichotomy: it's either X, or it's Y. And, it's unfortunately unmoderated. So what you get is the repetitious ramblings of people who don't know all the facts, but it lets segments of the public affirm their beliefs because a "news source" confirmed it for them.
Please don't straw man me and say that the media is perfect, but there is little objectivity in the majority of talk radio.
The United States of America never stops to amaze me. Here we have one of the greatest countries this world has ever seen, with one of its principal tenants being that of Free Speech. And here we are in the midst of debating/arguing about that very tenant being gagged. We can debate this openly all the way up to the point this site gets shut down, because it doesn't have enough liberal commentators, and we can discuss it openly up to the point we get thrown in jail for stating positions contrary to the administration.
The fairness doctrine is the beginning of what will eventually become complete censorship.
Any ides for how to go about stopping this?
Calling Representatives, writing letters…time to think outside the box any suggestions?
If Limbaugh and the rest are so full of hot air like we've been told, why would anybody care that they spout off on static laden AM radio? The point is not balance it is to control the message.
"These guys are not singing from the same sheet of music, and they won't listen to reason. They must be stopped. They haven't headed the warnings, and now it is time to do something about it."
It is crime-think to even have these ideas, even worse to actually put them out for public consumption.
"The Dems are destroying themselves quite well without any Republican help…"
Isn't that the truth. I sure love how they came in and turned htis country around. As a Democrat, I personally feel just as ripped off by the current congress just as much as I do by big oil. It's a classic bait and switch tactic. I could give a damned about whether talk radio has the same amount of stations for each side of the aisle, I want the same amount of food on both sides of my table. Fix the economy and forget about talk radio and the media.
"That's the only way the left learns, when things blow up in their faces. "
Since when has EITHER side learned from something blowing up in their faces? I think you are giving all our illustrious elected leaders WAY too much credit.
And of course there's really nothing else more important to focus on….
Great straw man argument. But let's talk about what's actually going on.
The philosophy behind it has to do with the quality and veracity of the information in its presentation, not to control the content and say it can't be said. The theory, which I agree with, is that all information should be question, but the application is that points of view should be represented, which is not necessarily correct.
Amen. This country could use a good street fight. It would be cathartic. Liberal / traitors identify yourselves, sit down Chris Matthews we know about you.
You are exactly right. This is all about CONTROLLING the message. We can't have opposing viewpoints, now can we. That's what is really being lost in this country, the great art of debate. It always just degenerates into name calling and mud slinging. What ever happened to debating about ideas strictly ont he merit of the individual idea, instead of on some grand conspiracy theory?
And where in your entire diatribe was the word "censorship" shown to occur? Hm…. Oh, I know, because Reagan and the Republicans DIDN"T promote censorship.
Too funny! We have no power to suppress anything! For many years the left has been trying to control every news venue; they've taken over colleges and universities so that no student has a chance to hear a different side. I can see that you've really been supressed!!!!!
Right. The left doesn't see the MSM as liberal so the networks, NYT, etc., will be considered "balanced," whereas anything actually moderate or right leaning will get the hammer.
Ok, I agree with that.
One of my big problems with the Democrat party is that, for a long long time, going back to the 80s, they don't seem to be about anything other than attack and react. They don't seem to know how to do anything. Besides raise taxes and spend, I mean. They spend almost all their time trying to play gotcha with Republicans or conservatives and the rest of their time trying to divert people's attention away from their failings.
The party needs a purge. There are too many career politicians in the Democrats who are doing nothing but harm.
"Growing alarm"? Please. Why would we take away the mics when they're saying monumentally stupid and damaging things like wanting Obama to fail and responding to criticism with fat jokes? Those aren't microphones, those are spades, digging the political graves of talk radio haters. But of course when the conservative talk radio finally tanks, it will naturally all be the liberals' faults.
The White House strategy of playing up Boss Limbaugh's place in the party would seem to be evidence that refutes the notion Democrats want to shut down Boss Limbaugh. But of course you all hate empiricism like that with the burning fires of Hades.
"Funny how there we virtully NO protest songs on the Radio for the past 20 years of the Iraq war huh?"
