The Talk Radio Audiences Revolt Against Fairness Doctrine

Posted on October 25, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Links, People, Politics, Rants, Regulations, Talk Radio, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

“Do you feel lucky, well do you punk!”

 

Dirty Harry – Clint Eastwood

 

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34

 

Those Democrat and Republican members of Congress that are seriously considering bringing back the Fairness Doctrine are playing with dynamite.

Over 100 million Americans are listening to talk radio everyday.

Mess with talk radio and you will have a ten million men and women march on Congress.

Unfortunatley, many members of Congress are that arrogant and stupid to try.

Just another example of socialism–“spread the wealth around”.

Go ahead, Make my day!

Sudden Impact – “Go Ahead. Make My Day”


 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Boehner on so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ – 6/28/07

 

Fairness Doctrine” — Feinstein Outlawing Talk Radio

 

Debate over the Fairness Doctrine on Fox News Sunday

 

Kucinich Discusses Fairness Doctrine on Lou Dobbs

 

Accuracy in Media – Group Condemns Congressional Hypocrisy

Dem Sen On Fairness Doctrine

 

2008 UP & COMING ” POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE ( FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ) ” / PART 13

 

Rep. Pence: Fairness Doctrine and “Freedom Works”

 

Fairness Doctrine

“The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC’s view) honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Commission’s general right to enforce such a policy where channels are limited, but the courts have generally not considered that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] The FCC has since withdrawn the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[2] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

 

Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair

by Adam Thierer

“…If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.”

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm

 

Here it comes: Sen. Bingaman heralds Fairness Doctrine return

By Michelle Malkin

“…N.M. Sen. Jeff Bingaman cheers the return of the Fairness Doctrine as a “higher calling,” via the Jim Villanucci show on KKOB.

Radio Equalizer has the scoop.

Tilling the soil for the Chicago gangland thugs… ”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/22/here-it-comes-sen-bingaman-heralds-fairness-doctrine-return/

 

The history and possible revival of the Fairness Doctrine

by Nat Hentoff

“…The term “Fairness Doctrine” exemplifies what George Orwell called “Newspeak”: it uses language to mask the deleterious effects of its purported meaning. The Fairness Doctrine itself was in effect from 1949 until 1987. It required that radio broadcasts devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial issues of public importance, and that the broadcaster do that fairly by offering reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be heard. If the Federal Communications Commission found a radio station in repeated violation of this Doctrine, it could take away the station’s license — a business form of capital punishment. …”

“…Before the Fairness Doctrine was ended, at least for the time being, in 1987 — Congressman Hinchey could yet prevail if the Democrats retake Congress — Richard Salant, head of CBS News while the Doctrine was flourishing, said to me:

Suppose the English government had told Tom Paine that he could go ahead and publish all he liked — but only if at the back of his pamphlets he also printed the Royal Governor’s views. That command, far from the implementation of free speech, would have been just the opposite. It’s a restriction of speech if, in order to be allowed to express your own views, [the government demands] you also have to present those of someone arguing on the other side.

James Madison did not have the bifurcation of free speech in mind when he submitted his draft of the First Amendment.”

http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_12/issue_04/opinion_07.html

 

Group Led By Clinton’s John Podesta Outlines Assault of Conservative Radio

“…With that in mind, the left-leaning Center for American Progress published a report Thursday detailing how conservatives dominate the talk radio dial, and exactly what needs to be done legislatively for liberals to wrest control over this medium (emphasis added throughout):

  • Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
  • Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
  • Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

Imagine that.

 

For those unfamiliar with the Center, its President and CEO is none other than John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton. And:

  • The Executive Vice President for Management is Sarah Rosen, who was also a member of the Clinton administration.
  • Senior Vice President for Development Debbie Goldberg worked for the Clinton campaign.
  • Senior Vice President and Director David Halperin was a speech writer for President Clinton.
  • Vice President of Communications Jennifer Palmieri was Clinton’s White House Deputy Press Secretary.
  • Senior Vice President for External Affairs Winnie Stachelberg worked at the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton.
  • Vice President of Finance and Operations Brad Kiley worked for the Clinton administration.
  • Ditto Peter Rundlet, Anna Soellner, Debbie Fine, and Michelle Jolin.

In reality, the staff and Senior Fellows listing of this Center reads like a Clinton administration Who’s Who. …”

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13642

Center for American Progress

“The Center for American Progress is an American liberal political policy research and advocacy organization. Its website describes it as “…a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all.”[1]

Its President and Chief Executive Officer is John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Located in Washington, D.C., the Center for American Progress has a campus outreach group, Campus Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. …”

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress

 

Center for American Progress

http://www.americanprogress.org/

 

Fairness Doctrine Watch: Sen. Stabenow makes new pro-gagging noise

By Michelle Malkin

“…You know grass-roots conservatives on talk radio and in New Media are getting under the Democrats’ skin when they publicly renew their Fairness Doctrine agenda again.See.

Loud Folks, keep cranking it up. …” 

 

Shame, Cubed
Three separate reasons to be appalled, each more disgusting than the last.

By Bill Whittle

“The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, A Chicago Public Radio station. And this time, candidate Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.

Speaking at a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American – or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.

Abandon all Hope, Ye Who Enter Here:

 

Barack Obama, in 2001:

“You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the Civil Rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of re-distribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

“And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution – at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

“And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

A caller then helpfully asks:

“The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”

Obama replies:

“You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.

So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

…”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI=


Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

5 Responses to “The Talk Radio Audiences Revolt Against Fairness Doctrine”

RSS Feed for Pronk Palisades Comments RSS Feed


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: