Time to Bury the Fairness Doctrine Once and ForAll

[RadioPatrol]

Time to Bury the Fairness Doctrine Once and For All
by Rep. Greg Walden and Rep. Mike Pence
Posted: 06/30/2008

The announcement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she wants to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is big news -- but it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise.

The Fairness Doctrine is an Orwellian and archaic Federal Communications Commission rule devised in 1949 that requires radio broadcasters to present both sides of an opinion when discussing controversial topics. It put unelected FCC bureaucrats in charge of enforcement and determining what speech was legal.

Broadcasters responded by avoiding controversial issues completely, the opposite of what a healthy democracy should expect from its radio press.

This wrong-headed policy was finally repealed by the Reagan Administration, and ever since there’s been an explosion of public discourse on the airwaves -- from the right and the left and everywhere in between.

the market place, this means Americans who want the truth, not stories filtered by LSM:

The marketplace clearly prefers conservative talk radio to its liberal counterparts. Thus, personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and others on the right have prospered while projects like Al Franken’s Air America have languished.

Now that the Democrats have control of Congress, their leaders are openly championing the return of the Fairness Doctrine. If they can’t beat conservative ideas in the radio marketplace, they might as well stifle them through government fiat.

Make no mistake: a return of the Fairness Doctrine would end talk radio as we know it, for religious broadcasters, the right, the left, and everywhere in between. And that’s just what the left wants.

Democratic leaders have not been shy about their desire to stifle free speech on the airwaves. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, and House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, to name a few, are all interested in seeing the Fairness Doctrine revived.

But now that Speaker Pelosi -- the third most powerful figure in American government -- has indicated her support, our effort to pass the Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905) has become that much more urgent.

Socialists cannot compete in the market place so they choose to Silence Conservatives with Rule and Regulations .... Claiming Fairness

Of course, Speaker Pelosi will not schedule the Broadcaster Freedom Act for a vote. But if we get the signatures of 218 members of the House on a Discharge Petition, we can circumvent the blockade presented by the majority leadership and bring it directly to the floor for an up-or-down vote.

There are certainly enough votes to pass the bill. In June 2007, the House passed, by a 309-115 margin, a one-year moratorium on funding for the Fairness Doctrine. A total of 113 Democrats -- nearly a majority of their caucus -- voted for the stay.

Right now, we have 196 signatures on the Discharge Petition. Not a single Democrat has signed on, despite their overwhelming support of the one-year moratorium.

We need just 22 Democrats to declare their support of freedom of speech by signing the petition to get a vote on the floor. Out of those who did the right thing last year by supporting the moratorium, there must be 22 Democrats who are willing to do the right thing again, even if their leader says to do otherwise.

 

[wintersprings]

but but the left wing radio's all


FAILED

thats just not fair

 

[SamSpade]

Reminds me of a line from a movie that in fact espouses some fairly liberal views:

" I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it! "

The problem with liberal talk radio is that nobody wants to tune in. Bear in mind that Rush and Sean and a ton of others are on the radio via the same means that most radio personalities stay on the air - advertising. People advertise during their shows and that's how it is paid for.

Liberal talk radio thus far has failed and every last bit of it has been bankrolled by large contributions. It couldn't survive on advertising dollars.

If they bring about the Fairness Doctrine, would it surprise you if people actually BOUGHT XM radio or similar radio just so they could continue to listen to conservative radio? I think they would. I think the Fairness Doctrine in the long run would absolutely bite liberals in the ass - NPR and other outlets would have to host conservatives. Channel One would have to give equal time to conservative views.

They'd be enormously stupid to try it. It would give the full weight of law to force them to give up ground in other areas while not harming conservative radio one whit.

 

[Pushrod]

Another stupid idea from the Peanut Factory. What ever happened to "Congress shall make no law..."?

 

[SamSpade]

Another stupid idea from the Peanut Factory. What ever happened to "Congress shall make no law..."?

