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.
“They will accept the first evidences of oppression as “necessary to achieve the goals””
That puts Biden’s “stay with us” comment into a very chilling light. The air just went out of my lungs....
Doll&Jindal12
tehDeets
We shall see.
He’ll definitely have a FIGHT on his hands if
he tries this!!
“Talk about grassroots! Forcing conservative talk radio to go local could be the best thing that ever happened to conservatives!”
It is still a depravation of OUR civil rights to peaceably assemble over the airwaves with like-minded citizens. A camel’s nose under the tent is all they need. After that, it will be a fait accompli.
tehDeets
It will only be 1 at time, with overwhelming force....
To little to notice, there will be no free press to herald their crimes against humanity...
teh Deets
“Repubs use corporation, business and individual monies.”
So do the Dems... ever heard of Soros et al?
BTW, most of Wall Street vote and contribute Dem. Other than the Goonions,
to whom has the Bailout gone....WallStreet....Payback
Please don’t perp the myth that only Republicans use “use corporation, business and individual monies.”
tehDeets
Local rules eliminate Rush.
No Rush, no listenership.
No listenership, no value to advertising time.
No value to advertising time, no advertisers.
No advertisers, no revenue.
Stations go bankrupt by the boatload. Those that remain are bailed out and become part of the state-owned propaganda wing of the Obama leadership.
Yep. You said it all right there. Nice post.
“Since you did not mark it as an excerpt that should mean you posted the entire article.
)What a NitPick... It’s called the dissemination of important info...(
Maybe Boulet has written other things that are better documented - unless I missed something it doesn’t document a single thing Obama has done or said since the election. It doesn’t talk about who he has chosen for key positions. Its just speculation.
)It is his statements ‘prior’ to the election. Your rationale, honestly, makes no sense...(
If the battle to restrict speech is coming we need better ammunition. Speculation is fine but we are in for a fight to protect free speech and hard nosed, honest journalism would be better.
And by the way I appreciate the article bringing up other avenues of attack on free speech we might face besides the fairness act but my principle point is that they did not back up their claim that its happening now.”
“fairness act”...nice seed...
“If”... “Speculation”?!?
Methinks doubt is being spread.
Lord Barry is well known for the ‘clearing the field of any opposition’. It is his Chicago way.
You must have swallowed the myth that the AP is “objective” or you fully understand that it is not. I am still trying to discern. The author solidly buttressed the article, or did you even follow the link to AmericanThinker.com?
It is his prior statements in re the Constitution, in his own voice. As well, it his support for the “localism” canard.
Not to mention Biden’s chilling “stay with us” comment and that Barry BOHICA will ‘have’ to do ‘something’ many will not like or want.
I addition, there have been numerous public statements, before & after the election, from Dem. Congressmen that extol the ‘virtues’ of the Fairness (censorship) Doctrine. Point of fact.
It is when you look at these events, statements, hearings, and Federal Government Docs. in their entirety, that a viscerally chilling picture forms in one’s minds eye. I’m not the only one wearing an Alcoa cap.
I guess I must have a problem taking fact from various sources and ‘surmising’ the intent of a thoroughly noob pol.
Please, do more research, then...
Bury your head in the sand, if you so choose. FReepers will not.
Past is prologue, especially in re mute Obama.
I’m happy to know you can take such comfort in his amazingly thin resume.
Doll&Jindal12
tehDeets
The distinction was that Republicans do not use taxpayer money other than matching funds. Dems use ACORN and they are funded in the hundreds of millions by our taxes.
I will wager that Soros is not using his own money as well, although he says it’s his, it’s likely coming from off-shore and he is funneling it, and/or he donates it as part of ill-gotten gains from insider information. He is an international white collar criminal and pirate who belongs in jail.
I would not compare any Republican donor with Soros.
The bailout is making me and family members very upset.
The parallels to the present mess that is the Community Reinvestment Act and the arguments posed by the “localism” rationale, are to close to be blithely ignored.
The first bullet point is exactly the CRA, but will be used to dictate content.
ACORN is not partisan. This lie has not been refuted by adjudication.
