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
ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS
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