Posted on 11/16/2008 11:57:23 PM PST by ebiskit
Barack Obama sought to silence his critics during his 2008 campaign. Now, with the ink barely dry on this November's ballots, Obama has begun a war against conservative talk radio. Obama is on record as saying he does not plan an exhumation of the now-dead "Fairness Doctrine". Instead, Obama's attack on free speech will be far less understood by the general public and accordingly, far more dangerous. The late community organizer Saul Alinsky taught his followers to strike hard from an unexpected direction, an approach known asAlinsky jujitsu. Obama himself not only worked as an organizer for an Alinsky offshoot organization, Chicago's Developing Communities Project, but would go on to teach classes in Alinsky's beliefs and methods.
"Alinsky jujitsu" as applied to conservative talk radio means using vague rules already on the books to threaten any station which dares to air conservative programs with the loss of its valuable broadcast license.
Team Obama and the "localism" weapon
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule in question is called "localism." Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses.
Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming.
Localism is one of the rare issues on which Obama himself has been outspoken.
On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing held at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.'s Operation Push.
Furthermore, the Obama transition team knows all about the potential of localism as a means of silencing conservative dissent. The head of the Obama transition team is John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress.
In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. This report complained that there was too much conservative talk on the radio because of "the absence of localism in American radio markets" and urged the FCC to "[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
Podesta's choice as head of the Federal Communications Commission's transition team is Henry Rivera.
Since 1994, Rivera has been chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council. This organization has specific ideas about localism:
In other words, it would not do for broadcasters to meet with the business leaders whose companies advertise on their station. Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.
Rivera's law firm is also the former home of Kevin Martin, the current FCC chairman. Martin is himself an advocate of more stringent localism requirements.
It was on Martin's watch that on January 24, 2008, the FCC released its proposed localism regulations. According to TVNewsday: "At the NAB radio show two weeks ago, Martin said that he wanted to take action on localism this year and invited broadcasters to negotiate requirements with him."
FCC complaints as politics by other means
Remember that an FCC license is required for any radio or television station to legally operate in the United States. A single complaint from anyone can significantly hinder a station's license renewal process or even cost the station its FCC license entirely.
There have been some attempts to utilize the FCC complaint process for partisan political ends, most memorably in 2004, when Sinclair Broadcasting agreed to air a documentary questioning Senator John Kerry's war record:
Poised to pre-empt programming on its 62 television stations to run a negative documentary about Sen. John Kerry, Sinclair Broadcast Group has come under fire from critics calling it partisan and questioning whether it is failing federal broadcast requirements to reflect local interests.
Members of Congress and independent media groups have questioned the company's willingness to respect "localism," a section of federal law that requires media companies to cover local issues and provide an outlet for local voices.
One group, The Leftcoaster, went further:
But what isn't done a lot which requires the broadcaster to rack up expensive legal fees, is to challenge every one of their affiliates' FCC license renewals as they come up this year and next. ... [T]here still is time to organize and file Petitions or objections by November 1, 2004 for Sinclair stations in North Carolina and South Carolina, and for Florida by January 1, 2005.
More recently, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium issued a "fill in the blanks" official FCC complaint form which begins "Anything that you feel is offensive is worth reporting."
Community advisory boards as permanent complaint departments
These random efforts could be far more effective at silencing conservatives if they could only be systematized and institutionalized. That is exactly what the FCC proposed on January 24th. Every radio and television station would be required to create:
[P]ermanent advisory boards comprised of local officials and other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs and issues, and seek comment on the matter. ...
To ensure that these discussions include representatives of all community elements, these boards would be made up of leaders of various segments of the community, including underserved groups.
The "community advisory board as permanent complaint department" model may well be based upon the 1995 revisions of the Community Reinvestment Act, as described by Howard Husock in City Journal:
[T]the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. ... [F]or advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. ...
By intervening-even just threatening to intervene-in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York...[emphasis in original].
Understand that even allowing conservatives to be radio talk show guests may provoke a FCC licensing complaint. Just ask "right wing hatchet man" Stanley Kurtz.
For Obama, when it comes to radio talk, silence is golden, at least when it comes to conservatives.
Can localism be stopped?
FCC observers agree that the outpouring of complaints from groups like the National Religious Broadcasters during the original comment period helped delay matters.
However, Kevin Martin's determination to enact a localism regulation has led him to ask the broadcast industry to accept a voluntary standard that the FCC would then enact. If industry failed to agree now, Martin warned, "a future FCC may be less willing to compromise than the current one."
This scare tactic -- agree to our demands today or suffer dire consequences tomorrow -- is having an impact.
What broadcasters need to do: speak up now
Radio and television station owners need to become engaged in the localism issue and then take the time to educate their own Congressman and Senators about the dangers of the FCC's proposals.
If broadcasters get involved, it just may be possible to block implementation of any localism rules during the few months remaining of the Bush Administration.
