Posted on 11/09/2008 7:27:58 AM PST by cornelis
Michele Bachmann Contact:
The Threat of the Fairness Doctrine is Very Real The Threat of the Fairness Doctrine is Very Real
Washington, D.C., Nov 7 -
With Democrats about to take over the White House and control the Senate and House in greater numbers during the next session of Congress, the threat of the fairness doctrine becoming a reality is very, very real.
Here's what Senator Schumer has to say about it
According to the Politico newspaper:p
"Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.
"In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, 'It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.'
"Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, 'I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.'"
Seeing as how the Democrats can not compete on the radio airwaves with conservative viewpoints, they are now pulling out all the stops. Remember Air America? It failed miserably. So essentially, liberal leaders in Congress are saying to America -- So you don't like what I have to say? Well, I'm going to make you listen to me anyway!
Keep pushing idiots. It will blow up in your face.
Call them the UnAmerican Stalinists that they are, Michele!
but blantant bias over the TV airwaves is perfectly ok...
Imagine a daily three hour show where the liberal gets to spout thier ideas out there, for all to see, in broad daylight, then get hammered with logic and reason by the likes of Rush.
It would get the debate out in the open, and they will fail, miserabley, because every one of their ideas fail when put to the test, or have light shined on them.
The other day O’Reilly essentially brushed off the possibility of the (so-called) Fairness Doctrine being reinstated. But I disagree — the possibility is very real. ...and the libs’ target is obviously conservative “hate radio” (as they’re fond of saying).
Democrats control just about every other media and now they want control over talk shows. It’s not the Fairness Doctrine..........it’s Communist Doctrine.
Does The (Un)Fairness Doctrine mean that CBS,ABC,NBC,PBS, etc will have to have half it’s news programing featuring Conservative anchors with Conservative views? Boy, I can’t wait to SEE that! In my dreams, I know...
I am not worried, though, because I know that once people get a taste of freedom, they won't easily give it up for NOTHING. Unlike Socalism, there is no 'reward' or percieved benefit to giving up your freedom of speech. The message will continue to get out.
What I want to know is what can we do about it. It seems to me that if you are not ready to stand and die for freedom of speeech then freedom doesn’t mean much to you. Am I over the top on this?
Question: because viewpoint is so important, who decides what is liberal or conservative?
Question: what philosophical guidelines are used? Marx? Rand? Alynski? Thomas Jefferson?
Stations will have to put Rush on at his current time, and the lib on at 2am.
The basis for the fairness doctrine is that the radio stations use the public airwaves for distribution of their message. Since it is public, there is a responsibility to present all views.
By the same logic, any media that uses public facilities to get out the message must be similarly fair. Take for instance newspapers, These for profit companies use the public streets and roads for distributing their product. Taken in the abstract, the network of publically owned streets and roads is no different than the public airways.
The news papers must be restricted from using the public streets and roads. If people want biased newspapers, they must visit the printing site and pick them up.
A similar and perhaps even stronger philosophy applies to newspapers using the US Mail as a delivery mechanism. The newspapers utilize the US Mail network in a similar manner to the Radio stations. The transport is via public owned pathways.
1’st of all, not a sane soul would listen to a liberal for 3 hours. The radio stations would lose money because of no listeners, so this would force the station to cut back the liberal program to 1 hour. RUSH’s program would have to be cut back to 1 hour also to make a fair balanced listening schedule. This is the goal of the Fairness Doctrine. The liberals know that their constituents are not interested in listening to liberal talk radio. Their goal is to knock off the amount of listening time to conservative talk radio and to destroy the unified audience of the right. Radio stations will go bankrupt if they are made to give equal time to a liberal host because no one will listen to them. The conservatives especially RUSH need to have a plan to get around this Fairness Doctrine, because the it is going to happen.
In the meantime, zero's digital brownshirts will take over the net to work their misinformation campaign which is where information seekers are headed as traditional media expends its last gasps.
Please consider the pleas of John Fund of the Wall Street Journal to call these Orwellian termed democrat party legislations by their real names.
In this case it is the “CENSORSHIP DOCTRINE,” not the “Fairness Doctrine.”
It is designed to remove all Republican speech from all the electronic media.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.