Leaving aside the "20 years," I'd suggest that the lack of protest songs has more to to with a lack of talent than any kind of censorship. Plus, as much as the liberals tried to say that Iraq was another Vietnam, it just isn't.
You can't be serious! The mainstream media is so biased and selects their "facts" and experts from the left. You almost never hear a true conservative voice on any other channel than FOX. We don't need liberals on talk radio – we can listen to them all day long on news channels…there is little objectivity in the MSM.
I can't tell you how frustrated I have been since the 70's. It was like my opinions were SINS. When talk radio and then the internet came around, I was amazed to be able to find folks who agreed with me and who had facts to back up their opinons.
Have you ever listened to conservative talk radio? Might be a good idea before you pass judgment.
Yeah, sadly there are people on all sides of the spectrum who want to silence their enemies. Still, the left is the primary driver of this hateful little train.
This post sites absolutely zero evidence for its contention. Aside from a few minor House members no one has advocated bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. This is a non-issue used to fire up radio listeners and others who see black helicopters every time a Democrat is in office. Wake up people! Radio hosts and authors bring this up to boost ratings and sell books.
And are YOU going to decide which points of view are the wrong ones? That's been ongoing with MSM for 30 or 40 years!
bystander..the difference is that the "entertainers" on Talk Radio are open and honest to say they are not journalists, and they are out to promote their ideals and beliefs.
Stewart, Letterman, etc.. admit they're "entertainers" but also promote their ideals and beliefs, but never admit to doing that… (so they're a little more tolerable than the third category)
Whereas people like Oafermann, Chris-the-thrill, Maddows, Maher and others who claim to cover both sides of an issue never do.. they promote their ideals and beliefs and claim to be fair "journalists" (I only include Maher in this because he says he's giving both sides an open forum, but never does… if he were honest about his agenda, I'd have less problems with with his show/comments, and move him up with the Stewart/Letterman/O'brien level.)
bystander..the difference is that the "entertainers" on Talk Radio are open and honest to say they are not journalists, and they are out to promote their ideals and beliefs.
Stewart, Letterman, etc.. admit they're "entertainers" but also promote their ideals and beliefs, but never admit to doing that… (so they're a little more tolerable than the third category)
Whereas people like Oafermann, Chris-the-thrill, Maddows, Maher and others who claim to cover both sides of an issue never do.. they promote their ideals and beliefs and claim to be fair "journalists" (I only include Maher in this because he says he's giving both sides an open forum, but never does… if he were honest about his agenda, I'd have less problems with with his show/comments, and move him up with the Stewart/Letterman/O'brien level.)
Take your meds. Everything's OK. The vast right wing conspiracy has imploded, and the gummint will take care of everything. You did forget to mention that right wing rag, the New York Times Syndicate which has stealthily pretended to be liberal. The black helicopters were painted with disappearing paint, and soon they, along with the entire Reagan plot, will be revealed. Your head is nodding, and it's time for your nap.
Why would you think conservative talk radio will fail (short of government intervention of course)? I guess it is completely impossible that Obama is using Rush right now until he can be rid of him? (note: e-sarcasm in the second sentence of my post).
Well said. Never fear "hate speech", all it does is highlight the stupidity of the speaker.
Mea culpa, team. I ignored my own advice (above). Nevertheless, here is a belated DFTT.
Listeners to talk radio understand that they are listening to commentary–not news. The right is very clear on this subject, pointing out, and correctly so, how the left inserts commentary into standard news segments–offering opinion rather than news as news.
When called on this, the left, as so eloquently embodied in your words, attempts to put forth the notion that the right, both as commentator and audience, is too stupid to tell the difference between news and editorial.
Which is odd because it is numerous members of the left who happily tell us that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house…when that quote is actually Tina Fey. Additionally, many admit being 'informed' about the days news by Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert.
In this, as in most things, the left projects.
Jonah Goldberg really needs to release an updated, post-election, "Yes, We Can!" edition of LIBERAL FASCISM.
No kidding. I have been hearing these same concerns being repeated since the early years of the Clinton administration. There's about as much truth to them as there was to the rumors that Bush planned to invade Iran.
If the technological landscape was the same as that in the 1970s, with only a handful of broadcast networks, no cable, no satellite radio, and no internet, then perhaps there would be a serious push toward reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. But the landscape changed, and so did priorities.
