Buzzard Posted February 1, 2009 at 04:17 PM Posted February 1, 2009 at 04:17 PM Democrats hope to hush Rush Feinstein looking at Fairness Doctrine, says talk radio 'overwhelmingly 1 way' Posted: June 24, 20077:30 pm Eastern LINK Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is "looking at" bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, a controversial policy designed to ensure equal time for all political viewpoints on radio, but criticized by many as resulting in the opposite result. When asked by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" if she would revive the measure, said, "Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way." Wallace pointed out, "But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market." Feinstein responded: "Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people." The Democrat said talk radio tends to be one-sided. "It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information." Among the targets of leftist Democrats is conservative champion Rush Limbaugh, the most-listened to host in the history of talk radio, who has railed against in the Fairness Doctrine for years. On one of his programs in January, Limbaugh said the push for the measure was solely because liberals were unsuccessful in getting Americans to agree with them. They can't get coverage, they can't draw an audience; they can't draw an audience in the commercial field, at any rate. So what do they do? They attempt to silence the opposition, and this is an assault on the First Amendment, disguised under that word "fairness." The application of the Fairness Doctrine worked this way. It basically made it so difficult for local radio stations to put on controversial programming that they put none on. So what you're going to get if they do reinstate this is highlighted programming such as the favorite holiday recipes for Christmastime, sewage problems for the next decade in your local community, and other such things. The application of the Fairness Doctrine would be very, very tough to police. The point of it was to balance opinions and to be fair, and if one point of view was expressed, the other had to be expressed well, otherwise no opinion could be expressed. There was also a provision that personal attacks, people victimized by those would have a chance to reply and respond and so forth. Also appearing with Wallace was Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who heated up the airwaves last week by stating, "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem." On today's program, Lott said, "I've been defended by talk radio many times and I will support their right to tell their side of the story, right, left or the middle, forever. I don't think this Fairness Doctrine that would try to require that there be X amount on both sides is fair. So you know, it's caused quite a stir, but, you know, it goes with the territory." WND reported Friday that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Senate colleague Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., want to "fix" talk radio because of its conservative influence on America, according to Sen. James Inhofe.
TTIN Posted February 1, 2009 at 05:15 PM Posted February 1, 2009 at 05:15 PM Except for possibly LTE's,aren't the newspapers decidedly one sided?..especially evidenced by this past presidental election? Where was Ms. Feinstein when the MSM was digging up every little "sin" that McCain/Palin commited,while giving Obama carte blanc with his dirty deeds? It hurts when the shoe is on the other foot,doesn't it Ms. Feinstein?
45superman Posted February 1, 2009 at 05:23 PM Posted February 1, 2009 at 05:23 PM Chucky Schumer was pushing this back on election day last November. The gloves are coming off.
Buzzard Posted February 1, 2009 at 06:31 PM Author Posted February 1, 2009 at 06:31 PM Whew!! I was sure someone would bust my ***** over this article being stale. Thanks 45, for giving me a pass. It's coming back big time with Obama telling folks to not listen to Rush Limbaugh, which is why I posted this. I don't think the "Fairness Doctrine" (Hush Rush Bill) is dead at all.
45superman Posted February 1, 2009 at 06:35 PM Posted February 1, 2009 at 06:35 PM Whew!! I was sure someone would bust my ***** over this article being stale. Thanks 45, for giving me a pass. It's coming back big time with Obama telling folks to not listen to Rush Limbaugh, which is why I posted this. I don't think the "Fairness Doctrine" (Hush Rush Bill) is dead at all. Actually, I hadn't noticed that the article was a year-and-a-half old--and when you get down to it, I don't think it matters much. Feinstein isn't the sort to back off from her extreme agenda. If anything, current events have probably emboldened her to step up her attacks on freedom.
GarandFan Posted February 1, 2009 at 06:42 PM Posted February 1, 2009 at 06:42 PM Whew!! I was sure someone would bust my ***** over this article being stale. Come on, folks! This article is more than a year and a half old!! ;-)
45superman Posted February 1, 2009 at 06:53 PM Posted February 1, 2009 at 06:53 PM Come on, folks! This article is more than a year and a half old!! ;-) Some people just have to be wise guys .
ilphil Posted February 1, 2009 at 07:01 PM Posted February 1, 2009 at 07:01 PM I would be more than happy to see a return of the Fairness Doctrine. As long as it applies EVERYWHERE in the media. It would be nice to see a balance on CNN, CBS, etc., rather than the totally one side liberal crap they spew out now. But, of course, that isn't the "fairness" Feinstein & Co are looking for. Their idea of fairness is to have the MSM put out their side of things and muzzle those that don't see things their way.
