Posted on 11/13/2008 10:19:41 AM PST by NCjim
The DC Examiner has a troubling editorial today on a new rule being proposed by Bush's FCC that would represent a threat to the unfettered marketplace of ideas on talk radio while in practice, giving power to anti-free speech elements to dictate what can be broadcast.
As free speech advocates gear up to oppose revival of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” another Orwellian-named government effort to dictate the content of radio and TV news and opinion has been hatched by the Bush administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC). So far, there’s been much less focus on the “localism rule” – even though it would have a similar chilling effect on First Amendment rights.
Under the FCC’s proposed regulations, owners of radio and TV stations would become subject to permanent advisory boards whose members – aka “community organizers” - would be chosen according to politically correct multi-cultural nostrums requiring representation of all “stakeholders.” These boards would be empowered by the FCC to decide if stations were airing a “sufficient amount of community-responsive programming”- with neither “sufficient” nor “responsive” defined. A negative advisory board finding could mean loss of a station owner’s broadcasting license.
The proposed regulations would also require broadcasters to maintain a 24/7 physical presence at broadcasting facilities, limit their use of celebrity “voice tracking” and network programming, require them to fund journalism schools, and give their music playlists to the FCC. Whatever else might be the FCC’s intention with this proposal, it is clear its application would vastly increase the cost of operating a station, while reducing the economic and editorial freedom of the owner. To what end? Experts warn that such rules will kill talk radio – one of the few mass media that favors conservatives. But more is at stake here than protecting the right of 12 million Americans to continue tuning in to Rush Limbaugh on the radio.
Indeed, the chances are very good that these "stakeholders" who would oversee the political content on radio stations could fairly easily call into question a broadcaster's commitment to a “sufficient amount of community-responsive programming" by urging some of their allies to complain to Big Brother at the FCC. It is likely that some stations would drop talk radio altogether rather than risk the hassle of dealing with an FCC challenge to their programming content.
In the end, the effect would be exactly the same as the Fairness Doctrine; conservative talk radio would end up subsidizing liberal programming due to the left's inability to develop mass market appeal in the medium.
The FCC can read the election returns as well as anybody. No doubt some of those folks want to keep their jobs after Obama takes office. Is this rule an effort to pander to the new administration? If so, it doesn't bode well for the future of free speech under Obama.
Atlas Shrugged.......
No “Bush the Socialist” doesn’t think he has done enough for his socialist comrades.
The First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone a forum.
Exactly right. The FCC is an independent agency.
IMO, this is the real issue. Right now, the FCC doesn't regulate the internet or satellite radio. A new fairness doctrine would have the effect of pushing Rush over to XM and Sirius (Hannity and Laura Ingraham are already on satellite). AM radio would have to re-invent itself or go out of business. The libs would then have to push for FCC regulation of satellite radio.
Howard Stern barely registered a blip on the radar for Sirius' subscriber numbers, but Rush moving to Sirius would be HUGH!
On FR there are several democrats posing as conservatives to “divide” the party. Savage isn’t that radio announcers last name and he used be part of SDS people’s lives, and probably was one. He is a divisive person, because a third party would not hurt liberals, but would divide the conservatives thereby rendering them unable to win elections for many, many years.
Bush has gotten criticizm he doesn’t deserve on so many occasions. For example: A bunch on here wanted him to NOT ATTEND THE OPENING CEREMONY TO THE OLYMPICS....that would have been an insult to the Chinese...Why? Because his parents were Ambassaders or something to Chinese government, and lived there for some time. There is protocol to many things in Gov’t, and there are cultural issues that can create terrible misunderstandings and as I read some of this stuff it just amazes me how people think “they know it all” and have all the answers as to what a President should and should not do...or even if he could do it, as the Executive Branch is limited in power and much of what he does needs congress approval.
Right. Only views you approve of should have access to the channels of information.
Air America’s roll out PROVED that access to the airwaves for liberal views is not a problem.
Therefore there is no need for a Fairness Doctrine.
Thank you. If they are discussing this, it is on Obama’s information of his new appointment who will allow that vote to be in favor of some censorship like the UNFAIR “fairness doctrine”.
I’ sure HUGH would appreciate that...
I think this qualifies as “Friendly Fire”!!!
—my FR name is bushwon—now I starting to wish he hadn’t :(
How much more damage can this Administration do before they leave office?
From what I understand about the original Fairness Doctrine it would only affect talk or opinion oriented formats, not news or groups who are not discussion politics openly.
Where we get our information is more important than the information itself. If that information is scewed in a certain direction we end up “buying” into the attitude of the presenter, and not able to understand the truth of the matter. In the next few years we are going to be “tested” with propaganda that will be presented by those who are supposedly on our side, and if we are not careful, then they will be able to turn the conservatives against one anotherl. They are counting on it, in order to be able to win another election, for many will come to their senses while others fall under the deceptions of O.
I don't think it's that complicated.
Liberals are embarassed to be liberals. And they are sheep addicted to 'group think' and identify more with the group than their own principles.
Therefore, when they try and sell their BS to conservatives, they claim to be conservatives.
I believe it is Colin Powell’s son who is/was head of FCC.
Thank You!
No. No one is entitled to access the public airwaves. Any printing press or internet or cable broadcast that doesn’t depend on using a limited public resource is and should always remain unregulated. To use the radio spectrum, however, is fundamentally different. There is only a limited number of radio stations that can operate in any given market. The need for them to act for the public benefit is therefore higher.
Chirstian radio woukd need to give equal time to the other side!!!!!
What “team” are you on?
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.