Sleep tight FReepers and God Bless
From AmericanThinker.com
“Posted by: Worried
Nov 17, 07:40 PM
Report Abuse
Reply
UNBELIEVABLE! This is what you will find on acorn.org.
ACORN People’s Platform
Communications
The right to communicate is fundamental. The increasing concentration of ownership in communication industries ensures that, unless positive steps are taken, the concerns of low- and moderate-income people will continue to be ignored.
I. Make it possible for low- and moderate-income community groups to have their own sources of information
A. Initiate government funding to low- and moderate-income community groups in order to assist them in establishing their own sources of information.
B. Exempt government funding to low- and moderate-income community groups in order to assist them in establishing their own sources of information.
C. The Federal Communication Commission should revise its policies so that broadcast applicants with low- and moderate-income boards of directors are more likely to be awarded stations.
II. Make the mainstream media accessible and accountable to low- and moderate-income people.
A. Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting, so that grass roots community groups have equal time to express their views.
B. Require cable TV companies to make good on their promises to allow community groups access to air time, or revoke their operating licenses.
So not only did Acorn have a hand in grabbing the reins of power in the White House, the next step for them is to demand the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated and then be GIVEN a government-funded license so they can air their views. I’m sure their Messiah will be granting their wish soon. I believe that most folks at Acorn don’t know a damn thing about the Fairness Doctrine or the idea of conservative talk radio. This edict was probably added after he got elected.
This is only the beginning. Remember, Obama was a community agitator that promised his followers anything they wanted if he got the job.”
I keep reading about the fear of retiring SCOTUS members — aren’t the first 3 believed to be wanting to retire all far left wing wackos to begin with? Replacing them with the same won’t change much, that will only come in to play when one of ours retires.
You are right about the Supreme Court needing to hear this. The First AMendment does NOT demand objective reporting...it demands the rights of a FREE press, hence Rush and others (even liberals) can not be censored.
The terms "liberal" and "objective journalist" are Newspeak. American "Liberals" are not liberal as the word was defined everywhere, before the 1920s, and everywhere else but in the USA, as recently as a decade ago. As my daughter remarked from personal experience in Venezuela about ten years ago.The actions of the FCC under Obama, if as indicated, will lead to censorship...we see that in fact it did so. Tying the whole mess to McCain Feingold is brilliant and should be done immediately. When the liberal justices start to retire, we’re sunk
Actually, that's not a problem, it's a lost opportunity. Justice Kennedy may be half a loaf, but he is better than no bread at all - and as long as he and Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito sit and can stand the heat the Obama Administration and the AP will subject them to, Kennedy's decisions will be SCOTUS' decisions.Lose even one of them, and it will be an entirely different ball game. But it would have been so good to have been able to replace one of the "liberals" with another Alito/Roberts . . .
My first post must have been written badly - I only intended to criticize the writing of the article - not disagreeing about threat or to freedom of speech or the likelihood that that the threat is coming.
I miss “Dix”...
You two made a great team!!!
Not to mention highly rated major network shows ... like Boston Legal, which explicitly depicted (1) McCain voters; (2) Palin supporters, and (3) PUMAs as “stupid” and “idiots.”
Oh, and unenlightened, too. Don’t forget that.
“My first post must have been written badly - I only intended to criticize the writing of the article - not disagreeing about threat or to freedom of speech or the likelihood that that the threat is coming.”
Don’t worry, your post was just fine. It’s just how these things go here at FR sometimes, that’s all....
Alinsky is NOT GOD. He was simply an AMORAL, doctrinaire but consistently pragmatic Marxist, who talked about pushing his views on a non-sympathetic electorate.
He had no idea just how wrong his views were, and how much ill they would perpetrate on society.
Thank you.
Steve,
I don’t understand why you would oppose Gingrich and Delay as reorganizers of the party. Their profile would not impede their talents, I don’t think
Look at Howard Dean. He seems to work well behind the scenes yet he is pretty high profile in a negative way.
Gingrich is a brilliant strategizer and Delay is a Master Tactician. The GOP could not ask for better leaders to regroup and recapture what has been lost.
I hope they will get leadership positions rather than just advisory positions.
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.