Senate Passes Fairness Doctrine Bill

TVWeek ^ | February 26, 2009 | Ira Teinowitz

[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.”

[Delacon]

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.

No, you didn't read the title wrong. The dems succeeded in reinstating the fairness doctrine today.  By giving the FCC a green light to regulate local content and enforce diversity, we now have a return to the fairness doctrine.

 

[Delacon]

 

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.

[SMCC1]

Demint kind of shot himself in the foot hear. Now, the Democrats can say, “look, we compromised.”

[SMCC1]

*here

[nothingnew]

Wicked headline...

FMCDH(BITS)

[djsherin]

Does anyone know who voted for this?

[nothingnew]

The Senate today moved to ban the Federal Communications Commission from reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine,

Read that carefully please...

FMCDH(BITS)

[shadeaud]

looks like AM radio will soon be back in the closet collecting dust and playing an occasional Lawrence Welk program.

[DHC-2]

Which RINOs voted for it? (Of course the dems did)

[xcamel]

the usual suspects..

[NoGrayZone]

"Now, the Democrats can say, “look, we compromised.”

THERE IS NO COMPROMISE WHEN IT COMES TO FREEDOM. GET READY FOLKS....THE TIME HAS COME.

[GOP_Lady]

[Delacon]

Yeah, that won’t call it the fairness doctrine anymore but this bill will achieve the same thing.

[Always Right]

Does anyone know who voted for this?

Gee, i wonder who. perhaps 100% Democrats. maybe 1 or 2 rinos.

[wny]

Giving DC a Rep in the House and 2 Senators is blatantly and undeniably unconstitutional. So if the demholes - and some idiot Republicans can piss on the Constitution by doing this, why bother protecting that annoying free-speech thing? And where are all the libholes that spent the last 7 years howling in outrage about Bush “shredding the Constitution” as he dared to lock up terrorists?

[TribalPrincess2U]

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.

BS..... I know there are headlines (didn't read the stories) out there that should disprove that remark. Also conservatives (by name alone) do not stir up anything unless it's a dire situation.

[DoughtyOne]

Well if that’s true, it is exactly what I predicted last week might take place. I didn’t think it was wise to try to force a vote on this, because it would simply force the other side to respond with their own plan.

Wonderful! /s

[wastedyears]

We’re not gonna do a damn thing. Nobody has done anything yet. No outrage for Waco, no outrage for Ruby Ridge.

[anniegetyourgun]

Chill out - this is what our fellow Americans voted for....and there isn’t anything we can do about it in the new reich.

[WKB]

Senate Votes to Kill Fairness Doctrine, But GOP Concerns Remain
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2195044/posts
So which is it???