The Threat of the Fairness Doctrine is Very Real

Michelle Bachmann ^

[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!

[going hot]

not to let the lib have the mike for three hous, but a debate style format, where the lib spouts, then they are methodically dissected, with every one listening.

One of the best options we have to win hearts and minds is to place the actual liberal ideology, unvarnished, square in every one's face (ears?), then use logic and facts to dismantle it.

The liberal strenght is not in their ideas, but the obfuscation and smoke and mirrors used to get their way.

When conversing with libs (I meet many daily here in CA), I separate the fast talkers (that speak loud and fast trying to shovel bad info down my ears) from those who actually pause to allow a response. Then I calmly dismantle their views, until they get pissed and storm off, or walk away thinking about what was said.

There is not one liberal idea that will actually result in prosperity, self reliance, freedom or liberty. We simply need to have more sheeple start considering the actual facts of their case, not just the glossed over media presented half truths framed so as to make the tripe palatable.

I believe a public forum might just be the answer, certainly the current media controlled public forum is rigged.

[KoRn]

I can’t imagine how the “Fairness Doctrine” could possibly stand up in the courts, but of course I remember us saying the same thing about “Campaign Finance Reform”.

[rvoitier]

Furthermore,

Administrative actions by zero's choice for fcc chairman can do more 'damage' to the right's cause and in a much more stealthier way.

[windsorknot]

Fairness Doctrine = Kill Dissent Doctrine

[Joann37]

What about those idiotic daytime shows? Would this mean that Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham could do a show counter to the View? And maybe Sarah could counter Ellen’s gay agenda? Laura Bush could counter Oprah?

Seriously, wouldn’t the above be required if their “Fairness” doctine was actually enacted?

[Stentor]

This is from Wikipedia

"Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), established the doctrine that broadcast television stations (and by logical extension, radio stations) are full First Amendment speakers whose editorial speech could not be regulated absent good reason. However, because they were granted government licenses on a scarce radio spectrum, they could be regulated to preserve openness in covering news by the FCC. The FCC by administrative rulemaking had a requirement that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. 395 U.S. 367, 369. As a result the FCC added an "equal time rule" and a "response to personal attack" rule. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. challenged these rules as unconstitutionally infringing on the speech of the station's editorial judgement. Justice Byron White, writing for the majority explained, the FCC has included among the conditions of the Red Lion license itself the requirement that operation of the station be carried out in the public interest. Id. at 380."

[Joann37]

And what about Leno, Letterman and Stewart? Do we get to have Christian comedians, or some other “talent” to counter their conservative bashing?

This MUST occur if they remove Sean and Rush from the airwaves.

[Mr. Mojo]

Schmucky Schumer comparing conservative talk radio to pornography? Nice. There’ll be hell to pay if the lib-dominated gov’t tosses both the 1st amendment and 2nd amendments into the constitutional trashbin. ...and I doubt Shmucky and Co. realize the full extent of that payment.

[Ditter]

Want to bet that Rush hasn’t thought about what he is going to do? Like buying his own island and constructing his own radio station?

[Paulus Invictus]

I have a copy of an ancient document in good old English that states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people to assemble, and to petition the Goverment for a redress of grievances."

Questions: Has that marvelous document become a useless relic to be ignored by RAT Congresscritters? As for redress, can't some citizens ask for redress from a Fairness law that Congress may well pass and enforce? And the Supremes, will they have they no say in the matter until the proposed law is passed, enforced and challenged? You lawyers, help me out here with some answers, keeping in mind that Obama is a "Constitutional scholar and lecturer" and may already have a legal "out." (Barf!)

[foobarred]

Keep pushing idiots. It will blow up in your face.

I agree. The Fairness Doctrine is likely to be unconstitutional anyway. Their end goals is to remove Rush and Hannity off the airways. They'll find other ways of doing that.

Perhaps, they'll find a "hate crime" and attribute it to Hannity, and cause public outrage. The radio stations will then be picketed a-la-Acorn/CRA. Then all it takes is one or two stations to drop Hannity and Limbaugh and the MSM will go wild. It will start a domino effect and other stations will do the same.

The MSM will be complicent in this action as they have everything to gain. They are losing share in the media market to the internet and AM radio. They would like nothing more than to see a competitor go down in flames. Furthermore, if Obama's strongest critics are removed, then the MSM does not have to distance themselves from Obama at any time since then, they would have a near monolopy of ideas.

[classified]

RUSH is smart! He hasn’t mention NADA to any of his millions of listeners, about how he will get around the Censorship Doctrine. I am sure he has been planning for some time.

[mjp]

It’s not the Fairness Doctrine..........it’s Communist Doctrine.

"They demand the right to enforce ideas at the point of a gun,that is through the power of government, and compel the submission of others to the views and wishes of those who would gain control of the government's machinery."

For The New Intellectual

Ayn Rand

[snowrip]

Wow, there’s still someone who listens to O’Reilly?

[Ditter]

Could it be the reason he moved to Florida in the first place was to be closer to his island? Hi Rush I love you!

[navymom1]

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?

___________________________

Absolutely not. I think we all need to sound the alarm. Free speech more than the second amendment keeps our liberties in check. You can’t promote ideas with a gun. Well, I guess you could to a lesser effect but that isn’t the point. If we lose our free speech, we lose our freedom. It’s that simple

But let’s also look at facts in this present economy. After running for a few weeks on their current high, the dems will have to look at the market place. If they reinstate the Fairness Doctrine what will happen to advertisers? radio stations? In their giddiness will the dems willingly bankrupt another segment of this econmy out of their own desire to censor speech? If they do and if the Republicans remain silent, then the Republican party is also the enemy.

[Bernard Marx]

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.

You mean like they did when this mis-named piece of authoritarian junk was first imposed in 1949? People put up with it for 38 years, until Republicans gained Congressional control! The plan was always to silence conservatives.

Its only purpose now is to kill off conservative talk shows. No media outlet can afford to "balance" a profitable on-air personality like Rush with dead-loss idiots from Air America for 3 hours daily. The Dems know this.

[gost2]

Fairness doctrine my a$$! Let em pass it. It will be a major boon to satellite radio, the internet, cable TV and if they close all those outlets down we’ll go pirate.

One good thing about this FD bullcrap. It lets you know who the real goons are in politics. They need to go to the top of the list for a necktie party when the sheite hits the fan around here.

We need a revolution like the French had. I used to think they went too far and got Napoleon as a result. These days I understand why they decided to give so many aristocrats a dirt nap.

[PubliusMM]

“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!”

Or...maybe not... It’s more likely that broadcasters, for the most part, will seek the path of least resistance, and drop, or severly curtail, ALL political/ideological programming.

There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine; and, it should be left to rust and decay in the scrapyard of lousy ideas.

[snowrip]

This can be turned around to our favor.

It absolutely cannot.

The point of the FD isn't to get the liberal viewpoint out, it is to get conservative radio to go belly up. Radio is a business, and depends on advertising revue to operate. With with the resulting decrease in listership that comes with liberal commentators comes a decrease in advertising revenue to the stations. Air America failed as a business because they couldn't raise money, and liberals know this.

The first goal of socialism is to silence what socialists call the "counterrevolution"; that is, to silence the ability of a free society to resist socialism. That is what the Fairness Doctrine is about.