Posted on 03/06/2009 4:02:57 AM PST by Man50D
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday that she supports an amendment to a Senate bill that would force the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.”
The amendment’s language is viewed by many media experts as a means to regulate conservative talk radio, particularly popular programs such as the Rush Limbaugh Show and the Mark Hannity Show, among many others.
House Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former radio broadcaster and one of Congress’ biggest opponents of the Fairness Doctrine -- an FCC regulation removed in 1987 that forced broadcasters to grant equal airtime to opposing political viewpoints -- told CNSNews.com that the amendment is a masked attempt to restore the Fairness Doctrine.
The amendment, sponsored by Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and attached to a bill (S.160) that would grant Washington, D.C., a vote in the House of Representatives, was approved by the Senate last Thursday in a party line 57-41 vote.
When asked whether she supports Durbin’s amendment, Speaker Pelosi said, “Certainly, I support Mr. Durbin in most things.”
“Diversity in media ownership is very, very, important,” said Pelosi.
Minutes after the passage of the ‘Durbin amendment’ last Thursday a separate amendment that would ban the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, which was proposed by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), was also attached to the same D.C. voting rights bill and passed by a vote of 87-11.
But Pence told CNSNews.com that Durbin’s amendment would mandate a “stealth Fairness Doctrine.”
“Its 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,” Pence said. He added that he is not surprised Pelosi has endorsed Durbin’s plan.
“It should come as little surprise that Speaker Pelosi, who openly supports returning the Fairness Doctrine to the airwaves of American, would support a new version of it,” Pence told CNSNews.com.
But Durbin said last Thursday that his amendment should not be equated with the Fairness Doctrine.
"No one is suggesting that the law for the FCC says that you can give this license to a Republican and this one to a Democrat and this one to a liberal and this one to a conservative,” said Durbin at the time. “When we talk about diversity in media ownership, it relates primarily to gender, race and other characteristics of that nature."
Meanwhile, the amendment, which passed the Senate riding on the D.C. voting right’s bill, now goes to the House where Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he thinks Republicans may be able to muster the votes to stop it.
“I think as we get into the appropriations process you will see us continue our effort to make sure the Fairness Doctrine is not put back into place,” Boehner told CNSNews.com at his weekly press conference on Thursday. “And I do believe the votes are in the Congress to make sure that happens.”
The primary text of the Durbin amendment reads:
SEC.9 FCC Authorities. (a) Clarification of General Powers. – Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section: SEC.303B. Clarification of General Powers. (a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required – The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest. …
The amendment is nearly identical to a policy position outlined by the White House that says:
“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.”
Similarly, the Center for American Progress, headed by former Obama transition leader John Podesta, published a report that called for new “localism” and “ownership diversity” regulations to balance conservative talk radio with progressive talk radio.
The report, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” concludes with the following recommendations:
“[A]ny effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three ways to accomplish this: -- Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations. -- Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing. -- Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.”
I would do this as an organized act of protest against the predominantly Leftist media. But, the bigger question is... why can't conservatives buy and own even a single media outlet? ALL of them owned or controlled by the Left??? How did THAT happen?
She wants to silence conservative talk radio, I want her to get a long term case of laryngitis.
_____________________________________________________
I wish the full wrath of G-d fall upon her. Srsly.
These people just can’t stand and market based solution based on free choice...
...or truly independently minded folks looking over their shoulder.
Just imagine a health care system based on this vindictive posse ...
...one the 1st duties their heath care gatekeepers will be to find out what party you’re registered to.
Mark Hannity?
ROTF! They don’t even know who they are trying to shut down!
Idiots.
“I wonder if the Verizons, Time Warners, and Dish Networks of the world would take notice if a million conservative viewers ditched their (viewing) subscriptions...
but then do we have that the conviction and/or the cajones?”
Been looking for a reason to ditch my Dish Network for a while now. I’m in.
My fellow FReepers, this is a response to Delacon’s Post Number 36. Delacon has a ping list on this topic. I’m tracking that list myself and will, once every blue moon, try to ping everyone to his most important finds. But I might miss something now and then. If you are concerned about the attacks on free speech, just fly back to post 36 and join his ping list. It has not thus far been a high volume ping list. If the ping volume does heat up, I am certain that it will be more urgent at that point.
It would also be good to keep Delacon in mind and let him know if you find something important about this attack. Without free speech, the damage will be much more difficult to repair.
Pelosi and gang are so afraid of the truth of what they do in the congress, lie, cheat, and steal from the people that they are trying to silence the opposition and that is entirely wrong/criminal....
The left has had ample opportunity to get their points across but it is done is such an egregious fashion as to be stupid. Computers have opened the world of history - instant replay of a speech - millions & millions & millions of fact if truth is what you're looking for. The Bloggers of fact are few the others are just rants and are soon recognized for what it is they are peddling....just like Ms. Pelosi, she is known for her wrongheadedness, socialist stance and hypocriticalness.
Freedom isn't free, you must fight for it 24/7 even from those who are sworn to and take an oath protect you.
Nikita Khrushchev once said “We will BURY you!” Now Nancy Pelosi says “We will REGULATE you!”, a far more frightening and credible threat!
Remember how she shut off the cameras and power during the great drilling debate?
She should have been OUT of there after doing that.
She’s completely out of control and complements Millstone very well.
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.