Posted on 01/30/2009 7:28:05 AM PST by Delacon
Does President Barack Obama believe that the greatest threat to progress resides in Rush Limbaugh? Earlier this week while trying to sell his Trillion Dollar Debt Plan to Republican leaders, Obama said, “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Thankfully House Republicans listened to the hundreds of constituents calling their offices asking them to vote against the bill and not the guy who thinks he can buy their votes with a couple of cocktail and Super Bowl parties. Now we find out that Obama’s far left allies are upping the ante. The leftist umbrella organization American Untied for Change is pouring money into radio ads in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada. The ads ask listeners, “Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?”
Clearly the left believe they can get Republicans to sacrifice their principles by demonizing and isolating Rush Limbaugh. So much for that new era of bipartisanship. But what if all of Obama’s old-school politics of division fails to win him any Republican votes? What is the next arrow in his political quiver?
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell previewed what may be the Left’s next line of attack at a speech to the Media Institute in Washington this Wednesday. McDowell warned that when the left comes to silence Rush and other Obama critics, they will not be dumb enough to try and do it under the label Fairness Doctrine: “That’s just Marketing 101: if your brand is controversial, make a new brand.” Multichannel News reports that McDowell even suggested that a stealth version of the doctrine may already be teed up at the FCC in the form of “Localism” rules which empower community advisory boards to help dictate local
No one should be surprised by this development. Last year the brain trust for the Obama Administration, the Center for American Progress released a report entitled: The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. Here is what they said about already existing legal authority to implement Fairness Doctrine/Localism-type rules:
First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. … the original Communications Act still requires commercial broadcasters “to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.” … Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper.
So what new policy recommendations does CAP advise?
The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders.
…
We recommend the following steps the FCC should take to ensure local needs are being met:
- Provide a license to radio broadcasters for a term no longer than three years.
- Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation and viewing of how they are meeting these obligations.
So under the old Fairness Doctrine, free speech on the radio was stifled by an FCC rule that required broadcasters to devote reasonable time to fairly presenting all sides of any controversial issue discussed on the air, with the government deciding the meaning of all the italicized words. Under the CAP Localism rule broadcasters must renew their licenses every three years instead of every eight and when they do so the must “show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest” with public interest being defined as whatever ACORN like community organizers the left can rustle up to help define “community needs.”
Whenever controversial issues come up that President Obama wants to avoid talking about, he calls them “distractions.” And the Fairness Doctrine/Localism Rule issue may be just that. Commissioner McDowell also said, through aides, Obama had signaled to him that he would not re-impose the Fairness Doctrine. If Obama wants to prove his desire to protect the First Amendment is deeper than his desire to silence Rush Limbaugh, then he should go on record and disavow both the Fairness Doctrine and its equally perniciousness cousin, Localism.
They'd never do that!
You forgot the /s
In many ways, it's better because I can drive 1500 miles nonstop without losing the channel and the signal is always crystal clear. I don't like the idea that so few stations can be received that broadcast Rush. The ones that do, fade in and out too often. I miss too many of his shows, but get all of the ones who have gone to Satellite. (Levin, Hannity, Laura, Humphries, etc,.)
“In a battle between Obama and Limbaugh, it will be Limbaugh left standing. Bring in on, homey.”
poor bastard thinks he has rush surrounded!
Why are not protesters taking to the streets? After all, the sodomites took time off from sticking their penises into other men’s recta to protest the passage of Proposition 8.
There is no bright side. Radio’s accessibility is equaled only by TV. If Rush et al are chased onto satelite, their audience will be a fraction of what it is now. Besides, what of all the 2nd and 3rd string political commentators that fill the airwaves in local markets? If radio stations choose not to air them out of fear of running afowl of FCC regulations, then we lose a lot more that Rush and the other big names because those guys wont be able to find a place on satelite radio.
I do think he signed a contract for over $400 million.
He’ll have plenty of cash.
O’Reilly won’t do a thing. He’s yelled at FReepers on his show.
Screw him
ping!
That’s why I love Ann Coulter.
The thing that separates Talk Radio from Talk Television or Newspapers is the use of the public airwaves.
The Fairness Doctrine was trying to stifle opposition under the guise of fair use of the limited radio frequencies. Cable TV (not broadcast), and newspapers did not use the public airwaves, and therefore were not under the control of the government.
The government ostensibly is not trying to stifle speech, but ensure that all speech has equal access to limited airwaves, but in reality they are using the fiction of limited airwaves to stop the overwhelming popularity of Talk Radio, because their own views fail when presented on Talk Radio.
It's not a problem of the public not having access to diverse points of view. They are trying to force individual media outlets to offer all sides in order to drive them out of business, instead of recognizing that collectively, all media combined offer all points of view. It's like have a hamburger restaurant, a pizza restaurant, and a chicken restaurant that collectively satisfy the public appetite, vs. forcing all restaurants to serve hamburgers, pizza, and chicken to everyone.
-PJ
Rush 2012!!!!
And to say Barry's action here is un American, is an understatement of the nth degree. This is something that even Hitler didn't do. Though it is a tactic used over and over by the Communists and the USSR. Alexander Litvinenko and Georgi Markov could attest to that -- if they were still alive.
So Barry better tone down his rhetoric against Rush. If his words incite one or some of his moonbat Obamamaniacs to do something 'rash', the poop will hit the fan.
(It almost seems like Barry is begging for a Civil War.)
Check out www.thepeoplescube.com if you need more ideas...
ping
Thanks for the ping!
“Freep poll : Rush or obama?
Are You With Obama or Rush?”
LOL. The poll is currently at 55% Rush to 41% Obama and this on NBCPhiladelphia’s website. Philly not being a conservative enclave and all.
I pinged 4 Rush(keyword) FR posts with that request. The Poll is stupid BUT it’s funny if Obama looses. We Need to ping any new Rush posts.
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.