Thread: Fairness Doctrine Watch: A “progressive" attack on talk radio

Doesn't the reverse hold true? Apparently conservatives like to listen to the radio and liberals like to read. Free market and all that right?

EXACTLY !

Fairness Doctrine would use taxpayer monies to subsidise failing liberal talkshows but would not support equally failing publications of a conservative leaning.

Wouldn't it be FAIR if it worked both ways ?

February 13, 2009
Dems target right-wing talk radio


From CNN Radio's Dick Uliano http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ng-talk-radio/


Rep. Maurice Hinchey is targeting right-wing radio.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — More and more Democrats in Congress are calling for action that Republicans warn could muzzle right-wing talk radio.

Representative Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat from New York is the latest to say he wants to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine," a federal regulation scrapped in 1987 that would require broadcasters to present opposing views on public issues.

"I think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," Hinchey told CNNRadio. Hinchey says he could make it part of a bill he plans to introduce later this year overhauling radio and t-v ownership laws.

Democratic Senators Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Tom Harkin of Iowa added their voices recently to those calling for a return of the regulation.


Republicans oppose the Fairness Doctrine, arguing it would be wrong for the federal government to monitor political speech on the airwaves, in order to require opposing views.

Republican Congressman Greg Walden, a former owner of five radio stations in Oregon including a "classic rock" station joked that the Fairness Doctrine is "the musical equivalent" of "every time we'd play a classic rock song we'd have to play a polka!"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ng-talk-radio/

Here's what the Fairness Doctrine does … it forces a radio station to air both sides. So no instead of 100% right wing we are "supposed" to get a nice even 50-50 mix.

Problem is … no one listens to the left wing stuff on AM radio*. Therefore Stations cannot sell ad time. That means 50% of their airtime is unfunded. AM radio operates on thin enough margins already … take out 50% of the product and they go under. Which is exactly why the left wants the FD

*Why does no one on the left listen?

- poor personalities (is there a Rush of the Left?)

- lousy message ?

- coastal sophisticates just don't listen to AM radio?

----

I think this is a big mistake. This is straight censorship. Let the conservative talk radio people hoot and holler all they want… their audiences are slowly declining. And, the better the economy gets and the more people become comfortable with Obama… the lower their ratings are going to go.

If there's one thing I don't agree with.. it's censorship. Let people voice their opinions.


If I want the liberal point of view, I'll turn on cnn, nbc, msnbc, or I'll pick up a copy of the NY Times.

Liberals dominate the tv airwaves, no doubt.

Conservatives dominate the radio waves.

If you want to get the liberal/progressive perspective on the radio, start your own liberal radio station… OH, THATS RIGHT… WE HAD THAT- ITS CALLED AIR AMERICA, AND IT WENT BROKE.





See also http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...hugocracy.html

It’s Friday the 13th. Jason is a Democrat wielding his knife against conservative talk radio. They are all coming out of the woodwork now.

Harkin: http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go....A-374B3811F9DD EC01

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat, defends his support of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine for broadcasting. The doctrine had required radio and television stations to cover controversial issues of public importance and give and opportunity for all sides to be heard.

The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987, but calls for reviving it had surfaced again recently. Harkin says it’s something he supports. Harkin says a few years ago he found out that the taxpayer funded Armed Forces Radio was running the Rush Limbaugh show, but weren’t running any “progressive” talk.

“So I came out and said if the taxpayers are paying for it, at least our armed services individuals ought to have at least the benefit of hearing the other side of the story, to quote Paul Harvey,” Harkin says. Conservatives like Iowa Congressman Steve King, a Republican, believe the move is an attempt to silence conservatives like Limbaugh. King issued a statement in response to Harkin saying information is now easily accessible in many forms and the Senator “wants to squelch your First Amendment rights in favor of Chinese-style censorship.”

Harkin says he’s just trying to be fair.

Bill Clinton: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...rness-doctrine

Former President Bill Clinton isn’t pleased that conservatives are allowed to express views counter to his on the airwaves, and wants a re-enactment of the Fairness Doctrine.

In a preview of an interview with liberal talker Mario Solis-Marich to be aired in its entirety Friday, Clinton complained about the money funding “right wing talk shows” like Rush Limbaugh, and believes we should have “more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions.”