This delay is critical, since once it is the Obama Administration leading the fight for rules which would shut down conservative talk radio, Republican Congressmen and Senators will find it easier to fight back.
The Senate needs to draw a line in the sand: free speech, not localism
While President Obama will have the authority to name Commissioners as their terms end, these nominations must be confirmed by the Senate.
A few pointed questions on localism to FCC nominees during their confirmation hearings would be useful. A filibuster of any and all pro-localism FCC nominees would be even better.
Any Senator leading such a filibuster would earn the gratitude of millions of fans of talk radio as well as everyone who believes in free speech..
Jim Boulet, Jr. is the founder of the anti-localism web site, KeepRushontheAir.com. Research assistance for this article was provided by Richard Falknor of Blue Ridge Forum.
Most Mastiffs are classified as working dogs, but also serve as guard/watch dogs, if for no other reason than deterrent due to their size and tough, wrinkly looks. Depending on the region, their duties differ greatly.
Very old breeds are going back more than 2 millennia. Very diverse, breeds include:
Bull Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff (short hair), English Mastiff and its healthier relative American Mastiff, Newfoundland, Leonberger, Great Dane (German Mastiff), Belgian and French (Dogue de Bordeaux) Mastiffs, Bernese Mountain Dog, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog, Great Pyrenese, Saint Bernard (Alpine Mastiff), Tibetan Mastiff (Qiang Dog, largest size dog in the world), Cane Corso (Italian Mastiff, very athletic and temperamental, needs careful handling) and others.
One common problem of these sweet creatures is their relatively short lifespan.
A brief description of the breed is here:
http://www.dogsindepth.com/working_dog_breeds/mastiff.html
Two can play this game. Conservatives should instigate action against stations transmitting what we don’t like. Use their own methods against them. Tit for tat.
“means using vague rules already on the books to threaten”
While the main concern here is radio, you did ask if Net Nuterality was next, and i wonder if it has occured to you that right now the potention exist to cenure most any opposing view due to the ambiguous nature of the typical TOS (or the like) one must consent to on most forums.
Aside from agreeing not to post the usual (pornographic, etc.), they usally end with something like “or othewise objectionable..or violative of ANY law.” As we know that such is in the eye of the beholder, but which laws are usually beholding those who uphold traditional values are evil, one can see to whom such has the most potentional of targeting.
The Boston Globe already stated something like they would not print any letter that fostered prejudice against a certain class of people. That kind of prejudice of course, is reserved for people like Christians, whose Bible they equated to toliet paper, and Creationists to apes, and holiness Pentecostals, whom the AP (in a new report the Globe) likened to Hitler’s Socialists party. I wrote to them and showed the irony (fostering hatred of a class) on this and the others, but for some reason it failed to make the the letters page
Never happen.
They will blame former President Bush.
If they were stupid enough to vote for Obama, they are too stupid to form intelligent thoughts.
When are you going to start shooting?
Who will you shoot first?
“Satellite radio broadcasting was first authorized in 1997, when two licenses were issued to the companies now known as XM and Sirius. Their applications had taken seven years for the Federal Communications Commission to approve, mainly because the National Association of Broadcasters charged that the new service threatened “traditional American values of community cohesion and local identity.” (It also threatened revenues....” - http://www.slate.com/id/2097247/
Adam Thierer of The Cato Institute, in an article entitled, “Should Government Censor Speech on Cable and Satellite TV?” writes:
Subscription-based media providers have not faced such regulatory scrutiny in the past because they are not licensed by the FCC and, therefore, receive strict First Amendment protection.
The same applies to satellite radio like XM or SIRIUS
HOWEVER, hierer also writes:
An important and troubling shift may be developing regarding the way lawmakers regulate mass media in the United States. During recent congressional hearings on broadcast television and radio violations of Federal Communications Commission indecency standards, several lawmakers hinted that they believed federal censorship efforts should extend beyond licensed TV and radio operators to unlicensed media sources, such as cable, satellite, and Internet providers. And a debate is about to take place on the Senate floor during which some lawmakers have said they will attempt to apply indecency regulations on such subscription-based services. http://radio.about.com/od/createinternetradio/a/aa061404a.htm
I do agree that porn and the like should be censored, but the problem is that the liberal consider opinions and fact to be a form if ideoligical porn that must be silenced. And the stream that satellite radio offers does not orginate in the satellite.
Thanks for the ping!
John has a long mustache
“think globally,
act locally”.
b.s.
I think we need a list of "provocations" and a general number that is the final line.
I certainly appreciate you taking the time and helping my w/ my obviously poor html skills. Thank you.
I find it helpful not to post links so as to drive traffic to that site and therefore spread our collective wealth. Eyeballs and arguments.
In addition, It draws any idiot out for easy dispatch.
I do understand your need to get to the relevant information quickly, too. That point of fact is not certainly not lost on me.
Your lesson will live on my desktop until I pick up my html slack.
Thank you once again for taking your valuable time to lend me your help.
Doll&Jindal12
tehDeets
My new name for him is Little Lord Barry BOHICA. LLBB.
