Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

His Royal Fairness
The American Spectator ^ | 2.24.09 | Brett Joshpe

Posted on 02/24/2009 6:40:17 AM PST by Delacon

The White House announced last week that the President "does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated." The Fairness Doctrine, which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) -- acting under Ronald Reagan -- repealed in 1987, would dictate that broadcasters cover issues of public importance and devote equal time to both sides of controversial issues.

On its face, the administration's recent comments seem to deflate hopes of the expanding roster of groups and politicians calling for revival of the Doctrine. The American Spectator reported recently that Henry Waxman (D-CA) already met with the FCC staff to discuss ways to bring back the Doctrine. Waxman is also apparently interested in applying the same standards to the Internet, which would effectively sanitize content and force the government to monitor and regulate the web like the Chinese government does. Other proponents of the Fairness Doctrine include MoveOn.org, ACORN, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, former President Bill Clinton, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), who said, "For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."

Leave it to politicians to decide what constitutes intelligent discussion and America should be intellectually and fiscally bankrupt in no time. However, despite attempts by the left wing to censor conservative opinion through the Fairness Doctrine -- which would prove particularly devastating to conservative talk radio, a medium in which liberal programs have not fared well -- people may be under the impression that at least our President is sensible enough to scuttle the idea. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and


(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; bfa; censorship; demint; fairnessdoctrine; freedomofspeech; narcissism; obama; paranoia; rush; sociopathology; talkradio
 
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.

1 posted on 02/24/2009 6:40:18 AM PST by Delacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xcamel; steelyourfaith; neverdem; free_life; LibertyRocks; MNReaganite; ...

ping


2 posted on 02/24/2009 6:41:00 AM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Nobody trusts Obama anymore.


3 posted on 02/24/2009 6:50:37 AM PST by BenLurkin (Mornie` utulie`. Mornie` alantie`.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Nobody trusts Obama anymore.
____________________________________

Yep. And those that do trust him are complete fools.


4 posted on 02/24/2009 6:52:44 AM PST by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

When the so called Fairness Doctrine was in place, the radio brodcasting business was fundamentally different than it is today. The vast majority of AM stations were still making money with various music formats but were beginning to see the decline brought about by the rise of FM broadcasting and a change in listening habits as well as the mean age of listeners. Talk radio has addressed a new audience, changed listening habits and has probably saved many AMs from disappearing. Waxman, Harkin et al probably don’t understand this.


5 posted on 02/24/2009 6:53:17 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Pelosi and Reid no longer need Obama.

Obama is just there to look pretty and sign the papers he is ORDERED to sign.


6 posted on 02/24/2009 7:00:26 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Waxman, Harkin et al probably don’t understand this.

Waxman, Reid, Obama, et al DON'T GIVE A DAMN. It's not they don't understand the economics, it's that they don't care because they have an entirely different focus. That focus is to completely wipe conservative talk radio off the airwaves, because it exists as a news medium that is not controlled by the American liberal movement.Make no mistake about it: the Obama administration sees conservative media as an embarrasing impediment to their utter control of all elements of society, and they will stop at nothing to eradicate it.
7 posted on 02/24/2009 6:56:29 PM PST by snowrip (Liberal? YOU ARE A SOCIALIST WITH NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
There is a wrinkle in all this; The 1st Amendment talks about freedom of speech but the broadcasting biz has always been supervised by the FCC. Newspapers were never regulated in this manner.
8 posted on 02/24/2009 7:02:06 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson