[Tamzee]

Yep, agreed. I'm so glad the WSJ has put a spotlight on it! It's so important to stop this... I can't believe it is even getting this far :-(

Socialism, delightful as always.

[nickcarraway]

BUMP

[ovrtaxt]

Any info on specific bill numbers? It helps when writing letters to politicians.

[ImpBill]

" What's amazing is how oblivious Republicans are to this stop-Rush game."

Not really.

[snopercod]

Frankly, I don't think it matters very much who owns the TV networks, since I don't watch them anyway. Like many people in "flyover country", I have a satellite dish and don't get ABCNBCCBS anyway.

Fox News has fallen into the same gutter that drove me away from the networks - sensationalism over news. Example: When the US almost lost two astronauts several months ago (during re-entry in the Russian Soyuz), Fox didn't even cover it. They were in their all Laci Peterson all the time mode.

I get my news and information from the internet these days, unfiltered by some "bubble-headed blond" reading a script.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

At least the White House seems to understand the stakes, and President Bush has suggested he'll veto any bill that rolls back the FCC rules. But House Republicans are said to be about 40 votes short of the 146 or so needed to sustain a veto. If Republicans can't rally behind their President on something so clearly in their own interest, they deserve to suffer the bias of Dan Rather and Katie Couric.

Ping.

[Peach]

The Republicans are their own worst enemy sometimes.

[Tribune7]

bump

[stevem]

Don Imus?

I finally surrendered in listening to Imus...at least a couple of years ago. He was never my favorite, but I thought if I had to hear ONE MORE WORD about Wyatt or that ranch he was creating, I would surely need to kill myself so as to be put out of my misery.

I just could never consider him in the same category as Hannity or Limbaugh or several other folks with national appeal.

Oh, and the Republicans in Washington would be their own worst enemies if they could ever muster enough courage to be an enemy of anyone. I can't think of another way to describe it. The "leadership" of the Party in Washington shakes hands with a limp wrist.

[skinkinthegrass]

ANY GOP Member of Congress, who votes in favor of these bills...IS AS EVIL AS SHRILLARY...who (Shrillary, a high order priestess of Stalinist/Marxist idealogy) is a foe to freedom and private property. These so-called bills have no merit, except to limit the freedom of speech and to expand the powers of the thought police...and therefore should be treated like "Turdcoat" Sen. Jeffords (Vt.-crap).

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Under the First Amendment the government isn't supposed to presume to tell us what we have to think is important. We have to sort that out for ourselves.

Trouble is, by and large the people are lazy enough to let a Walter Cronkite do that for them. And a Walter Cronkite only exists when the government suppresses his competition. The FCC created broadcasting by suppressing competition from all but a few licensees, and by a "fairness doctrine" which in fact transferred the "establishment" nature of NY Times journalism to broadcasting, magnifying it with the imprimatur of the government.

If you sued the FCC over the issue of broadcast journalism's leftist bias, journalism would fight a PR war against you. And most judges--most Supreme Court justices--would be tempted to truckle to journalism for fear of negative, and hope of positive, "ink." But on the merits, the fact that broadcast journalism agrees with print journalism is no defense against a charge of bias--the First Amendment protection of the press makes the press presumptively irresponsible. If you can't be forbidden to say what you think, what you say can be wrong.

But since the FCC does have the obligation to apply "public interest" criteria to its licensees, there will aways be the temptation to discriminate against the speech of the honest--who lay out their perspective openly, announcing that they are conservative--and in favor of the arrogant and sneaky, who insinuate (and may be foolish enough to believe) that they are "middle of the road."

And why does the FCC have the obligation to judge what is broadcast? Simply because it engages in unconstitutional censorship in order to create the centralized broadcasting stations which you have the right to shut up and listen to, but no right (in unconstitutional FCC law) to compete with. In constitutional principle, then, the FCC should be abolished or, failing that, subjected to strict scrutiny to assure equality of access to government assistance in publishing speech. An obligation which, if enforced, would presumably look like a C-Span open phones session without rationing of conservative calls. That is, conservative speech would predominate.

Given the left-wing disposition of print journalism, the judges who enforced any such regimen would be subject to the sort of calumny that only Clarence Thomas has heretofore endured. The issue is whether the court could craft and enforce a remedy which would insulate it from the resulting undue influence . . .

[OXENinFLA]

TURN HIM ON NOW!!

[Timesink]

The (UN)Fairness Doctrine will NEVER be revived. If Congress passes it (doubtful), and Bush signs it (extremely doubtful), it is almost 100% certain that the SCOTUS will nuke it as unconstitutional. That's why the FCC dumped it back in the mid-1980s: Because the SCOTUS said then that the moment technology made it possible for people to obtain information and opinions from more sources than just broadcast radio, TV and newspapers, it would become unconstitutional and would be struck down. The FCC saw what was coming and happily repealed the regulation (it was the Reagan Administration, after all).

[PogySailor]

Speechless....

[Uncle Hal]

I find it inconceivable that the GOP, in control of both houses and the white house, would let the fairness doctrine be reinstated. It just does not make any sense. The conservative commentators on radio today have done as much as anybody else to put the GOP where they are today. If the Dems are permitted to bring the fairness doctrine back then there is no hope for the GOP. You know, if and when the dems control everything they will do everything to bring back an even stronger fairness doctrine.

[StriperSniper]

BTTT