I'm sorry – the what party?
I would agree except the Fairness Doctrine isn't on the table, except the flat, hard mullets of conservative talk radio heads. Really, can we please drop the charade?
If it gets through moderation, somecat.. you'll see some collaberation/eveidence of the contention.
We shall see the fantasies of idiots, yes we will see that
It IS failing. It is failing to convince independents of anything. It is failing to generate new ideas for a party that is virtually brain dead. It is failing in it's main function: helping the Republicans win elections. Independents HATE talk radio conservatives. So do young people. It has no future because it is RADIO. Young people don't read newspapers and they don't listen to talk radio (well except for that kid who is never going to get laid).
Evidence? They hate evidence with the burning fires of Hades
William, you're right about one thing. He has stated exactly that. And he and his minions have changed the form but not the substance, re-named it, and are giving it another go. Same s–t, different package.
Fairness Doctrine = War on Christmas
Not one year ago Nancy Pelosi, that "minor" House member, said she and the entire caucus wanted to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. If they didn't, why did she block Mike Pence's "Broadcaster Freedom Act", which would have prohibit anything like the "fairness doctrine", from even coming to a floor vote? Because they want to enact it.
There really isn't any push for this. It is not going to happen. I guess one of us will be proven wrong. I will keep my eyes open for a real move towards a fairness doctrine (I wouldn't be for it) if you will at least allow for the fact that the people who keep bringing this up are radio personalities and authors who stand to benefit from your outrage. Just keep it mind when you are once again stirred to an outrage. There is an entire industry that feeds on outrage from right and the left.
I don't know why NPR doesn't come up whenever the Fairness Doctrine comes up. Liberals would howl if you tried to have a conservative view point alongside some of their shows. I've heard some of the comments when they do minor puff culture pieces on conservative issues and it's astounding how much it pisses them off to even have to hear about the existence, say, of Christian communities in Appalachia, or good arguments for abstinence.
Andrew B. and John N., you need to find someone to do a daily or weekly fisking of the left-wing bias of NPR — I think Newsbusters does one fairly regularly. Then liberals can tell me why any "Fairness Doctrine" shouldn't apply to NPR as well as Rush. In fact, instead of the fairness doctrine, just put Rush on NPR, and force liberals to listen to him when he comes on. they could intersperse his show with "Fresh Air" or "Wait, wait, don't tell me" or "This American Life."
Why exactly does there have to be any objectivity?
I wanna know.
There's this thing called the on/off button, ya know
2) Senator Tom Harkin
3) Ny Dem Rep Maruice Hinchey
(more to come)
Rely on the Supreme Court? It may be too late already. By the time a case gets to the Supremes BHO will have likely picked one or two new members who will tilt the balance away from any reasonable hope for constitutionalist decision. Supreme Court nominees . . . another reason why elections matter.
6) Tom Harkin – The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987, but calls for reviving it had surfaced again recently. Harkin says it’s something he supports.
7) Bill Clinton – "and believes we should have “more balance in the programs ""
n.m. Jeff Bingaman – FD is a "a higher calling?"
That's 8.. want more? I'm sure I can find them.
Note that there was another amendment that pretty much (at the moment) killed the Fairness doctrine (in name) that also passed – See, I'm being fair and balanced here!
stupid as it may be, hate speech is very dangerous. if you look at what happened in bosnia and later in rwanda it was hate speech on talk radio (directed at certain groups) that incited the violent rampage which ended or ruined the lives of many. i think it is important to listen and be on guard against hate speech of any kind.
"John Madison who helped craft the First Amendment would roll over in his grave."
First, a nitpick: That would be JAMES Madison.
Now, for something a little more substantial. I notice that those who are lamenting Reagan, the past 25 years, etc (8 of which included the Clinton administration, let's remember) make no mention of the word FREEDOM. As they do in their economic 'arguments' this word is simply no part of their vocabulary. There's a good reason for that: Progressives are amoral; the ethical center of their brains having been atrophied by their philosophy, they simply can not evaluate anything on moral grounds.
Yet, oddly, they continue to implicitly assume an entire spectrum of values that they expect to force on the rest of us.
You're absolutely right. I referred to it in another post as "same s–t, different package."
That's true, though both of those situations were far more complex than just hate speech. You had centuries old hatreds, combined with the sudden overthrow of ethnic governments that had exploited their power to oppress other ethnic groups, and politicians who consciously planned and implemented race wars.
Still, the point is a good one, which is why when we hear hate speech, we should point it out, ridicule it, boycott it and it's sponsors, and shun those who use it. But we should never fear it. Nor should we use government power to ban it, because that only gives it legitimacy.
Ha ha ha ha! Tell us another one!
OK I'll tell you the one about him being a Muslim. Or how about the one where he's not a citizen. Or the one where…
THE WHAT PARTY? Say it.
Hey Moran,
All the liberals coming here are telling you this is not on the agenda. Why don't you complain about it when it actually comes up. Otherwise you're PRECOMPLAINING which is pathetic. There are other more pressing issues right now.
Democrats. Republicans are already going through their own rebuilding phase after getting kicked to the curb, though there are plenty there who should go too.
I know you're a partisan, but even you have to admit the Dems are a mess.
Your talking points are way out of date. That makes me very sad… [-(
Teh, it did come up… check out the Durbin amendment that was stuck into the Porkulus bill… it was referred to by radio groups as a "Backdoor to the Fairness Doctrine".
So you want to try again?
Wow, an internet tantrum! Ask again, I dare ya.
Every statement Barack Obama has ever made has an expiration date. It's just a matter of time before he goes back on this promise and decides that he does support the Fairness Doctrine.
And then it's just a matter of time before he pisses off the other side by deciding that no, he really doesn't support it. The thing President Obama fears most is having to make up his mind, because it means having to take a stand.
Yes…he does not want to bring back the "old" Fairness Doctrine because he knows it would be unconstitutional. So, they are dressing it with new clothes in the name of diversity of programming and localism. These regulations would force conservative voices to move aside for liberals. This is the "new" Fairness Doctrine and the FCC has already debated these regulations and held national hearings about them.
I am waiting for it to fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Radio for the mentally challenged. Then they can blame GHWB.
You are absolutely right! They are also considering setting up "permanent advisory boards" to advise radio stations about their programming. This puts the government in the editor's chair and is another form of censorship. Requiring diversity of programming and localism also moves a conservative host aside for liberals. The Obama administration knows it cannot get the old Fairness Doctrine implemented, so it is looking for ways to get new regulations through that would accomplish the same goals. The Senate took action to do just that, recently. It was sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin, a close ally of Obama and the wording is exactly as you noted in your post.
So, now the worry is that Obama will re-instate the Democrat Fairness Doctrine and shut down shows like Rush Limbaugh. We have a different take on that possibility at ConservativeAmerican.org. Our position is Bring it on! We are all for fairness and equal time being given to both sides of issues so the American public can be heard. It is the democrat socialists who want to silence opposing views and kick them off the campaign airplanes, not us. If they want to bring it back, we will fight like heck to make sure fairness is actually fair, and not just democrat fairness. Fairness would mean, for example, that conservatives would get a 30-minute news show before or after all three major networks’ nightly news programs!!!!
http://conservativeamerican.org/media/fairness-do...
The rats used to torture us thoughtcriminals will be free-range rats (except when they're in our mouths, eating our cheeks).
See, you don't listen to Rush's speeches, only what's been reported to you. Rush said, and I paraphrase, "If Obama wants to bring Socialism to this country, then yes, I want him to fail in that endeavor." And I agree with Rush, because Socialism brings misery to all but those with Party connections. Go to Rush's website, and listen to his CPAC address, read some show transcripts and get informed. I double-dog dare you.
And conservative talk radio will not tank, because it is proven to be wildly successful (unlike, say Air America), which is precisely why it must be KILLED by free-speech enemies via something like The Fairness Doctrine II.
The WH is using Rush as a distraction when they should be focusing on making people's lives better. ACORN, Clinton, Frank and Dodd screwed things up really badly with the banking industry, and now Obama seems intent on busting up whatever pieces are left into fine white powder.
Now try to think before you post and please do something about your grammar!
Oh we hate empiricism AND evidence with the burning fire of Hades.
You're a CARTOON!
You must be logged in to post a comment.