And Maurice Hinchey: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ng-talk-radio/

More and more Democrats in Congress are calling for action that Republicans warn could muzzle right-wing talk radio.

Representative Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat from New York is the latest to say he wants to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine,” a federal regulation scrapped in 1987 that would require broadcasters to present opposing views on public issues.

“I think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” Hinchey told CNNRadio. Hinchey says he could make it part of a bill he plans to introduce later this year overhauling radio and t-v ownership laws.

First, they’ll come for talk radio. Next, the Internet. Gird your loins, people.

...the other side of the story, to quote Paul Harvey,” Harkin says

That is "The Rest of the Story..." dear...

Tuesday, February 17, 2009
A new version of the Fairness Doctrine

We're going to see some sort of Fairness Doctrine this year. Henry Waxman is on the case. But they're not going to try to implement the Fairness Doctrine of old that mandated equal presentation of issues. Ed Morrissey notes that Obama spokesmen are no longer issuing the categorical denial of the President's interest in imposing the Fairness Doctrine as Obama had been clear in stating during the campaign And as The American Spectator reports, there are already talks going on between the staff of the outgoing chairman of the FCC and Henry Waxman's staff. The focus now will be less on that equal time to other views, but instead on local boards that will determine that stations present local views. That would limit how much time could be devoted to nationally syndicated shows like Rush or Sean, an area where conservatives dominate.

But that is not the limit to Waxman's ambitions. Somehow, he's also like to regulate content on the Internet.

Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.

Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."

Copps will remain acting chairman of the FCC until President Obama's nominee, Julius Genachowski, is confirmed, and Copps has been told by the White House not create "problems" for the incoming chairman by committing to issues or policy development before the Obama pick arrives.

But Copps has been a supporter of putting in place policies that would allow the federal government to have greater oversight over the content that TV and radio stations broadcast to the public, and both the FCC and Waxman are looking to licensing and renewal of licensing as a means of enforcing "Fairness Doctrine" type policies without actually using the hot-button term "Fairness Doctrine."

One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.

Waxman and the FCC staff are also said to be looking at ways to ease the "consumer complaint" process, which could also be used along with the advisory boards.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. "Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information," says on committee staffer. "We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities."

"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about," says Democrat committee member. "The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."

Also involved in "brainstorming" on "Fairness Doctrine and online monitoring has been the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which has published studies pressing for the Fairness Doctrine, as well as the radical MoveOn.org, which has been speaking to committee staff about policies that would allow them to use their five to six million person database to mobilize complaints against radio, TV or online entities they perceive to be limiting free speech or limiting opinion.

The local advisory boards might sound benign in comparison with some sort of strict mandate about balanced coverage. But the inclusion of liberal groups in working with the staff in writing the bill indicates what would happen. They would be sure to get members on each local board and then inundate local radio and tv stations with complaints. Liberals used to complain when conservatives allowed conservative interest groups to help craft bills, but now the shoe is on the other foot and they're happy to invite their groups to the table to help write their bills.

This focus on the Internet is bizarre.

How do they think that any sort of American law could control content on the Internet. The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down all attempts to control obscenity on the Internet. How are they going to write any sort of regulation that would achieve their goal of achieving balance on the Internet? And with sites like Huffington Post and Daily Kos, where would they get off arguing that there is any stifling of views on the Internet?

There is a case right now before the Court that will determine the power of the FCC to regulate the use of "fleeting obscenities" that could be an indicator of how this Court looks at the power of the FCC to regulate content. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110400579.html

The real danger is in this localism weapon to try to water down content on the radio and the TV. And it could probably be imposed through control of the FCC if the three Democratic appointees could agree on new regulations that would require such advisory councils. And then, this would become a battle fought out in every community as ideologues work to try, in the name of local control, to reduce the time that local radio stations devote to conservative talk radio. Rather than fighting costly appeals of licensing regulations, many radio stations might decide to just do away with the whole fight over programming conservative talk radio and instead just play music.

It's ironic how, in the name of fairness, these liberals want to control speech content. Once again, there is nothing liberal about today's liberals.

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2009/...-doctrine.html

...., but instead on local boards that will determine that stations present local views

A few years back, Bob Livingston of LA was -briefly- Speaker of the House; he resigned when Larry Flynt offered a cash reward for anyone who could offer first hand proof of any Republican sex scandals. Bill Mauher had Flynt as a guest on Politically Incorrect - the local news station inexplixably chose to run SEVEN of those "Severe Weather Warning Tests" at 11:00 PM - 12M ... interestingly everytime Flynt seemed to be answering a question about his cash offer ... even my closed captioning stopped working.