Barry BOHICA really draws them since it sounds ‘racist’ to the grossly uninformed.
Found that out in a chat, much to the hours of joyous entertainment.
Playin’ with libs online is like a kitten playin’ with a ball of yarn.
That is at least until the Red-Dawn of “Net Neutrality”.
As another prescient FReeper said, NETWORK, NETWORK, NETWORK. Get the email addresses of your fellow FReeper Compatriots.
I love you one and all.... even through the extremity of my verbiage.
God Bless
Doll&Jindal12
tehDeets
We had a new “blog” pop up here in the last month or so, that is just a new local lawyter with a blogger.com website with no way to reply, and she posted the following statement after a list of all of the local independent blogs...
http://americasvancouver.blogspot.com/search/label/politics
“These are political blogs. I have no problem, either as a lawyer or a citizen, with fair and vigorous criticism of public officials. However, I do not want to promote personal attacks on private citizens, so please email me if anyone sees that kind of attack on any of these blogs.”
Now I suspect that this is a newly frocked Sharkette out trolling for clients, but then again maybe she is feeling like she may get really lucky once Barack DelanObama is enthroned and can start doing some Alinsky juijitsu against the Conservative internets as well...especially if she is a Dhimmie Trial Lawyer...
It’s troubling at the very least...
“The Senate needs to draw a line in the sand: free speech, not localism.
The problem they present us with is that actually what conservatives object to in “the MSM” is not nearly so much what they say - frustrating as that so regularly is - as what they do not say.
What was wrong with the recent coverage of the election? The attacks on Sarah Palin were, and still are, frustrating in their lack of balance and perspective. And for every one of those attacks, there was a more valid and more damaging point to be made against Barak Obama which Associated Press journalism would not touch with a ten foot pole.
Many FReepers fall into the trap of demanding only that “the MSM” “just give us the facts.” But the problem is that no matter how accurate reporting might be,
Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin
The ability of Associated Press journalism to perpetrate half truths is powerfully associated with their ability to constantly insinuate the con that “journalism is objective.” Journalism is, inherently, very far from being objective. Journalism has a business interest - to attract an audience. The product it has on offer is ephemeral - information which is not yet available from anyone else. At least not locally to the audience. And obviously the internet undercuts that model, as does the fact which FReepers often observe - that “news” stories often fester and percolate and suddenly erupt in Big Journalism long after FReepers have already read about it and discussed it.
Associated Press journalism has a powerful interest in monopolizing the national public discourse. And, if Steve Boris is to be believed, the Associated Press was held by SCOTUS to be a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945. It is the Associated Press which is the origin of the claim that journalism is objective. The original basis of that claim was that the member newspapers of the AP were famously independent and argumentative, and didn’t agree on much of anything. But whatever grain of truth might have existed in support of that argument in the late Nineteenth Century, that is far from representative of modern reality. Every newspaper has to promote the con that journalism is objective, in order to assure its audience that it can trust reports which come from reporters who are not in the employ of that particular newspaper. That is a tremendously powerful homogenizing force, so that today there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the perspective of the reporters from any of the different members of the AP. The business model of the AP makes that inevitable.
The newspapers of the founding era were more similar to today’s opinion journals than to modern newspapers. The newspapers of the founding era typically were weeklies rather than dailies. Not only were they long on opinion, they were short on news not available to the public from other sources. They were published by people who made no bones about their politics, any more than a Rush Limbaugh does. Should Rush Limbaugh be apologetic because he does not claim objectivity? Only if you accept the claim that AP journalism is in fact objective. But if you accept that claim and base censorship laws upon that claim, you should be able to prove the claim. And because half the truth can be a lie and nobody can tell the entire truth, proving that claim is impossible. That would be the case even if that claim were true. But it is IMHO far easier to argue that the claim is false.
The only trouble about making the argument is that it is difficult to get a hearing for your argument. The FCC has a long history of promoting “objective” journalism as being the public benefit of broadcasting. We need a case before SCOTUS which would stop the FCC from promoting the confidence swindle known as “objective journalism.” And we need it yesterday.
Such a case should be crafted to bring down “Campaign Finance Reform” as well, since the “objectivity” of journalism is a planted axiom, not only in McCain-Feingold but in all prior laws of the sort.”
Steve Boris link....
http://thefutureofnews.com/vision-future/advances/
Wow, Excellent post....
You just outlined a civil rights case before SCOTUS, counselor.
I’m spreading your post around.
IMHO, massively lying through monopoly to the American public is treasonous as well as seditious.
If I am not mistaken, the press used to be quite adversarial. No one held monopoly on truth.
We woefully need to return to that practice, as the rapid growth of the alternate press clearly illustrates.
The AP is a monopoly and should be taken to the judicial wood shed.
Doll&Jindal12
tehDeets
Who will you shoot first?
What the hell are you going on about? Find the post where I talked about shooting anybody and we'll talk. That's rather irresponsible posting by you, IMO.
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.