Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated
by Brian JenningsFor those of us fighting for free speech on American airwaves, this is a major setback. The Broadcaster Freedom Amendment sponsored by Congressmen Greg Walden of Oregon and Mike Pence of Indiana has been defeated. The amendment would have prevented any form of the Fairness Doctrine from returning, including the new Fairness Doctrine disguised in localism rules and programming advisory boards for radio stations.
Plain and simple, this is censorship. If Congress truly believed in free speech, it would have allowed a vote on this. To do otherwise is a slap in the face of all Americans, the First Amendment, and those who drafted the First Amendment in 1791. To not allow a vote on this freedom of speech issue telegraphs one thing – Democrats in charge of the House want to censor the airwaves, and in particular conservative talk radio.
They clearly want to regulate radio. Their speech is so disingenuous, its laughable. They say they do not favor the Fairness Doctrine, yet they support back-door measures that would accomplish the same goals. They cannot deny that programming advisory boards, localism rules, and defining the public interest with some “teeth” are all means of regulating speech in America – particularly conservative speech. This is an outrage and all Americans should see through this for what it is. These are tyrants in action.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has stated, “If markets cannot produce what society really cares about, like a media that reflects the true diversity and spirit of the country, then government has a legitimate role to play.” Of course, he reserves the right to define the “diversity and spirit” of the country. Apparently, the country (free marketplace) cannot do that for themselves.
This is plain and simple tyranny and we must call it for what it is. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski along with Michael Copps are close followers of the leftist media reform organization called Free Press. Genachowski has even named a member of Free Press to his staff as a communications liaison. In my book, Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio, I quote the Communications Director for the Free Press. Here’s what Craig Aaron said.
So, I don’t support re-instating the Fairness Doctrine not because I don’t support the goals, but because I think it’s the wrong way to go about it.
So, if that’s the wrong way, there apparently is a right way. Please read this note from Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon. All Americans should be outraged. It’s time for a mass cleansing of Washington in 2010.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
402 Comments
This kind of garbage really outrages me. The First Amendment . . . right at the begining so that it's easy to see. . . says the government can't control speech. They see this when some bumb wants to pass gas in a library, but they can't see this when people what to talk politics on the radio? Disgusting.
This kind of garbage really outrages me. The First Amendment . . . right at the begining so that it's easy to see. . . says the government can't control speech. They see this when some bum wants to pass gas in a library, but they can't see this when people what to talk politics on the radio? Disgusting.
2010 really can't come fast enough.
It is nothing, if not disheartening. I would be interested in seeing how the vote came out so we can target those who voted against in districts where there is actually a chance for a racwe.
It is nothing, if not disheartening. I would be interested in seeing how the vote came out so we can target those who voted against in districts where there is actually a chance for a race.
Very true. I just hope the Republicans start putting together a reason to support them. I am encouraged to see them finally start standing up to Obamacare, CapNTrade, and the "second" "stimulus" but I'd like to see them come out with a clear vision of government.
This is no real surprise. We saw just how dedicated the Left is to free speech when ABC aired the Obamacare infomercial while refusing to allow anyone to present an opposing view, even going so far as to turn down paid advertisements. And, of course, let's not forget last year when Pelosi tried to shut up the "Drill here, drill now" movement but turning out the lights, shutting off the cameras, and ordering security to kick the press out of the Capital.
An informed public won't go for a lot of the programs they're trying to push. Who'd want the government in charge of their health care if they saw what things were like in both the IHS and VA systems? Who would want Cap-and-Trade if they understood the full costs of the bill?
The Left know a lot of their positions are weak, based on emotional appeal, and can't stand up to a thorough examination. Since they can't defend their positions, their only alternative is to try to shut the opposition up but I think that ultimately they'll find that while they can gain a temporary measure of success they'll ultimately fail just as Pelosi failed to silence those in favor of drilling for our own oil.
I'd like to see the republicans do the things you mentioned, but I recently read Atlas and I'm very afraid. Vote for the most conservative person running. That would mean Arizona voters wouldn't have to vote for that schmuck John McCain.
What's good enough for radio should be good enough for TV too. Let's see some more balance on MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. And why stop there? Let's make sure the print media is presenting both sides of the issues as well.
If they want to play, we should sue them into playing fair.
Andrew Klavan has a funny little video at PJTV about, "Just Shut Up."