Fairness Doctrine on the Senate floor
February 26, 2009 02:05 PM

From Sen. Jim DeMint’s office:

Today, at 2pm, the Senate will vote on two amendments with respect to the Fairness Doctrine.

- The DeMint amendment (Broadcaster Freedom Act) would ban the Fairness Doctrine.

- The amendment by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) would achieve the same goals of the Fairness Doctrine through backdoor FCC regulations. His legislation forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership,” an attempt to dismantle successful syndicated radio programs. The Durbin amendment would hurt small, local radio stations who depend on popular syndicated programming for listeners and revenue.

Here’s an article that seems to get at what Durbin’s amendment is about. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...ative_Talk.php

Free Press: Consolidation, Not Fairness Doctrine, Bred Conservative Talk
Concerned that current debate over the doctrine takes away proper focus on public interest policies like ownership rules, localism and diversity
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 2/24/2009 4:58:20 PM MT
Free Press says it was media consolidation, not the scrapping of the fairness doctrine, that led to the rise in conservative talk radio, and that "bringing it back won't fix the imbalance on the airwaves."

The media activist group is concerned that the current debate over the doctrine, which it opposes, has become a distraction from the proper focus on public interest policies it does support, like ownership rules, localism and diversity.

In an e-mail to reporters containing its policy brief entitled The Fairness Doctrine Distraction, Free Press points out that the fairness doctrine controversy has heated up because a "handful of Democrats" have publicly entertained its return.


Free Press argues that the doctrine was untenable because it "put the federal government in charge of judging fairness in political speech." It also said that reinstating the doctrine would not create greater viewpoint diversity--on of the new administration's policy goals--and that even if it were reinstated, it would likely be overturned.

The doctrine, which was scrapped by the FCC in 1987 as unconstitutional, required broadcasters to seek out the other side of controversial issues of public importance.

But Free Press' concern extends beyond the doctrine to the policies it does not want broad-brushed out of the debate.
"Congress should recognize that the Fairness Doctrine and the content regulation it represents are in no way tied to other public service obligations required by the Communications Act or proposals designed to increase speech in broadcasting and new media."

FCC Commisioner Robert McDowell, for one, has suggested that some of the FCC's ownership proposals, including creating community advisory boards, could be a stealth form of reintroducing the doctrine.

Free Press argues that the underlying call to bring the doctrine back is based on the false assumption that its demise was the main cause of the rise in conservative talk radio. Free Press lays that at the feet of 1990's consolidation and the new market for nationally syndicated product.

Senator DeMint will encourage all senators to OPPOSE the Durbin Amendment.

The Duct Tape Brigade is out there in full force.

Eternal vigilance is required.

So, now, rather than the fairness doctrine, diverse ownership is to be pursued.

Guess we'll bail them out when their radio stations fail. Make more broadcasters dependent on the gov, that's a great idea.

Thursday, May 07, 2009 9:49 PM
Justice Thomas Weighs In on the co-called "Fairness Doctrine"

According to WorldNetDaily:

Thomas is questioning the viability of Supreme Court precedents dating back to the 1960s, long before the explosion of media sources beyond radio airwaves.

"The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so," Thomas noted.

"It is certainly true that broadcast frequencies are scarce but it is unclear why that fact justifies content regulation of broadcasting in a way that would be intolerable if applied to the editorial process of the print media."

Well duh.

Why are we now getting to this? How in the world did AMERICANS get to the place where this discussion even needed to be had? Freedom of Sppech is a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. There's no abridging that in the name of some phoney bull**** notion of "fairness".

Kudos to Justince Thomas for taking a stand.
http://www.rightwingrocker.com/

Why are we now getting to this? How in the world did AMERICANS get to the place where this discussion even needed to be had? Freedom of Speech is a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. There's no abridging that in the name of some phoney bull**** notion of "fairness".

The fairness act is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

Everyone needs to write a letter to their representatives telling them we are opposed to this. And whatever side of the fence you're on, everyone should see this as a tool either party could use to 'hush' and 'restrict' the other and we should be outraged.

I'd heard Air America is going to try again.