Buzzard Posted February 1, 2009 at 07:02 PM Author Posted February 1, 2009 at 07:02 PM The Unfairness Doctrine by Jed Babbin and Rowan Scarborough LINK 01/12/2009 Conservative talk radio is the most potent political weapon in America. Millions listen every day for news and opinion that they can’t get from the liberal mainstream media. And those millions -- people from all walks of life in every state, city and town -- do more than just listen: They vote. Liberal talk radio has been a huge failure. “Air America” -- the liberals’ flagship network -- filed for bankruptcy in 2006 after only two and a half years of broadcasting. Now, because they’ve taken control of the White House as well as Congress, Democrats are planning to re-impose the mis-named “Fairness Doctrine” to kill conservative radio. President Reagan did away with it in 1987. But now, the liberal control of both sides of Capitol Hill, along with a compliant Obama Administration, may bring it back from the ash heap of history. It’s Not About Fairness: It’s Censorship Let’s call it what it really is: The “Fairness Doctrine” is not about fairness. It’s about censorship. It requires radio broadcasters to air -- at their expense -- opposing views whenever they broadcast any attack on some political figure or policy. The Censorship Doctrine would require conservative talk radio to spend a large part of its time praising liberals and their ideas. If it’s revived -- and from the comments of key Congressional leaders, we have to conclude they’re going to fight to get it -- it will be a direct attack on Americans’ constitutional rights to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press. Can you imagine what talk radio would sound like if every time a host talked about the newest liberal outrage, he then had to give the liberals equal time? Somehow, we can’t believe that the Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity shows will be better if they’re co-hosted by Susan Estrich, Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore. New York liberal Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer thinks conservative talk radio is the equivalent of pornography and should be regulated in just the same way. Schumer said recently: “Do you think we should allow people to put pornography on the air? Absolutely not. Particularly on television and radio.… The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that. I think pornography should be limited. But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise, but you’re allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.” To liberals such as Schumer, conservative talk radio is political pornography. The only real difference is that Schumer & Co. would like to see more censorship on conservative talk radio than on real pornography. Schumer’s remarks show how frightened liberals are by the power of conservative talk radio. Conservatives, of course, also recognize this power. In an exclusive interview, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told HUMAN EVENTS why the House Republicans made Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan honorary members of the Congressional Class of 1994: “Rush Limbaugh,” Gingrich said, “was the leading educator of American taxpayers and conservatives in the early 1990s. His voice, his courage, his convictions mobilized millions of voters who turned out to vote for the Contract with America and created the first Republican House majority in 40 years. We stood on President Reagan’s shoulders and were propelled by Rush Limbaugh’s voice. And that is why Michael Reagan and Rush Limbaugh became honorary members of our class in 1995.” Democratic Party leaders support re-imposing the Censorship Doctrine and are planning to revive it soon after President-elect Obama is inaugurated. Asked if she supported it, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “I always have.” As The Washington Times reported in November, “Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, House Speaker Pelosi of California and Senate Rules Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein of California are among the powerful Democrats who now advocate government intervention to dictate radio content more favorable to their party.” According to Democratic strategist Bob Beckel, “Now some leading liberals, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have batted around the idea of reinstituting it because of the dominance of conservative talk radio. Sen. Feinstein said she was ‘looking at’ the idea of reviving it.” (Bob Beckel, “A Warning To Talk Radio,” USA Today, 7/12/07) For conservatives, this will be a life-and-death struggle. Liberals now control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, providing the political left its most absolute hold on power since the 1960s. But it is worse than that for conservatives. The dominant mainstream liberal media have executed a pronounced shift. The New York Times, Washington Post, the major TV networks, and Hollywood have gone from a media bias in favor of Democrats to outright collaboration. There was little critical difference between Barack Obama’s campaign web site and the New York Times’ editorial page. Washington’s power makeup and the news media’s corruption leave conservatives with one big megaphone to spread the message: talk radio. That’s what makes the upcoming battle so crucial. If Democrats can reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, they will have a powerful weapon to bludgeon conservative talk radio to death. During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama didn’t publicly support re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine, but his overall transition chief, John Podesta, heads a liberal think tank that supports it. And, perhaps most importantly, Obama’s transition chief for the Federal Communications Commission, which would enforce the doctrine, is Henry Rivera, who strongly supports the Fairness Doctrine. Rivera, who sat on the FCC in the early 1980s, is known not only to be a Fairness Doctrine advocate, he also believes the FCC should be used to push for minority ownership of local radio stations. Rivera has been chairman for more than a decade of the Washington-based Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. One of its goals is for the FCC to issue more licenses to minorities. “We strongly believe that the breathtaking changes in communications technology and the new global forms of media partnerships must enhance diversity in the 21st Century,” its mission statement says. Liberal-tending minority-run stations would not be very likely to run the Limbaugh show, probably preferring instead Air America‘s stable of right-hating broadcasters.