The problems are the Unelected appointees the czars have almost free reign
the ends they argue justify the means
The only place where right wingers have any stronghold is on AM radio. It is a staticy medium at best. Do individuals representing other points of view really clamor for time on these stations? it isn't even in stereo usually.
radio stations are already required to provide public content , hence all the junk on the weekends. If people wanted the messages that or forced on us they wouldn't be forced, wouldn't be on during the weekend and wouldn't have to back door it.
radio stations are in the business to make money. if this stuff did, there would be more of it.
Bush who was supposedly evil incarnate, never tried to shut down MSNBC or anyone else.
I will definitely vote for the most conservative person I can find. My concern is that the Republicans are offering nothing except "we're not them." That only works so long as people remain upset at the other guys. They need to put forth a vision of the future (1) to give people a reason to be loyal to them and (2) to give them a "mandate" once they win.
I listen to "talk radio" on the internet. I used to listen to it on the radio.
This inroad to talk radio, won't last. Right now, it is annoying, but the ones who listen to talk radio, will just utilize the internet.
I am pretty sure the internet can't be stopped. Oh, they will try, but there are too many computers that can easily be converted to websites on a moment's notice and then put out there.
Plus hackers of all stripes will take it as a challenge to make it very hard for the censors to control the internet.
I agree.
You can't sue them into playing fair when they own all the judges.
We have proof of your premise in Iran. the gov't there couldn't stop Twittering.
Be that as it may, we must still fight for every square inch. I'm sick of giving up a little here and a little there, because Liberals only take more and more when you do that. So it doesn't matter that "the ones who listen to talk radio, will just utilize the internet." What matters is that we push back and never retreat again, in any forum, ever.
Amen to that
I encourage Mr Jenning to do a follow-up with a score card of who voted yea and who voted nay.
The information needs to be made readily available at least here, since the Obama media will never present it.
"Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves." ~~D.H. Lawrence, Classical American Literature, 1922
It begins . . .
I think it is time to go en masse to Washington and let them know exactly what we think. Obviously, they are not getting the message.
'If they want to play, we should sue them into playing fair.'
Ain't gonna happen. Until people in this country become sufficiently incensed at the goings-on of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Barney Frank and the rest, to do something that can't be ignored by the Obama media, this trainwreck will continue.
Not good at all. When 2010 comes, I'm not voting for the Democrat.
Maybe the 'Rats own major stock in Sirius Satellite knowing that even if we have to pay to listen to conservative talk radio (that'd be me!) we will! They'll clean up.
Unless we bring electric cattleprods, I don't think even that will wake them up. But hey, how expensive can a cattleprod be?
(yawn)
Mr Jenning. Please indulge this reader a bit of detail on the "Broadcaster Freecom Amendment". Was its content exclusively aimed at blocking future "Fairness Doctrines" or where there other items?
Would you care to mention the reasoning of the opposition to this bill you are such a fan of? I realize you aren't trying to be journalistic, but I guess I'm just curious about the actual content of this amendment – and not just your prescription to us for how we're supposed to rally with you on the subject.
call me silly.
Sickening.
I love America.
It's the politicians I can't stand.
Michael Copps is an idiot. “If markets cannot produce what society really cares about, like a media that reflects the true diversity and spirit of the country, then government has a legitimate role to play.”
Let's see, I count at least three major errors in just the one sentence.
First, there is no such thing as a unified "society," much less a "society" that has monolithic cares.
Second, what is "a media," anyway? Not only is the word media plural, but so are the forms it takes. I suppose that his mythical singular society wants an equally mythical singular media. [sic]
But the winner goes to the absurd claim that "government has a legitimate role to play." Hm, he and Iran's Ahmadinejad could have a wonderful mutual back-slapping conversation about how they agree on that point, perhaps including Hugo Chavez for added mutuality.
At least banana republics have nice weather…
I think if any form of the "Fairness Doctrine" passes, we force Hollywood to live by the same doctrines for TV, film and music.
You're silly…..
I wonder what the push-back is going to be like when the majority of the public finally tires of Obama and the Dems in Congress and all of their combined garbage. I certainly do not advocate a second civil war and still believe that we can take back our country via the ballot box unless Obama manages to totally circumvent the Constitution. If he attempts that then I believe we are in for a hard fight.
The question, in my mind is, are Republicans failing to offer their vision for America, or is this really their vision of America, large, bloated, over burdening government, and the only change is they are in charge?
