To 'Encourage and Promote Diversity' in Communications

GOPUSA/ The Loft ^ | March 6, 2009 | Bobby Eberle

[Delacon]

When the Senate voted last week to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstituting the so-called "fairness doctrine," many folks breathed a sigh of relief. There had been much talk about the Democrats and their effort to bring back the measure which would force radio stations and other media outlets to set aside equal time for programs offering opposing viewpoints. In other words, if a conservative talk show was popular on a particular radio station and a liberal talk show wasn't, the radio station would be FORCED to broadcast both.

As it turns out, the celebration of the defeat of the fairness doctrine may be premature. Although the Senate defeated the fairness doctrine amendment, it also approved an amendment which is aimed at "encouraging and promoting diversity in communication media ownership." That's right... the federal government would be in the business of saying who can own what in America. Does that sound like America to you?

As noted in a press release by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the senator noted that the amendment sponsored by liberal Democrat Dick Durbin was "really just a new means of censorship on the airways and will give the FCC unfettered authority to interpret the language of the legislation in any way they please."

In a speech on the Senate floor, Inhofe celebrated the defeat of the fairness doctrine, saying, "It gives me great satisfaction that so many of my colleagues voted in favor of free speech over government regulation last week." But Inhofe noted that "the debate has changed."

"In a straight party-line vote, Democrats chose to adopt Senator Durbin’s amendment 591, which calls on the FCC to 'encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest,' and essentially makes an end-run around the fairness doctrine.

"This legislation is so incredibly vague and so potentially far-reaching that I can’t say with any certainty what the end result will be. This is not good governance and it is not good legislative practice to cede such authority to any agency of our government, especially when the right to speak freely over the airwaves will most certainly be impacted."

Let's take a look at that phrase: to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest. The more one reads it, the scarier it sounds. This isn't the Soviet Union, is it? Making sure that broadcast licenses are "used in the public interest?" Who is the government to say what the public interest is regarding radio programs? How dare they! And yet, that is exactly what they are trying to do.

On the other side of the Capitol dome, guess who supports the Durbin Amendment? That's right... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In a story on CNSNews.com, Pelosi is quoted as saying, "Diversity in media ownership is very, very, important."

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) a vocal supporter of free speech and opponent of the fairness doctrine said, "It's clear to me that Democrats, having failed in their frontal assault on talk radio in America through the Fairness Doctrine, are now shifting strategy to a form of regulation that is essentially the Fairness Doctrine by stealth."

As CNSNews.com notes, the Durbin amendment is nearly identical to the language appearing on the White House web site, where Obama outlines his "Technology Agenda." The document reads:

Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.

So, if Obama gets his way, the federal government would be in the business of telling broadcasters what their "public interest obligations" are. Scary!

All of these efforts by the Democrats have been brought about by one thing: the success of conservative talk radio. As the programs began, listeners flocked to the radio... ratings soared, and the stations could sell advertising on these popular programs such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. The liberals tried it, and no one listened. The airwaves were so empty of listeners that you could hear the crickets chirping. No listeners equals no advertising revenue. This equals bankruptcy for the left wing media outlets.

Free speech is one of the most "American" ideals in America. We are not told by the government what we can and cannot say. However, that is exactly what Obama wants to do... inject more government control into our lives by controlling the contact of radio programs. We can't let this happen.

[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.

[Delacon]

ping

[abb]

A very pertinent book I started a couple of days ago. It can be read online, for the most part.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KO30kMoLKKkC
The Creation of the Media
By Paul Starr

[Delacon]

thanks for the link

[CottonBall]

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) a vocal supporter of free speech and opponent of the fairness doctrine said, "It's clear to me that Democrats, having failed in their frontal assault on talk radio in America through the Fairness Doctrine, are now shifting strategy to a form of regulation that is essentially the Fairness Doctrine by stealth."

Of course they would. Actually representing the people isn't on their agenda. It's to shove through their socialist ideas at all costs.

[o_zarkman44]

This should guarantee no layoffs over at NPR.

Actually the airwaves are public and the frequencys are auctioned off to the highest bidder in each market.
Periodically every station, radio and tv, must submit an application and advertise a period of public comment regarding their licensing application.

All a local station has to do is have a certain number of hours of local programming every day. Hourly local news is included. Also a couple hours AM and PM is included.

I could see the feds increasing local programming time which would limit syndication satellite feeds. I think that is their goal. They want people to focus on local issues and let CBS and NBC and ABC and CNN spoon feed us the national issues.

So take notice when your local station advertises they are taking public comment regarding their FCC licensing. Be sure to give them a favorable, satisfied listener feedback.
This action proposed by the Feds will probably be on a station by station basis as license renewals come due.

[MrB]

ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest ie, to promote the state's agenda

[ronnyquest]

There will always be free radio, even if I have to do it by firing up my old Kenwood to do it. This backdoor attempt at regulating free speech is just one more attempt at silencing the opposition to the socialist power structure. How much is enough, America?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Democrats are too clever by half in having gone on the record condemning Rush Limbaugh; with that background any action by the government which has the effect of impeding the EIB patently has the effect of the government censoring a major critic of the president and the majorities in the House and the Senate. No matter what "localism" - or any other sort of fig leaf - the Democrats try to cover it with.

[The Toll]

I’m always behind the ball on newspeak. Does “diversity” mean “black” or does it mean “anything but white”?

I get confused.

[Delacon]

“Diversity” mean anything but conservative. Rest assured there are liberal dominated radio stations and maybe even whole markets and you can bet that the diversity police will manage to “over look” them.

[Paine in the Neck]

The strategy here is to open up radio stations to mau-mau-ing by ACORN and such-like in exactly the same way that CRA did to banks.

[businessprofessor]

So take notice when your local station advertises they are taking public comment regarding their FCC licensing. Be sure to give them a favorable, satisfied listener feedback.

The left has been very busy in preparing for the creation of local boards to govern talk radio. I doubt that the local boards will heed conservative voices but it is certainly worth the effort. The left wants to have license hearings every two hears to pressure station owners.

Here is the scenario that the left envisions for talk radio. Local boards pressure station owners to add substantially more leftist talk and eliminate syndicated talk shows. The station owners decide to sell the station because revenues will be substantially reduced due to the new demands of the local boards. The station owners agree to sell a large number of stations at reduced rates in exchange for reduced interference in the remainder of his stations. The FCC enforces a diversity requirement on the new owners. The rats may even provide government funding to subsidize the new station owners. Essentially, the rats have taken private property, gained control of another segment of the media, and muffled their critics.

[Delacon]

that or broadcasters will simply drop the talk radio format all together which is pretty much what happened under the original fairness doctrine. Either way, libs win because they retain their dominance in the press and tv.

[sheik yerbouty]

FUBO! and the same for “diversity”..

[snowrip]

And the country lurches closer to open revolution.