45superman Posted February 1, 2009 at 07:23 PM Posted February 1, 2009 at 07:23 PM By the way, ever heard of Cass Sunstein, Obama's pick to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs? In addition to being an anti-gun, anti-hunting screwball (he wants animals to have the right to sue), he has advocated a kind of "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet. I talked about that here. As it turns out, I've talked about Sunstein before, and his advocacy of a kind of "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet, to counter what he considers the threat of the internet fostering extremism. He also says people who set up websites should be encouraged as a matter of course to set up links to sites with differing views and adds that government regulation of such a system is worth considering. In fact, the example he uses to illustrate his "point" is the gun rights debate. He also looked at the National Rifle Association (NRA). "A group whose members lean against gun control will, in discussion, provide a wide range of arguments against gun control, and the arguments made for gun control will be both fewer and weaker. The group's members, to the extent that they shift, will shift toward a more extreme position against gun control,” says the professor. It is in this vein that Sunstein sees the advent of the personalisation of information via the Internet as such a threat. As I pointed out in my earlier post: The problem with that thinking, Cass, is that wherever one goes, "the arguments made for gun control will be both fewer and weaker"--that's simply the nature of a position that lacks grounding in facts and logic.
GarandFan Posted February 1, 2009 at 07:55 PM Posted February 1, 2009 at 07:55 PM It's exactly about censorship. It's saying that we have a right to free speech as long as the law defines what is said.It's saying that we have a right to arms as long as the government tells us which arms. Both of those scenarios allow the government too much control over our rights. I can't believe any court would not find that such doctrine wouldn't violate the constitution.
Hossua Posted February 1, 2009 at 08:14 PM Posted February 1, 2009 at 08:14 PM I don't agree with everything said on conservative talk radio, I often times find myself completely furious with their comments. I don't believe they should be forced to provide "the other side of the story". The bigger problem is people not questioning what they hear from the bully pulpit.(and that means liberal mediums too) We need to work on building responsibility and self reliance in people. We need to get away from attempting to control each other through government decree. The principles of Liberty need to be renewed and practiced faithfully. The loss of faith in the principles of Liberty which this country was founded on are ripping us apart. Chaining the government down with the Constitution is not easy, and we have never REALLY been able to accomplish it in full. Hopefully 2009 will be an eventful year in the pursuit of Liberty.
RIR Posted February 1, 2009 at 11:39 PM Posted February 1, 2009 at 11:39 PM Does this mean thew NRA would get a spot on left shows?
GWBH Posted February 2, 2009 at 02:42 AM Posted February 2, 2009 at 02:42 AM The national media needs to wake up!This could easily turn on liberal Dems - liberal news being required to air conservative alternative points of view. Are they that blind?? (Of course it would help their ratings!)One thing's for sure - if the government starts regulating free speech (i.e. radio, tv, print) watch out. There will be no stopping the trampling of the Bill of Rights.
Buzzard Posted February 2, 2009 at 04:34 AM Author Posted February 2, 2009 at 04:34 AM The national media needs to wake up!This could easily turn on liberal Dems - liberal news being required to air conservative alternative points of view. Are they that blind?? (Of course it would help their ratings!)One thing's for sure - if the government starts regulating free speech (i.e. radio, tv, print) watch out. There will be no stopping the trampling of the Bill of Rights. GW, the media is in bed with the Dems!! I completely agree with the article above when it states: "For conservatives, this will be a life-and-death struggle. Liberals now control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, providing the political left its most absolute hold on power since the 1960s. "The dominant mainstream liberal media have executed a pronounced shift. The New York Times, Washington Post, the major TV networks, and Hollywood have gone from a media bias in favor of Democrats to outright collaboration. There was little critical difference between Barack Obama’s campaign web site and the New York Times’ editorial page." IT'S THE EXTREME RIGHT THAT HAS TO WAKE UP!! AND WE TO COME INTO COMPLETE AGREEMENT BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION!!