I was raised to be a blind, mindless, total idiotic modern liberal, but have developed antibodies to the disease. But that doesn't give me much insight to republicans or conservatives. I pretty much like the brand of conservationism Rush Limbaugh hawks. But I'm still trying to figure out if that's what the GOP is selling too. After watching them control congress for six years, and blow out the federal budget, I'm not so sure. I agree, just about anything this side of Karl Marx is better than the current crop of elected thieves.
Let me put it this way, I'm not convinced the republican party actually believes what they say. And if they are lying, and have no intention of sticking to their principles, then, ironically, it makes the left more honest, because they at least tell us they want to destroy the country.
I work in the internet security business, and I can tell you, try as they might, the only way the American government can stop the internet is by moving to a military dictatorship. The speed the technology changes is just way too fast. Government can't move fast enough to keep up. By the time the Senate holds hearings on restricting one form of technology, the web would have moved on two or three new ones.
A military dictatorship can stop it, as was fairly evident in Iran. They can get their control of the wide area boundary routers and squeeze it there. In America, those big boxes are owned by private companies.
I agree, by all means, fight the good fight. What I should have added, was that all is not lost. We have to win the hearts and minds of America, which is what we are doing. More and more people are, if not turning off MSM, turning to the internet to get their news.
Here, they get all sorts of opinions. Not the monolithic ones from the State and MSM.
No one said this is going to be easy.
Fair question. This amendment along with the previous Broadcaster Freedom Act would ban any restoration of the Fairness Doctrine and any "stealth" measures (sons of the FD) that would impact free speech. To that end, there are proposals such as required "localism" and "community advisory boards" for radio stations now supported by the FCC. Radio professionals are totally against requiring advisory boards because they represent big brother looking over their shoulder and would have alot of weight when license renwals are up for review. That is censorship in a stealth manner and it accomplishes the goal of the Fairness Doctrine. While the Democrats say they don't favor the Fairness Doctrine, they have dressed it in new clothes – localism and advisory boards, and tougher license renewal definitions. I hope this helps. Thank you.
“If markets cannot produce what society really cares about,…"
As if he, or any other bureaucrat or politician, knows what that is for a nation of 300+ million people. What an ignorant, arrogant a$$hole.
I'm old enough to have spent much of my life during the original "fairness" doctrine. It was one of those "sounds good–doesn't work" concepts that outlived its usefulness. But it was relatively benign, a good intention gone to hell. This new plan is a horse of an entirely different color. This is another power-grab, and an insidious attempt to undermine free speech (the old one attempted to balance free speech, and failed). The old system made news unnecessarily bland and overly-cautious, this one amounts to "all liberal, all the time" since it is government apparatchiks who will determine what "fairness" is, and we all know who they work for.
You can't sue them into 'playing fair' – they own the 'wise Latina' judges.
But take heart. Though we can't sue them into playing fair, we ARE bankrupting them for not.
Air America went belly up because no one cared to listen to them. The number one reason conservative talk radio thrives is that most of their base works, and they can't sit around and watch the local news. So rather than forcing tv to become more conservative, they force radio to be more liberal. Only in the eyes of a bureaucrat does this make any sense.
Government was never meant to be messing with the media, yet they have their fingers in the pie all the time. If the Democrats get their way, the taxpayers will be funding Air America 2 to "balance the airwaves".
Air America went belly up because no one cared to listen to them. The number one reason conservative talk radio thrives is that most of their base works, and they can't sit around and watch the local news. So rather than forcing tv to become more conservative, they force radio to be more liberal. Only in the eyes of a bureaucrat does this make any sense.
Government was never meant to mess with the media, yet they have their fingers in the pie all the time. If the Democrats get their way, the taxpayers will be funding Air America 2 to "balance the airwaves".
How about we prepare for this by setting up "Radio Free America" somewhere outside of the Obama jurisdiction and broadcast the truth without government censorship as we did with "Radio Free Europe?" I'm only half-joking, but we need to ready ourselves for the eventuality that the left will succeed in its scheme, leaving us nowhere else to go. Alternatively, there's always the 2010 election, if we're allowed to hear the conservative point of view by that time.
Just heard the last half hour of Rush today–june 15, 2009–and I must say that if this is ever taken off the air, we are in big trouble. Obamanation HAS arrived!
