Posted on 11/12/2008 9:05:45 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
Barack Obama’s transition team has tapped former FCC Commissioner Henry Rivera, a longtime proponent of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," to head the team looking for the man or woman who will soon give Democrats a 3-to-2 advantage on the Federal Communications Commission.
It’s another troubling sign that Democrats are serious about trying to reinstate the long-defunct FCC regulation, which can more aptly be described as the "Censorship Doctrine" because of its chilling effect on free speech. In effect from 1949 to 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was an obstacle to open discussion of public policy issues on the radio; its removal in the Reagan years spawned the robust talk radio marketplace of ideas now enjoyed by millions.
While talk radio hosts often warned during the campaign that free speech could be trampled by an all-Democratic majority, the broadcast networks have failed to react to this dangerous threat to the First Amendment. A review shows the broadcast networks — whose affiliates could also be regulated — have failed to run even a single story mentioning the push for a new Fairness Doctrine.
The most recent mention of the Fairness Doctrine was on May 30, 2007, when in an interview on CBS’s The Early Show, Al Gore bizarrely called it a "protection" that was removed during the Reagan years.
But there has been news to report, as Democrats have been more than candid about their plans. On Election Day, for example, New York Senator Charles Schumer justified regulating political speech. "The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air," Schumer told the Fox News Channel. "You can’t say, ‘government hands off in one area’ to a commercial enterprise, but you’re allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent."
In late October, Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman told a New Mexico radio station how he "hopes" the Fairness Doctrine returns so radio will be more to his liking: "For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country. I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."
Democrats have launched various attempts to control of broadcast content since the Fairness Doctrine’s demise in 1987, but the push has become more insistent in the past couple of years. After the failure of a liberal immigration bill in 2007, Senator Dianne Feinstein told Fox News Sunday that she was "looking at" a new Fairness Doctrine because "talk radio tends to be one-sided....It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information." As with Schumer and Bingaman recently, none of the broadcast networks thought Feinstein’s threats worth reporting.
Journalists aren’t known for turning a blind eye to free speech issues. In 2003, ABC, CBS and NBC ran 33 stories on criticism of the Dixie Chicks for speaking out against President Bush and the Iraq war. ABC’s Jim Wooten darkly warned: "All this has reminded some of the McCarthy Era's blacklists that barred those even accused of communist sympathies for working in films or on television."
When Democrats first pushed to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in 1987-88, both the New York Times and Washington Post came down strongly on the side of free speech. In a June 24, 1987 editorial, the Post called the concept of a Fairness Doctrine repulsive:
"The truth is...that there is no ‘fairness’ whatever in the ‘fairness’ doctrine. On the contrary, it is a chilling federal attempt to compel some undefined ‘balance’ of what ideas radio and television news programs are to include....The ‘fairness doctrine’ undercuts free, independent, sound and responsive journalism — substituting governmental dictates. That is deceptive, dangerous and, in a democracy, repulsive."
Now that the Left is gearing up to suffocate talk radio, the media’s First Amendment solidarity seems to have been eclipsed by their loyalty to the would-be censors of the Democratic Party.
They’re not going to silence us, folks. They’ll try to play “whack-a-mole” but our message will continue to re-surface. Any closely elected Dem Senator in an anotherwise red state would be gone in the next election for hitching their wagon to this.
Let ‘em try. The enemy (and yes, they are a domestic enemy — let’s call ‘em what they are) will swagger and boast how they’ll knock us off the airwaves, but they will have the biggest fight on their hands they could imagine.
This is much different than the ‘80s, because we’re now awash in new media everywhere. Say the worst-case scenaro occurs and the FD wins out — You can bet Sirius/XM will be the next outlet for conservative talk radio. This will not be allowed to happen easily. There is a HUGE swath of support out there to keep things the way they are.
Exactly! “Exploit”,,,if this dem riot goes too far, we must make sure we are wise, and not responding to being baited.
They want a reichstag to burn, so they can finally justify the sweeping repressions they desire so deeply.
I agree,, and im stunned to find myself thinking Clinton was at least not a full on revolutionary. This current crowd is different somehow.
They darn well better remember that turnout was just under 62% according to The Center for the Study of the American Electorate (CSAE). And that doesn't count unregistered voters.
I agree. The mere fact Obama appointed him screams he will govern left. I will never forget his new Rev. on his campaign stage saying "what up Hannity"
Obama is as full of hate partisan as Nancy Pelosi,the leftist dems and the black congressional caucus. The message is that he is hateful liberal and not a moderate President for all.
What would their grounds be for a lawsuit? Copyright infringement is wearing thin.
Oh, I'd say that the broadcast networks reacted to this threat - they reacted by joining Obama's campaign in a very obvious manner.
It was all of the MSM*s unfair campaigning for Obama that cost McCain the election. IF they run Rush, Hannity, Savage off the air, then they should be able to go to work beside Gibson, Williams or CouricKKK, right? Or maybe they would rather work with Crissy cry baby Matthews or that lunatic Keith Olberman. Sounds fair to me. Rush was hilarious when he was on TV before, and he would get more exposure on ABCCBSNBC or PMSNBC. LOL
I think you misuderstand, it does not matter what grounds they use, they will just sue.
The idea is to overhwlem the independent sites and make it too costly to voice dissent.
They don't have to win they just have to deplete the oppositions resources (MONEY).
Clinton is now out of the picture, while George Bush and Republicans in Congress have pretty much cured the "problem" of any residual conservative influence. But Obama himself is the bigger concern - he is very different from Clinton. I do not believe he is as interested (as Bill was) in the trappings of power as he is interested in the exercise of power.
Wow,,, great analysis my friend
Sirius and XM merged into a single entity.
gnip...
...It would just speed up the threat of CWII.
No...begining of the Second Revolution!
And why isn't there a lot of information, Ms. Feinstein? Perhaps because your lapdogs in the media don't provide enough in the first place?
I think as long as you put the scare quotes around it, we all know what you mean.
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.