Posted on 02/08/2009 4:45:51 AM PST by Man50D
As the National Religious Broadcasters convened today in Nashville, an ominous shroud cast by political chatter about the reimposition of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in the nation's capital hung over the gathering.
NRB President Frank Wright said he sees the move as a credible threat under a Democrat-dominated Congress and with President Obama in the White House.
"And we have a personal concern," Wright told Broadcasting & Cable. "The only radio station that ever lost its license under the fairness doctrine regime was a Christian radio station in Red Lion, Pa. We are only responding now to the statements the Democrats themselves are making."
Representing 1,400 organizations, including large ministries and TV and radio stations, NRB said it is "girding itself for a major battle over broadcasting freedoms," and was prepared to go to court, lobby Congress, or take its message to the public.
"We have talked before about many of these issues, but now, with the shift in the political landscape, I think these same things have a much higher probability of being enacted or at least having legislation and hearings and debates, and on the regulation side at the FCC," said Wright.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Somebody please tell me why the GOP couldn’t sponser a “fairness” bill that addresses “imbalance” in Cable/Network media and Achademia (K-Universy)?
Why not fight fire with fire?
The problem will be with the enforcers and “fairness” committee members.
They will be infested with leftists, and all commiprop will be considered “neutral” or “normal”, and any criticism thereof will be considered controversial and in need of “balance”.
Because a number of GOPers also support a Fairness Doctrine....everyone seems to forget, during the Illegal Alien Amnesty sham bill they were trying to pass...Trent Lott made comments about regulating what could be said on talk-radio
I need to dig up that article....heck it probably is already on FR somewhere (because I remember it posted here)
Unfortunately, for every Mike Pence in the GOP....there seems to be another GOP who will advocate a Fairness Doctrine
BTW....this article is very important to read and remember...and it was a Christian radio station that lost its license in the old Fairness Doctrine. I remember studying this in a intro broadcasting course
The Red Lion case no doubt influenced Reagan and the other conservatives who wanted to do away with the FD in the 1980’s (and another reminder of the great legacy of Reagan)
I might be inclined to support this fairness doctrine if the NYT’s were included.
How about this.....
Fairness
There is currently under way an effort to return the Fairness Doctrine that will in effect limit free speech on the public airways. The Federal Communications Commission can reinstate the rule with no action by the US Congress or the President. The thought is that utterances on the radio must be fair and that a second view must be given equal time.
The public airways are actually a spectrum that has been divided into numerous specific frequency ranges that are corridors along which a radio wave carrying information is transmitted.. This proposed action regulating the information carried is a Federal matter since the airways are considered to be part of interstate commerce and require a Federal license. The states have no say in the matter.
The purpose of this essay is to develop a logical thought pattern that will permit the various States to gain some control of intra state transmission of information. That would be particularly true of my State, Tennessee.
Within the State of Tennessee information is transmitted and transferred by several methods but in this piece consideration will be restricted to two, printed publications and cable TV.
All printed material be it newspapers manufactured within the state borders or magazines, CD’s, DVD’s, recorded tapes or other similar publications from numerous sources are transported on the Tennessee public streets, roads and highways. These transportation corridors are in every respect similar to the spectral corridors regulated by the FCC except the roadways are regulated by the state of Tennessee. It is there fore a very logical step to conclude that based on the logic of information flow regulation by the FCC over federally regulated corridors, a similar regulatory body can be established by the State to assure that fairness is achieved in information carried or transported on the state regulated corridors and roadways. Printed publications must be fair to be transported over public ways.
In a similar vein, the state of Tennessee should be able to regulate the use of rights of way that are actually part of the same streets, roads and highways noted above. These rights of way are heavily used for various purposes including the physical presence of fiber optic and coaxial cable that are in fact information corridors similar to the FCC regulated corridors that are the public airways. The cable companies transporting on the public rights of way should be subject to the same fairness regulations governing the printed media transported on the adjacent roadways. Cable information must be fair to be transported over public rights of way.
There is no difference. Printed media and cable TV information are both transported along public ways .There is no difference between printed media transported over public roads and voice utterances transmitted over radio waves. Thoughts are transmitted over public ways.
Then there is the question of the first amendment and free speech. It can be argued that such regulation is a violation of the First Ammendment to the Constitution. That is obviously not the case or the FCC would not be able to impose the Fairness Doctrine. There is no action in the regulation preventing the free exercise of the right to say what ever the writer or publisher or news commentator desires. They can say what ever they want with no fear of any retribution by the State of Tennessee. If they desire to propagate the speech using the public ways, then they are subject to fairness regulation. The precedent for the State regulatory authority is the FCC regulated Federal authority.
If the public ways are restricted, then how can the speech material be propagated? The answer is quite simple. If the speaker wants to sell his material, he can set up a place of business where the public can come and buy what ever is for sale. The speaker can also go into an out of door site and speak whatever comes to mind to all within earshot. His rights of free speech are not restricted by regulations of the transport of the medium packets. It is the transport of those information packets on public ways that is regulated.
Wonderful. As an added benefit, all those unemployed writers can get work reading the articles to check for bias and instead of drawing welfare they can work for a living.
This is a serious threat to all free speech in America. These "PINKO" liberal politicians want to supress their opposition just the same way as Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, and Chaves. If "We The People" let this happen, what's next? Right!! One by one "The Bill of Rights" will fall like ten pins...one at a time.
“Somebody please tell me why the GOP couldn’t sponser a “fairness” bill that addresses “imbalance” in Cable/Network media and Achademia (K-University”
Not only that, but in all levels of schooling. Saw on Beck’s show video of a teacher chiding her pre-teen students who dared to say they liked McCain, while praising those who like 0bama. Proselytizing has no place in the classroom.
When McCain and Palin were going to be in Virginia Beach I mentioned to my daughter’s 5th grade teacher the possibility we would be taking her out of school that day if we could see our way clear to attend. The teacher encouraged us to attend and to take our daughter with us. She considered such a trip an excusable absence from school. We went, we took her, and it was an excused absence from school.
when she brought home her Monday folder the day before election day, the teacher had made a notation in her journal for the date of election day that said “Go McCain.”
Why are you so leery of the government? The “Fairness Doctine” is nothing to fear, in fact it solidifies your position. It as at once a SOCIAL CALMING idea and a huge STIMULUS for employment. I have great confidence that Dr. Goebbels will institute such policies that will calm the populace and end the devisive speech of such trouble makers as Mr. Limbaugh and his evil ilk. In addition, the placing of an Overseer of Content into each and every radio station will create employment for thousands of otherwise unemployable “liberal arts” graduates. A new age will be upon us.
Pardon me while I look for my barf bag.
Will we see the new ‘Islamic 700 Club’ showing the top 700 martyrs that made suicide attacks in the US?
Now with an alternate opinion to Rev. Jones’s sermon is Satan.
The “Fairness Doctrine” is a paradoxical statment if there ever was one. Only the less informed Obama supporter would be taken in by it. It does away with the First Amendment so we are going in the direction of Nazi Germany, one step at a time. Creeping Socalism or National Socialism—take your choice. God Help the USA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2172649/posts
it is important not to let leftists frame the argument. ask the mod to put “censorship doctrine” in parentheses next to the title.
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.