Oh, yes, and it is very bad…
Ed, I have one suggestion for you: Commentarama.com
[...] From the Pen: The Fairness Doctrine: Welfare for Sub-Prime Liberal Broadcasters Brian Jennings: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated John T. Simpson, Big Hollywood: What if President Obama Were a Republican? Jeffrey Jena, Big [...]
[...] Savage & Kashmiri Terrorist Leader Banned from UK — Update: Video Added Brian Jennings: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated Nice Deb: Michael Savage Banned In Britain Weasel Zippers: UK Bans Michael Savage From Entering [...]
[...] CA Dem leader: Why do we allow free speech to terrorize politicians? Brian Jennings, Big Hollywood: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated Hot Air Green Room: Lies Wide Shut Legal Insurrection: Yes They Do Why Mommy Is A Republican/Palin [...]
[...] Easy As ABC…President Obama’s Official “State-Run” Media Brian Jennings, Big Hollywood: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated Sharp Right Turn: Jon Voight: Let’s help bring an end to (the power of) this false prophet, Obama [...]
[...] Congress Fears the Public Will Become Too Educated on ObamaCare Brian Jennings, Big Hollywood: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated Senate GOP Doctors: Have a Better Plan for Health Care, Not Socialized Maddmedic: Exposing Liberal [...]
If you have suspicions about the wealthy and powerful interests that dominate the AM band, know the only reason they broadcast conservative talk is because it works. Liberal talk hasn't. We are in business to make money and therefore we broadcast what works. What works is determined by the self-censorship of the individual. If he/she doesn't like it, they turn it off. We are responding to what people want to hear. If a product doesn't sell, we take it off the shelves. Otherwise we give them what they want.
[...] first to pimp socialized medicine and ABC: The All Barack Channel Brian Jennings, Big Hollywood: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated The Classic Liberal: ABC News: Lap-Dog Media Pirates! Man Your Women: Who’s the Bigger Kiss-Up – [...]
They will have to remove their microphones from their cold dead hands! I will be helping with that. If they dare to put this straw on the camels back, look out! I've just about reached boiling point and am ready for a revolution!
[...] Obama’s Father? GayPatriot: Obama’s Problem with the Unexpected Brian Jennings, Big Hollywood: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate: State cuts tax exemptions for kids Current: ACORN Added As [...]
[...] Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated by Brian Jennings [...]
How exactly does the Fairness Doctrine, which simply requires both sides of an issue be presented, stifle free speech?
Answer – it doesn't stifle free speech. It simply requires republican-sponsored media to allow it. And that's why right wingers must stop it – to keep their constituents from discovering their scams.
The author is making up fairy stories, and so is anyone else claiming the Fairness Doctrine is censorship. Period.
I think there may be a little more to this issue than what is being said. I worked in radio for years as a disc jockey, and one of the things forbidden was payola, the practice of accepting money to play someone's record, whether the audience wanted to hear it or not. Being familiar with talk radio, realistically, much of it is political payola. There really isn't competition as to who gets heard. It is usually decided by who will pay the most to have their voice heard. And the airwaves are a scarce resource. The same goes with the liberal media. Basically, there is political payola going on there as well.
That is why I think the internet is the future. There is limitless space to publish speech and promote music. I expect the day is not too far away when AM radio is a total dead zone, as well as FM. Cars and trucks, the most common place where radio gets played, will have satellite radio with broadband access. We will have a much more diffuse press and town hall, but it will provide a better model for free speech and a free press.
ah yes, but this is too simple. I do not turn on my radio and decide which rhetoric I like and slide in a quarter based on that. there is a system of ratings (which is also in dispute – i take it) and the real people that get to "vote with their wallets" in the world of radio is… not the listeners but, the advertisers.
Now this generally washes out and generally the advertisers are presumed to be politically neutral and only care which programs get the most listeners based on the ratings and so on.
(this is TV but) I guess I'm still irked by the story of the Smothers Brothers. Here we had a very popular show, but because the relatively conservative advertisers didn't like the message…YANK!! Now, we have a generation later and shows like Steven Colbert and John Stewart. And advertisers today definitely do not take their money off the table in their case. Are the Smothers Brothers vindicated? Perhaps.
I could go on… my response to your comment was basically that "its not quite so simple" and I hope this point is appreciated.
I thought you claimed to be a true Libertarian? Not a Liberal, where is your consistency?
