Fairness Doctrine A Minor Issue - Obama Ready To Confiscate TV Stations' Licenses!

All this talk about the "Fairness Doctrine" is obscuring the real danger to America's freedom of the press. The real issue is the Obama administration's desire to steal television broadcasting licenses from the current station owners and give them to his radical friends such as ACORN and the labor unions.

This is not some "black helicopter" conspiracy. It's very real, and like Obama's other most-dangerous plans, can be implemented by the simple stroke of the pen.

First, a little background on the real value of television stations. In the words of Fred Friendly, television stations really exist only for one purpose, "to make money for the people who own the television stations." All the traditional talk about "serving the community" is simply that; it's just talk.

The real value of the television station is its ability to make money by charging for the commercials it airs. A typical medium-sized city television station might have a sale price of $$400 to $550 million dollars. The actual station, the building, towers, cameras and all the rest of the electronics are probably worth no more than $12 to $15 million, at the most. All the rest of the value comes from the licensed broadcast stations ability to charge thousands of dollars per minute to cast electrons humming the McDonald's jingle into the thin air. A television station truly has the ability to turn electricity into million dollar bills.

So obviously, if the building is only worth $15,000,000, it's the license, the federal permit to broadcast, that's worth the rest of the $400,000.000 to $550,000,000.

Television broadcasting station license renewal has been almost automatic for the last 50 years. The license renewal period of seven years was designed to spread the renewal cycles around the country and ensure they were removed from any political influence. Now Barack Obama wants to change all that!

During a speech in Chicago, sponsored by Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH coalition, Obama's nominee to head the FCC, Michael J. Copps promised a radical change in station renewal procedures. The changes he proposed would effectively eliminate the "freedom of the press" enjoyed by our television station news departments. I know many of us believe, (from experience) that television news operations are hopelessly far-left liberal. Imagine how much worse it would be if television station owners knew that Obama could take away 95% of the value of their broadcast station investments by simply refusing to renew their license, because they offended him.

In his speech, Copps said that major "corporate interests" owned too many radio and television stations. He told the audience that those broadcast licenses should be taken away from those "corporate interests" and given to "the people." When asked who he meant by "the people," Copps replied that labor union political action committees, labor unions themselves, and organizations such as ACORN were the ones that he would like to see benefit by this broadcasting license reassignment.

But Copps and Obama are not willing to wait seven years for the full impact of this radical change to sink in. Instead of the seven-year renewal cycle, they want to require that each and every broadcasting station in the United States renew its license every two years! Simply put, that means that every broadcasting station, the major source of news and information for most Americans, would have to have its license renewed at the pleasure of Mr. Copps and Mr. Obama before the next presidential election!

Just for a moment, put yourself into the position of a broadcast station owner. You have a choice; try, to the best of your ability to provide an open and honest review and discussion of the American political scene, or, to make sure Copps and Obama don't get angry at you and take away your $500,000,000 + broadcasting license.

The time cycle of broadcast station relicensing is covered by FCC regulations, and Copps and Obama can change it all with the stroke of the pen.

This is very real, it's here and it's now. While we are all concerned with the admittedly important issue of the Fairness Doctrine, Obama may make it all moot by taking away from the broadcast station owners any interest whatsoever in having a real, critical, and free press.

The founding fathers envisioned newspapers and other media as a check and balance on the intrusive and overbearing government. By placing the owners of that media in fear of their very livelihood, Obama is ready to take away any desire or ability they will ever have to tell us what his government is really doing.

From a previous thread "Depends on What the Meaning of 'Fairness Doctine' Is ":

Obama's 2007 FCC letter to Federal Communications Chairman Kevin J. Martin made clear that Obama supported media-ownership caps and increased minority ownership of print and broadcast media.

Getting a Democrat-controlled FCC to enforce these agenda items will allow President Obama to get Fairness Doctrine results—a diminished right-wing radio presence—while still claiming to oppose the Fairness Doctrine.

Below are the relevant portions of the 2007 letter.

Dear Chairman Martin:

I am writing regarding your proposal to move forward aggressively with modifications to existing media ownership rules. … I believe both the proposed timeline and process are irresponsible.

Minority owned and operated newspapers and radio stations play a critical role in the African American and Latino communities and bring minority issues to the forefront of our national discussion. However, the commission has failed to further the goals of diversity in the media and promote localism, and as a result, it is in no position to justify allowing for increased consolidation of the market. …

While the FCC did commission two studies on minority ownership in the round of 10 studies it ordered at the beginning of 2007, both su ered from the same problem—inadequate data from which to make determinations on the status of minority media ownership or the causes for that status and ways to increase representation.

It is time to put together an independent panel … to issue a specific proposal for furthering the goal of diversity in media ownership. I object to the agency moving forward to allow greater consolidation in the media market without fi rst fully understanding how that would limit opportunities for minority-, small business and women-owned firms. …

I find it disturbing that, according to The New York Times, the commission is considering repealing the newspaper and television cross ownership rules. It is unclear what your intent is on the rest of the media ownership regulations. Repealing the cross ownership rules and retaining the rest of our existing regulations is not a proposal that has been put out for public comment; the proper process for vetting it is not in closed-door meetings with lobbyists or in selective leaks to The New York Times.

Although such a proposal may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specifi c proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy. And the commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate.

This is not the first time I have communicated with the agency on this matter. Sen. Kerry and I wrote to you on July 20, 2006, stating that the commission needed to address and complete a proceeding on issues of minority and small business media ownership before taking up the wider media ownership rules. Our request echoed an amendment adopted by the Senate Commerce Committee in June 2006. …

I ask you to reconsider your proposed timeline, put out any specific change to the rules for public comment and review, move to establish an independent panel on minority and small business media ownership, and complete a proceeding on the responsibilities that broadcasters have to the communities in which they operate.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2188628/posts

PETITION TO BLOCK CONGRESSIONAL
ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS

To: U.S. Congress, President of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States

Whereas, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances";

Whereas, members of Congress are recently on record saying they want to re-impose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" on U.S. broadcasters, or else accomplish the same goal of censoring talk radio by other means, and thereby establish government and quasi-government watchdogs as the arbiters of "fairness" rather than the free and open marketplace of ideas;

Whereas, the U.S. experimented with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for 38 years - from 1949 through 1987 - during which time it was repeatedly used by presidents and other political leaders to muzzle dissent and criticism;

Whereas, the abandonment of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987, thanks to President Ronald Reagan, resulted in an unprecedented explosion of new and diverse voices and political speech - starting with Rush Limbaugh - that revitalized the AM radio band and provided Americans with a multitude of alternative viewpoints;

Whereas, talk radio is one of the most crucial components of the free press in America, and is single-handedly responsible for informing tens of millions of Americans about what their government leaders are doing;

Whereas, it is a wholly un-American idea that government should be the watchdog of the press and a policeman of speech, as opposed to the uniquely American ideal of a free people and a free press being the vigilant watchdogs of government;

Whereas, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" - either under that name, or using a new name and even more devious methods - represents a frontal assault on the First Amendment, and its re-imposition would constitute nothing more nor less than the crippling of America's robust, unfettered, free press:

SIGN THE PETITION at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=87882

Freepmail me if you want to join my fairness doctrine ping list.

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.