You know, the thing is, I kind of understand some of the premise. Some countries, such as Canada, actually have a news organization - the CBC - which comes from the government itself. You don't want such organizations in the United States being nothing more than a mouthpiece for official propaganda. Therefore you have rules set up as for channels such as C-SPAN which have to allow equal time for both sides - or all sides - of a debate.

Where I don't follow is how this kind of logic extends to the area of free press or broadcast media, because it essentially becomes exactly the opposite of free speech. It's censorship.

Right now, the only purpose reviving it serves is to shut down conservative talk radio. I can't see any other purpose motivating anyone, and it is completely dishonest if that's the purpose. I mean, if the people pushing for this came out and said "we're doing this to shut down conservative talk radio" how far would THAT get?

 

[RadioPatrol]

yeah but since Socialists beleive the LSM media is fair and balanced ....

they only see Talk Radio us uniquely one sided ...

 

[SamSpade]

yeah but since Socialists beleive the LSM media is fair and balanced ....

they only see Talk Radio us uniquely one sided ...

Presumably the Fairness Doctrine doesn't apply to newspapers, because it's viewed that while there is a limit on the number of radio stations, there is no limit to the number of possible newspapers in a given region.

This is very stilted logic, to be fair - in the Washington area, how many newspapers are there - really? How many radio stations? It's a clear case of logic butting up against reality.

 

[Larry Gude]

This...

Another stupid idea from the Peanut Factory. What ever happened to "Congress shall make no law..."?

...is the problem with people like McCain; McCain/Feingold is, obviously, government control of political speech. When a leading GOP'er, a supposed 'conservative' buys into, deeply, the notion that the GOVERNMENT has a right to limit speech, the argument is sabotaged from the group that is most strongly arguing in support of the constitution.

McCain is a profound traitor to the constitution and deeply hurts the argument against excess government escaping its constitutional bonds.

That things like the 'fairness doctrine' come from people who so loudly claim they are for freedom, liberals, is one of the truly darker sides of modern liberalism.

The the right is caving in is to out shame.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yup...

Presumably the Fairness Doctrine doesn't apply to newspapers, because it's viewed that while there is a limit on the number of radio stations, there is no limit to the number of possible newspapers in a given region.

This is very stilted logic, to be fair - in the Washington area, how many newspapers are there - really? How many radio stations? It's a clear case of logic butting up against reality.

...and that's why McCain has had so much media support over the years; he carves wide exceptions for them right into his stupid law. As far as he is concerned, the first amendment was written for the press only, just like the left sees the second as pertaining to militias only; group, not individual rights.

 

[SamSpade]

...and that's why McCain has had so much media support over the years; he carves wide exceptions for them right into his stupid law.

Ok, now you got me confoozed. What does McCain have to do with the Fairness Doctrine, something that was concocted when he was about 11 years old?

 

[Larry Gude]

Because...

Ok, now you got me confoozed. What does McCain have to do with the Fairness Doctrine, something that was concocted when he was about 11 years old?

...I view them both, M/F and F/D, as assaults on free speech.

F/D I expect from the left who are more interested in groups and agendas than individual rights. M/F, isn't supposed to come from the right.

 

[SamSpade]

...I view them both, M/F and F/D, as assaults on free speech.

F/D I expect from the left who are more interested in groups and agendas than individual rights. M/F, isn't supposed to come from the right.

I read in a Chris Wallace interview with Dianne Feingold where she very specifically says that the intent of bringing it back is to end conservative radio. She didn't even sugar-coat it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Uh...

I read in a Chris Wallace interview with Dianne Feingold where she very specifically says that the intent of bringing it back is to end conservative radio. She didn't even sugar-coat it.

...Feinstein, yes? Not Russ Feingold.

That's why I always love free speech because if they talk long enough, libs will always tell you what they really want.

 

[SamSpade]

...Feinstein, yes? Not Russ Feingold.

That's why I always love free speech because if they talk long enough, libs will always tell you what they really want.

It's why I like Chris Wallace. He will not let you get off the hook. I wonder why anyone has the guts to appear on his show at all.