Liberal translation of the Copps quote:
"If the free market cannot produce what liberal society really cares about, like a state-run media that reflects only it's point of view, then the government must take over all media."
I have no doubt that Comrade Obama, the Democrats, and the FCC are loving what Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is doing to his media outlets. They're positively drooling.
EdSki: I've mentioned on this site before that I was more than liberal in my misspent youth, I was a 60s radical. I evolved into a moderate Democrat over the years,and then came the Contract With America. I finally realized that Ronald Reagan was right, I didn't leave the party, it left me, and in 1994 I switched parties. The Contract was the thing that finally convinced me. The Republican Party today is not the party that proposed that contract. But there are plenty in the party who still see most of its principles as being right. As Lord Acton said, power tends to corrupt, and that is exactly what happened in the years after 1994. If the Republicans go back to standing for principle over retention of power, we can regain the Congress and the Presidency in the next two elections. If the Republican Party fails to return to its conservative base, it will continue to lose elections, and will leave the field open for the Obamacrats.
Ed, rank and file Republicans believe in conservative ideas and would like to see them put in place. The problem comes with the jokers sent to Washington.
On the one hand, I think that they don't really understand conservative ideas or why they work — they know the lingo, but not the reasoning. So when they are confronted with a problem, they don't know what to do. Thus, they end up listening to lobbyists, who are looking for more government control.
On the other hand, many of them fall in love with power. And they learn that they can keep that power by handing out goodies. When you get 500 power-drunk idiots, each agreeing to give each other whatever they want in exchange for getting their own desired filled, you have a recipe for a massive drift into government intervention/spending land — leftism.
Add in the fact that Bush was no conservative and that Congress tends to follow the lead of the President, and you have a further drift left.
Hence, Republicrats.
CrisD, thanks for the plug. Sadly, we don't speak for the Republican party. . . yet.
P.S. Here's the link: http://commentarama.blogspot.com/
Really, really silly…..
He\\she has come out of the closet and claimed to be an "Intellectual Liberal" a few days ago….
He or she has come out of the closet and claimed to be an "Intellectual Liberal" a few days ago….
What??? Air America did not make it…as Lib as it gets! I tried to listen to "both Sides", but Randy Rhoads made me depressed…along with the rest of the bunch!!!
Air America could not make it on its own, even after a large bit of cash thrown its way!! Who wants to hear that dribble? I guess you live in fairy land!!!
Don't we already do that? I believe it's called NPR or National People's Radio…..
It is censorship. When it was applied, it managed to stifle all political speech. Which means that your side was never heard on radio as well. Now that we have the internet, conservative as well as liberal speech isn't so vulnerable.
Reapplying it, will only manage to make the LIBERALS, your side, look more tyrannical.
Ahh! I missed that, because I have to cut my cool weather grass X2 a week now because of Global warming/cooling/change.
If not, we just claim Rush, Beck and others are a form of Hollywood entertainment.
maybe so but moreover… I'm not that into labels. Don't fence me in! And I was never in the closet. I've been a troll since day 1.
but enough about me: Why are you so interested in consistency?
First of all, judging by the success, or lack thereof, of Air America, nobody wants to listen to liberal talk radio. So, by forcing – or using your euphemism "requiring" – liberal talkers on a conservation station, it will drive away listeners, and ad revenue directed at those specific listeners. Basically, it's like requiring a rock music station to play country music, or vice versa. CMB, pick your favorite music station, and now put your least favorite music on that station. You won't listen when that music is on.
Another major concern is who will be the judge of what is liberal, what is conservative, or whatever political bent, and how will that judge determine how much time should be allotted for what side.
I'm sure you'll get plenty of other reasons why the "Fairness Doctrine" is not fair.
Liberals are scared of conservative talk radio because they cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas!
It's StlDan that's interested in your consistency. Frankly I think you've been pretty consistently shilling for liberalism.
But c'mon man, stop it already. Are you really defending any form of the Fairness Doctrine?? Seriously?? You don't see that stepping on the 1st Amendment at all??? Really??
Cthulhu, eh?
"there's no such thing as unified society"…perhaps but there is such thing as society, and to your point, it is not a unified kind of thing. So what? there's still are a lot of cases where a majority opinion may decide a ballot initiative.
"what is "media" anyway?" I like your questioning. I think media is a bunch of people that go between speakers and listeners. And yes, they aren't monolithic and that's because they are biased. And that's all true because… its a bunch of people.
