MRC's Bozell: FCC Nominees Must Vow to Protect Talk Radio Before Confirmation

NewsBusters ^ | March 4, 2009 | NB Staff

[Delacon]

[1]Media Research Center President and NewsBusters.org Publisher Brent Bozell today called on all of President Barack Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) nominees to pledge to preserve the First Amendment freedoms of conservative and Christian talk radio.  Bozell asserted that if they do not do so, they should not be confirmed by the Senate.

Denouncing the so-called Fairness Doctrine is not enough. Last Thursday, the Senate passed a rider from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that creates broad new free speech-suppression regulatory powers for the FCC.

The nebulous Durbin Amendment potentially allows for the FCC to prematurely rescind talk radio station licenses and creates many new regulatory avenues by which the FCC can silence talk radio with such vague requirements as "encourag(ing) and promot(ing) diversity" in media ownership and "ensur(ing) that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest."

Said Mr. Bozell in a statement:

The time has come for all of President Obama's nominees, and Obama himself, to publicly vow to protect conservative and Christian talk radio from ALL forms of government censorship.  So far their silence has been deafening.  Should [FCC Chairman-designate] Mr. [Julius] Genachowski and Company not vow to protect the First Amendment freedoms of talk radio, the Senate should refuse to confirm them.

All the pieces for the silencing of conservative and Christian talk radio are being put into place.  Aspects of the Durbin amendment create the impression of a new FCC censor power to pull station licenses mid-term - and many new ways to regulate talk radio out of existence. 

These are frightening new governmental censorship powers, and Obama's FCC nominees should pledge not to use them to shut down talk radio.  The ‘Fairness' Doctrine is dead, long live the new ‘Fairness' Doctrine - the Durbin 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.

[Fred]

Be sure to look behind his back while he is vowing

[Delacon]

The time has come for all of President Obama's nominees, and Obama himself, to publicly vow to protect conservative and Christian talk radio from ALL forms of government censorship.  So far their silence has been deafening.  Should [FCC Chairman-designate] Mr. [Julius] Genachowski and Company not vow to protect the First Amendment freedoms of talk radio, the Senate should refuse to confirm them.

Contact your senators and demand that they ask the nominees the question.

[txnativegop]

No Elected Official would dare to broach the subject, a PR nightmare which no politician wants.

With that said, they should, and I will email them, but I won’t hold my breath.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Maybe some people thought that there was a scarcity of bandwidth when the Fairness Doctrine was imposed, and maybe they thought that government could referee broadcasting fairly for balance. But the First Amendment is not the only reason why the Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional, merely in some ways the most pointed. The entire Bill of Rights was, by the lights of the framers of the body of the Constitution, repetitive of some of the rights implied in their document. The First Amendment is therefore a floor, not a ceiling, on the rights of the people. The First Amendment says in effect that the government is a suspect to be closely watched when it does anything touching our ability to communicate with each other, especially in matters of religion (establishment and free exercise clauses) and politics (assembly and petition clauses).

Bandwidth is not scarce, the only thing scarce is the willingness of the FCC to allocate bandwidth to broadcasting. And the history of AM radio's fall while the Fairness Doctrine existed, and conservative (but not leftist) talk radio's rise after its repeal, proves that anything having the effect of giving conservative talk hosts trouble keeping profitable shows on the air would be an attack on conservatives' ability to participate in the political discourse. The assertion by members of the Obama administration that Rush is the head of the Republican Party amounts to an admission that anything compromising Rush's ability to go on the air would be blatant partisanship.

The fact that Associated Press journalism would allow muzzling of a commentator without raising a hue and cry - indeed, the fact that Associated Press journalism actually promoted the McCain-Feingold bill which unconstitutionally defines Associated Press journalism as uniquely "the press" under the First Amendment - illustrates the fact that Associated Press journalism is in league with the opponents of conservatism. Which, considering that Associated Press journalism is a monopoly, should not be surprising.