SirMatthew Posted February 2, 2009 at 03:45 PM Posted February 2, 2009 at 03:45 PM The media was originally intended to report news without bias, but I know those days are over. Most of the media leans more left than right (cable news, newspapers), but leave it to the libs to want to stamp out that voice of conservatism in our nation's less-popular talk radio shows. If there were a vast greater number of liberal talk radio shows, do you think the Fairness Doctrine would even be considered? I highly doubt it. Some feel conservative talk radio needs to come in line with other media outlets which are more liberal. It is purely a way to control ALL of the media, a propaganda tool. They simply package it nice and call it "fair" so people will buy it. But their plan is going to backfire on them. I'm still not sure I get the real impact of what this Fairness Doctrine will really be like, assuming it is implemented, but I have a sneaky suspicion about the outcome. There are loopholes around just about everything. We know there will have to be "equal time", but what is that really going to be like when we listen to it? For example, Hannity and Colmes (Fox) is supposed to be a cable news talk show that respects both the right-wing and left-wing points of view. However, most of the time Hannity is shown in a brilliant light, but nearly everything that comes out of Colmes' mouth is ridiculed (either by Hannity himself or even the guests being interviewed). I've seen people like Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich actually laugh at Colmes, accuse him of being utterly ridiculous, and refuse to speak further with him. He's always coming across as being overly defensive and it's no wonder why! Honestly, I don't know why Colmes sticks around as his job is like a gladiator facing the lions each day. If a liberal guest appears on the show Colmes often begins the conversation but Hannity usually ends it with a more impressive argument. At the end of the show most viewers probably leave thinking the conservative point of view won out and the libs must be totally stupid and ignorant. By highlighting the liberal agenda in this negative way the audience actually becomes more supportive for the conservative viewpoint. I imagine the same "Hannity and Colmes" thing will happen with conservative talk radio. I doubt many libs will be eager to accept invitations to be on a talk radio show where they will always be ridiculed. Shows will have to hire a second host who pretends to be liberal by merely playing devil's advocate. They could also invite the same guests back repeatedly, just like O'Reilly often has Dennis Miller on his show. Guests who are effective in expressing their liberal views and who make the conservative view look bad won't be invited back very often. The end result is a talk radio show that is like a Harlem Globetrotter's game where the opposing team is actually part of the tour, has been trained to play in a way which makes the Globetrotters look better, and is not really trying to win. Even with the Fairness Doctrine the conservative view will still come out the victor on talk radio shows when opposing viewpoints being aired in a negative way. This is actually going to be more helpful to conservative talk radio in the end.
predator1972baz Posted February 3, 2009 at 10:08 AM Posted February 3, 2009 at 10:08 AM It's exactly about censorship. It's saying that we have a right to free speech as long as the law defines what is said.It's saying that we have a right to arms as long as the government tells us which arms. Both of those scenarios allow the government too much control over our rights. I can't believe any court would not find that such doctrine wouldn't violate the constitution. There is also one thing that isn't mentioned here with the fairness doctrine. VIOLENT REVOLUTION. America unfortunately is very vulnerable to revolution or insurgents groups that actually know what they are doing. I of course do not support such things, but I know the triggers of such things and the fairness doctrine is a step towards that. See talk radio is a way for people to express themselves. When you take away things that allow people to express themselves, they have no way to express their views, THIS STARTS INSURGENCIES AND REVOLUTION. See when a peaceful march happens, it's an expression. You take away that right and people will express themselves in other ways; most likley violent. In 1992 this is was why the LA RIOTS happenned. There was a lot of pent up anger at the police and Korean business owners. Prior to the LA RIOTS a Korean Lady shot a 12 year old kid who tried to steal some candy. she shot her in the back of the head, I saw the video. She was also aquitted BTW. So this anger built up and why when it exploded many Korean businesses were burned to the ground and why the police in LA were targetted. Point is those who want the fairness doctrine really don't know what they are messing with. Now by itself the fairness doctrine won't bring such things but take this, the assault weapons ban, higher taxes, and other things and guess what recipe you have just created. REVOLUTION. The white house would be the most shot at house in the nation and liberals would be targetted, I mean really targetted. I myself wouldn't feel safe. Now you may be thinking that what I'm saying if far fetched, but is it really. I only say this as a warning. I do listen to rush or Hennidity, I would say this if most talk shows were liberal and the situation was reversed, I would say this to the GOP. Talk Radio allows many people to express their views and to take that expression away is allowing the seeds of violent revolution to take shape. People need to be able to express themselves and that is my main point. Like this forum for instance.
Air Commando Posted February 3, 2009 at 01:36 PM Posted February 3, 2009 at 01:36 PM When you talk about the newspapers of today the only good thing about them is that they are all going bankrupt. All of these papers are selling off property to stay afloat and media is one thing that unless the government took over as a whole they won't be able to survive in print form. I look forward to when all of these papers shutdown because they aren't reporting anything anyways.
Hossua Posted February 3, 2009 at 06:48 PM Posted February 3, 2009 at 06:48 PM When you talk about the newspapers of today the only good thing about them is that they are all going bankrupt. All of these papers are selling off property to stay afloat and media is one thing that unless the government took over as a whole they won't be able to survive in print form. I look forward to when all of these papers shutdown because they aren't reporting anything anyways.Oh, well that would be just beautiful if the government bought up the press.... :Angry!:
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.