Absurd? "government has a legitimate role to play" This is the concept behind any government. If you think that is absurd then by defininition you must be an anarchist.
Okay, that link makes more sense than the first one. Bookmarked and reading!
What else can be expected? The house is run by a Marxist Leftist Fanatic. She lies with no conscience. Let's just hope the CIA gets too tired of her harassment of them before to long.
Agreed, Andrew. George Bush was a "big government, compassionate conservative." That sounds a lot like "Democrat." If it weren't for his strong commitment to freedom and American strength, along with two amazingly excellent Supreme Court nominations, he would properly go down in the list of Presidents as George W. Bush (D). Any Republican who wants to reach the national stage needs to understand that "strong" and "big" are not the same thing. We want a strong government that protects free speech, not a big one that kills it.
"Me-tooism" is frat boy nonsense, and it has crippled the Republican Party. The Democrats have come to expect it, and the Republicans have obliged. But I am starting to hear rumblings that indicate the pot is finally boiling. The American people are fed up with both parties and their sick need for keeping themselves in power. The party that acts on behalf of the people and not on behalf of themselves, their jobs, and their special interests is the party that will win in the coming election cycles.
On the other hand, the Republicans must also learn that if you are going to reject everything the other party proposes, you'd better have a plan of your own, and so far the Republicans have been absent without leave. Let's hope that problem gets fixed, fast.
Drop by any time. . . bring your Congressman.
you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Are you for a fairness doctrine (for cable, TV and radio) or are you against it?
Andrew, that's pretty much the conclusion I've come up with too. Which brings me back around to the beginning of the circle. The MSM is no help, all they do is broadcast stereotypes, that I know are wrong.
Who make up the republican party, and what do they believe? They campaign on one platform, but when get to Washington, they jettison it like flotsam, and act pretty much like democrats. Which is why I think they keep loosing. Why vote for a republican when you can vote for a democrat and get the real thing?
I was very attracted to Sarah Palin (and not just because she's hot), she seems to break the mold of the standard big government republican, which is exactly why I believe she was defamed in the MSM. Those exact traits that attract reasonable people. I think it scares the hell out of the left, so they have to try and destroy her now, before it's too late.
I was pretty radical as a younger guy, but when I got into engineering, technology and computer logic in college, it became impossible to reconcile the bile coming out of the left with reality. The real kicker was taking a philosophy course on Logic. It covered the ancient Greek rules for honest debate. I guess it was part of the curriculum because when it comes to computer programming, every single word has an exact definition, and its extremely important to understand that. I had to memorize the 22 or 23 classic fallacies, and when I did, I found I could destroy ever single liberal argument coming out of my mouth. I either had to admit I was a fool or change. I Changed.
I can see your point big time. Indeed it was Rush who warned way back in the 90's that Republicans are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
did I say that? I will tell you what is "silly" Hank. What is "silly" is me having to give my view on that (which is to agree with you) while what is REALLY going on here is a wild goose chase designed to fan the flames of paranoia for the nutballs on the right.
How many Democrats are in favor of a fairness doctrine? Probably not all that many. Why? Because even if your average Democrat Congressperson doesn't like AM radio and all that it stands for, and even if they'd like to see it go away, they have enough electoral savvy to understand its a loosing issue for them. That kind of crap drives votes away from Dems and the Dems KNOW IT.
That's why I am generally disgusted by Mr. Jennings ax to grind around here. Its a "rabble rousing" rouse and I DON'T BUY IT.
did I say that? I will tell you what is "silly" Hank. What is "silly" is me having to give my view on that (which is to agree with you) while what is REALLY going on here is a wild goose chase designed to fan the flames of paranoia for the nutballs on the right.
How many Democrats are in favor of a fairness doctrine? Probably not all that many. Why? Because even if your average Democrat Congressperson doesn't like AM radio and all that it stands for, and even if they'd like to see it go away, they have enough electoral savvy to understand its a losing issue for them. That kind of crap drives votes away from Dems and the Dems KNOW IT.
That's why I am generally disgusted by Mr. Jennings ax to grind around here. Its a "rabble rousing" rouse and I DON'T BUY IT.
You have got to be kidding. My Congressmoron is Maurice Hinchey, possibly the biggest tool in the House. My dog Wolfgang makes more sense in a political debate.
Ed, LOL! I think I took the same course.
