Posted on 02/26/2009 5:09:39 PM PST by Delacon
The Senate today moved to ban the Federal Communications Commission from reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine, stuffing the measure into legislation that would give the District of Columbia its own congressman.
The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to offer equal time to differing viewpoints. It was abolished by the FCC in 1987 but conservative radio talk shows have regularly stirred up concern it would be revived by the FCC under a Democratic administration. Democrats haven’t made such a move and say they have no plans to do so.
The amendment to block the FCC from acting was one of several amendments added to the D.C. bill before it was passed by the Senate on a 61-to-37 vote. Another amendment banning Washington from imposing gun-control limits could yet kill the legislation. The House has passed similar D.C. legislation but didn’t add the Fairness Doctrine amendments.
The ban on the FCC reinstating the doctrine was proposed by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. and the amendment passed 87 to 11.
Sen. DeMint had also offered an amendment (which later was trumped) that would have banned the FCC from requiring broadcasters to meet programming quotas or guidelines for issues of public importance. That amendment potentially could have blocked the FCC from requiring broadcasters to air children’s or local programming. That element was obviated when a version of the Fairness Doctrine amendment passed without the additional language.
The amendment as finally included in the bill was pushed by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., who questioned whether conservatives were creating a red herring with the Fairness Doctrine push.
“This is the bloody shirt, a phrase that comes out when people come to the floor and try to inflame passions,” he said.
“The right wing broadcasters have been waving the bloody shirt for months and they love this setting up the false choice,” he said. “It hasn't happened and it isn't going do happen and I am not trying to make it happen.”
He said that while he doesn’t support reinstating the doctrine he also doesn’t support removing the right of the Federal Communications Commission to require stations act in the public interest.
“The Fairness Doctrine in 2009 doesn't make sense,” he said. “But let's not give up on the concept of fairness.”
“Senate Votes to Kill Fairness Doctrine, But GOP Concerns Remain
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2195044/posts
So which is it???”
The title should be “Senate Votes to Kill THE TERM Fairness Doctrine”.
People are mistakenly thinking they voted FOR reintroducing it.
Thanks
I think?? :>)
“....and there isn’t anything we can do about it in the new reich.”
You are, without a doubt, one of the most negative, bed-wetting, whining Freepers in the universe.
You don’t want to fight - fine - go buy a case of MD 20-20, hide in the basement, get drunk, but get out of the damn way.
And wiseguy, if you took time to read both articles, you’d know that they are not contradictory.
And wiseguy, if you took time to read both articles, you’d know that they are not contradictory.
I put a smiley face on my post.
Don’t be so touchy.
I should have put a smiley face too I guess. I don’t like using them though. I was trying to be light about it by saying wiseguy. If I was ticked, I would have used..ahem..other terms. ;)
Smiley faces could have saved a lot of heated
discussions on FR. :>)
*
The game’s afoot!
Their next step...prob under the guise of ‘protecting the children’ from porn...Net Neutrality.
Any step taken just like gun control will set up the next step until they acheive their goal. Total control.
Net Neutrality: A Fairness Doctrine for the Internet- October 2007
This will be their nxt step...
It’s a brilliant tactic by the Left. Why exert all your energy attempting to reimpose “fairness” mandates on broadcasters alone when you can capture them, and much more, by regulating the entire Internet? After all, in a world of media convergence and ..
http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2007/ps3.11fairnessdoctrineinternet.pdf
October 2007... deleted
Indeed! ... You can look for Rush to take all restraints off if dirtbag Durbin or the democraps in general push any further. He will have nothing to lose by firing all guns for effect.
*In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
*“I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/12/dems-consider-reviving-fairness-doctrine/
*In a stunning admission most Democrats have been unwilling to make in public, a New Mexico senator has revealed his desire to eliminate commercial talk radio and its opposition voices as soon as it is politically feasible.
With the possibility of a Democratic Party supermajority after the upcoming elections, Jeff Bingaman may soon get his wish to quash dissenting viewpoints.
During an interview with KOB/ Albuquerque host Jim Villanucci, Bingaman overtly stated his full support for imposing Fairness Doctrine restrictions on free speech which would effectively shut down talk radio as we know it today.
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-mexico-democrat-will-push-to.html
*Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/02/14/camille-paglia-eviscerates-the-fairness-doctrine.php
*Democrats Consider Reviving ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Democratic lawmakers who support the doctrine say it will help increase the number of liberal shows in a landscape dominated by conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.
Yeah, why would conservatives be a little leery about DimocRATS (who never lie) wanting to rid people of their right to listen to whomever they want to listen to or not listen to. Or maybe they want us to be like China.
Maybe my a**
Of course, that doesn't stop me from fighting, writing, calling, faxing, contributing to FR, lobbying on the Hill and in my own capitol, etc. I'm guessing that I've been one of the first to fight at the front - long before you were.
Lastly, I have great hope for the future, because I know Who holds the future. Beyond that, I don't drink cheap wine, I have no basement, and you can have your "damn" way....I'm not stopping you.
A rose by any other name, is just the same.......
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.