Posted on 06/11/2008 3:00:17 PM PDT by gpapa
“I hope you are right, but IIRC a post here at FR detailed a Scotus ruling the so-called Fairness Doctrine was constitutional.”
The basis was “limited resources,” for example only 3 major networks back in the day. Would not fly now, at least with our current SCOTUS. Probably, that is.
With the new high tech that is out there, the “Hush Rush” crowd has lost this fight bigtime. High tech is much faster then the big brother effort to control it.
the Washington Post, the New York Times, USA Today, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and National Public Radio — constantly flog the liberal agenda.
as listed....how come no fairness doctrine for these b. HUSSEIN outlets???
Because they are officially "objective." "Objectivity" was not claimed by newspapers in the founding era; newspapers were noted for their ideosyncratic perspectives - some associated directly with political parties.Newspapers were mostly about the perspective of the printers who produced them up until the advent of the telegraph and the Associated Press in the middle of the Nineteenth Century. And the Associated Press defended itself from charges of monopoly publicity power by citing the fractiousness of its members. And yet the very existence of the AP gutted the significance of the members' perspectives.
The bias of the Associated Press - transmitted directly into the bloodstream of the theretofore free American press - is the very concept that the product of the AP newswire was important. The newswire told you about events in distant places which you would otherwise not have learned about for weeks, and knowledge can be power. It seems plausible that the newswire would be a font of valuable information. Plausible, but not true. The planted axiom of that theory is expressed in the newsman's adage, "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper." And that implies that today's newspaper will be worthless tomorrow - so just how valuable can it actually be today? The bias of the AP is that the only thing that matters is what it knows that you don't. But is that any way to make public policy?
Take the current example of the claims that a McCain Administration would be a third Bush Administration, and the riposte that an Obama Administration would be a second Carter Administration. Anyone over the age of ten in 1980, the end of the Carter Administration, is now over the age of 38 years old! So a large fraction of the voting public had no understanding of politics, or wasn't even born, during the Carter Administration. This points out the fact that news which does not reiterate significance from the past leaves the voting public woefully uninformed.
In general, conservatism insists on memory of the past, and on assigning credit where credit is due based on performance. Opposition to conservatism comes from those who wish to be credited with good intentions irrespective of performance - and that is the very superficial criterion which the AP proposes.
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena - Theodore RooseveltThe conservative credits the man in the arena, the "liberal" second guesses him and insinuates that his job is easy and he is incompetent - while staying safely outside the "arena" himself. And the difference between the "liberal" and the "objective journalist" is the fact that the latter has a paying job in journalism - only that, and nothing more. The attitudes involved are one and the same.SCOTUS is really the Kennedy Court - Justice Kennedy is always joined by at least four colleagues on any given case - and Kennedy opposed the McConnell v. FEC decision which validated the McCain-Feingold law. So McCain-Feingold - and hopefully the Fairness Doctrine - are dead laws walking. I would almost welcome an attempted revival of the Fairness Doctrine, because it doesn't have a constitutional leg to stand on and doesn't have a majority on SCOTUS.
The Right to Know amplifies on this.
Yes, we need to beat them at thier own game. Ijust don’t know how.
Any suggestions?
NPR and PBS and Pacifica are outright prohibited from engaging in political advocacy for or against any candidate, ballot intitiative, legislation, or party just as any church would be.
IF they are going to present a “discussion” of such a topic, they are to provide a balanced debate of the topic with representatives of both sides.
These organizations routinely engage in activist violation of their 501c3 tax status. If you go by the offices of some of these stations (Pacifica in particular) you will find Green Party membership literature in the “information” kiosks for visitors.
They are tax cheats and they do it on your dime.
They huff and puff over conservative talk radio but that is a COMMERCIAL enterprise. Same as when Al Franken gets a book published.
Al Franken’s radio franchise wasn’t so successful and to fund it some persons stole taxpayer money from the Boys and Girls Club in New York. No one went to jail over something like $1.1million in stolen money.
Thanks for posting FCC emails addresses.
I just sent them all:
“Please be advised as an American citizen I am opposed to FCC’s “localism.” rule as it simply a backdoor FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.”
Maybe if enough of us send them a little note they will get the picture.
The Dems have not been able to sell their idiot messages on the air despite advertisers like the Unions. Nobody wants to listen to their garbage, even the Dems.
I know that Rush has said, between the lines, that he has a plan. I believe him.
Long live conservative radio.
I just sent all of them an e-mail giving them my thoughts on the matter. Seriously though, as I have said before, the only way we are ever get their attention is a 10 million conservative man/woman march on Washingtom. That day is getting closer.
Not that he WOULD do that, mind you, but he could afford to.
Just wondering who would be listening, right now his target audience are seminar liberals, which some of them will pay, but all that would be left are his conservative listeners. The average run of the mill Katrina looter would be cut out and would never pay for it.
The marketplace of ideas and the choice of the American radio listening public have decided the popularity of what is today's talk radio. Please don't even THINK of trying to do in a stealthy way through "localism" what was already defeated in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2007 by a vote of 309 to 115.
Keep your hands off our radio! Stop with the attempted violation of the First Amendment.
ML/NJ
Successful talk radio isn’t going anyplace. Stay vigilant- but don’t let it keep you up at night. Billions of dollars in revenue, forty-odd million listeners, and a majority-rational set of Supremes, will make this fascist non-sense as DOA as Uday Hussein.
Talk to the hand, er, your Congress........
Bush didn't appoint anyone to congress and it's your congress that will make the decision on the Fairness Doctrine.......
digital tv is first.
then we will see digital radio.
Will people even stay with terestrial radio anymore?
the majority now watch tv as national broadcasts on cable/satellite/internet/etc.
Local radio is largely gone (but local tv disappeared first).
With the demise of local radio you lose:
local weather report updates DURING the progamming you listen to.
local advertisers are shut out of the commercial market (mailings and newspaper ads and maybe billboards are all that are left to them).
local talk show hosts who can discuss local politics (mayor’s race, city council measures, state politics, etc.).
News alerts in your community. News relevant to your community.
If we have to get new digital radios for our cars, who’d get one that just gets local progamming?
buh-bye free speech!
YEAH, IF WE LET IT HAPPEN!
____________________________
The only way the Federal Govt can take away our free speech is if GOOD MEN DO NOTHING! The only way evil can progress is if GOOD MEN DO NOTHING!
If we lose free speech, we lose everything. So I’m with you on this one. We must fight to keep it.
I think an Obama victory would result in a massive march on the capital over some measure or other.
We had conservatives stand up during impeachment and protest.
We had conservatives stand up in Florida when the Gorons tried to manufacture the vote.
BUT with President Obama, it won’t be called a “march” by the press. It’ll be called a RALLY.
And as one of the alphabet network news hosts said of the 1994 GOP congressional sweep:
America threw a temper tantrum.
The million who march will be called the ugliest names in history.
Your problem is that you ask the FCC. The IRS is the one to log your 501c3 tax status complaint with.
Read up on advocacy.
While it may seem like a forfeiture of their “Free speech” rights, it is. In exchange for a tax break.
They actively make the choice to agree to be non-partisan and not advocate one position over another on active political matters. But they do.
They could talk about reparations all they want because there is no legislation out there about it.
But if they talk about how it is “about time” for there to be impeachment proceedings against Bush, then they have violated the advocacy rules (Kookcinich introduced articles of impeachment this week).
Bush is not running for office, they can say “I oppose the Bush presidency”. That may be mere sedition (there is no other way to resolve their disagreement with who IS the president except to have upheaval in the government).
But if they talk of how Obama would be an improvement over Bush (and do not make a similar endorsement of McCain) then they are advocating a candidate for office.
If they say “Democrats need your help to get the Republicans from gaining seats in congress”, then that too is advocacy.
You are best to tape the radio as you listen so that you can submit the tape afterwards to the IRS.
If you rely on the station to present you with their own tape, you may find an “error” in the recording process or a backlog on such requests.
You should log the time, hosts, and nature of the complaint.
They DO understand the risk they face from IRS audit and loss of their tax status. Defund the Left.
Make them play by the rules.
None of the enumerated powers give congress the right to control the media or the press. Further, the first amendment not only guarantees free speech, but forbids government from abridging the press. Some room can probably be allowed for outright sedition during war, but that certainly doesn’t apply to conservative talk radio. The “fairness doctrine” would have to limit free speech for the time it requires to present “the other side”, whatever that is.
[The fairness doctrine is unconstitutional.]
So is the Campaign Finance Act, but that doesn’t stop it from being current law that the FEC is using to shut up political speech.
... and RINOs like Juan McAmesty handing the ‘Rats ammo to keep Bush pinned down.
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.