You're right. Modern liberal theory is flawed at every level. It is illogical and shortsighted, and history has proven that it not only doesn't work, but usually causes the exact opposite result of what it is trying to achieve.
But the people who subscribe to it, often do so because they've been told to take it on faith, which has all kinds of negative consequences. For example, they fall for smooth rhetoric even when the lies within the rhetoric are staring them straight in the face. They react very with absolute hate to anyone who challenges their comfort zone. They also need to find "enemies" to explain why their beliefs never seem to work out, because they "know" it can't be that the belief is wrong, thus, it must have been undermined by someone.
(cont)
[...] from: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
"How many Democrats are in favor of a fairness doctrine? Probably not all that many."
You base this on what? Your spidey senses? If this was truly the case, then why was this bill shot down?
"Its a "rabble rousing" rouse and I DON'T BUY IT."
You're entitled to your opinion……silly….
I know, sounds amazingly like a religion, doesn't it?
Not believing in a God does not diminish the human need to believe in something bigger. it just shifts it to other "authorities."
On Republicans, you've asked a good question. I think what you're seeing right now is that the party got soft under Bush. Love him or hate him, the fact of the matter is that (1) Bush was not a conservative, (2) Bush had little interest in politics, and (3) the rest of the party stupidly was content to let him run the show. The people he appointed had no political instincts, and never stood up to define the party. The budgets he proposed gave away our claims to fiscal discipline. The policies he put in place gave away our base as the party of small business, the party of less and better regulation, etc. etc.
Now that he is gone, the party has a chance to recapture what it is supposed to stand for, because we no longer need to look to one leader.
(cont)
So, in my opinion, here is what the party needs right now (1) a large group of legislators pounding away on Republican ideas (not just opposing Obama, but offering real ideas) — with the support of party line votes to define the party, (2) each of the sitting governors to start showing that Republicans can provide clean, competent, conservative government, (3) Republican "think tanks" need to start teaching party members how to explain and defend conservative beliefs — we can't afford another McCain, who whipped out conservative ideas whenever he got in trouble, but clearly had no idea what he was talking about when he did, and (4) we need new thinking, ways to offer conservative ideas to fix problems.
uh, hello? Democrats now have a super majority in both houses? But where did the "Fairness Doctrine" go?
No I haven't counted its exact number of supporters, but its not a law now is it?
We'll prepare a remedial course for the good Congressmoron.
It's like the old joke about the preacher who, while writing out his sermon notes, inserts into the margin, "Weak point, shout here!"
Fidelismo creeps northward.
Bingo. It's got a lot of cult-like overtones, especially when you see them start to go all giddy about what kind of consumer goods their messiah uses. Creepy.
Exactly. If they truly believed in no speech regulation of the airwaves, they would have voted on it. To do otherwise, sends the opposite message and is un-American. It's a no brainer if you believe in the First Amendment. As for Democrats who favor the Fairness Doctrine, try these: Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Maurice Hinchey, Louise Slaughter, Diane Feinstein, Richard Durbin, Jeff Bingaman, Henry Waxman, Tom Harkin, Debbie Stabenow. That's just starters and it's time to label them as they are – tyrants. For a further explanation of what this is all about, here's this link:
http://www.ntsmediaonline.com/?p=7934&utm_sou...
I'm against it 100%. But if one side will attempt to "level the field" (the one field where conservatives seem to excel) on radio, then the other media should also seem ripe for levelling. I don't think the liberals would like it if MSNBC had to give equal time to Keith Olbermann AND Laura Ingraham.
CMB – you are naive. When the Fairness Doctrine was enforced, there were only 125 talk stations in America. Today, there are 2000. Applying the FD to open up other forms of speech is un-necessary – the liberal point of view is seen and heard in all other forms of media and conservative talk is only a very small piece of the overall media pie. It is the balance. And, there is only one form of valid censorship – the right of the individual to self – censor not government.
well, we already know he advocates such actions in his statements regarding Honduras.
If you were really familiar with talk radio, you would know there is no political payola. Republicans don't pay talk stations to air Rush, Sean, Levin, Savage, Beck, and others. Unreal. Advertisers pay and they pay for large audience appeal. Same in music radio. If there is no audience, it goes away. What school did you get this from? I've been in talk radio for 40 years and programmed on the national level. Political payola…wow. Stay on the music side and on the internet.
"Free speech for me, but not for thee." The Democrat way!
You must be logged in to post a comment.