yourdomain.com

[David R Gold]

This worries me greatly. I don't believe they have the majorities at this point to get it done. After the victory maybe they will realize it's not a priority to shut down Conservative dominated radio. Make no mistake about it, that's what it's all about. John Dingell from Michigan will head up the Energy And Commerce Committee. He has been pushing for this type of legislation for a long time. Stand bye. CBN
SOURCE
Would Dems Revive the Fairness Doctrine?
By Melissa Charbonneau
CBN News
November 3, 2006

CBNNews.com - WASHINGTON - A big Democrat win in this November's elections could jumpstart a contentious debate in Congress that has raged since the late 1980s.

It's a debate that could let government decide what you can watch and hear on radio and TV.

Whether it's Rush Limbaugh on the right or Al Franken on the left, Americans are accustomed to differing viewpoints on the public airwaves.

But how that's achieved could radically change if Democrats re-take Congress and can bring back the Fairness Doctrine to broadcasting.

Adam Thierer of the conservative Progress and Freedom Foundation said, "The problem with the Fairness Doctrine is that the government is the one dictating what is quote-unquote "fair." And the problem with that is, it ends up becoming a very bureaucratic process to regulate speech and speech output, according to who's in power."

The 1949 policy by the Federal Communications Commission once required licensed radio and television stations to give equal time to opposing political views.

It's a matter of fairness say supporters like Bill Press, liberal commentator and host of the "Bill Press Radio Show."

Press said, "Remember, these are public licenses. There are very few of them that these people get. They're great privileges to have these licenses. There should be, I think, some conditions attached to those licenses."

Conservative critics have called the doctrine a liberal plot to "hush Rush," a move to silence political opponents.

"Consumers -- not government -- should choose what they want to hear in the free market of ideas," Thierer said. "There's no doubt that part of what's going on here, is an effort by some specifically on the left and in the Democratic Party to counter what they feel is an overwhelming conservative viewpoint in talk radio today. But the fact is, the numbers don't lie. People listen to these shows. People like these shows, and, of course, there are some liberal voices and liberal outlets, including things like Air America, although they're not doing so well."

It was after the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 that conservative talk radio exploded on the scene, allowing hosts to voice opinions without their stations having to give equal time to conflicting points of view.

President Reagan that year vetoed a bill to make the doctrine law, after courts ruled it had a chilling effect on free speech.

Thierer explained, "That's because people in the broadcast community didn't want to run afoul of federal regulations. After all, they could lose their license to broadcast, the death penalty for a broadcaster."

He added, "Broadcasters in the old days avoided airing controversial subjects because they thought if they did, they'd have to somehow provide equal time to every potential opposing viewpoint aired on their radio or TV stations. So they decided to take a more bland approach to the fare they put on airwaves, and that led to less controversial opinions and less dissent on airwaves."

Liberals say that the doctrine's repeal was a political response to conservative perceptions of liberal media bias.

"It was overruled by a Reagan-dominated FCC," Press said, "because they had this idea that all the media was against them. The liberal media is against them so they were going to attack, the frontal attack on the media, so they repealed the Fairness Doctrine."

Today, advocates for the Fairness Doctrine are calling for a comeback to balance a media they say is dominated by an "overwhelmingly right-wing view."

Press said, "If there ever was a liberal media, there's not today. Today, conservatives rule the media. Conservatives rule the Congress. Conservatives rule talk radio. Conservatives have their own powerful television network -- the only one, the most powerful in the country, the most watched. Liberals have none. Conservatives rule the op-ed pages of all the newspapers."

Conservatives say they have just a sliver of the market, that its liberal views that fill up major newspapers, news networks, public radio and TV.

Press says no way. "They're total crybabies," he said.

"I worked at CNN. It's not a liberal network," Press insisted. "I was never on CNN unless I had a conservative sitting alongside, beside me. I was never on MSNBC unless I had Pat Buchanan sitting alongside of me. You know, I watch ABC, NBC, CBS -- it's one-half hour of news and it's right straight down the middle."

Press says that when Republicans are out of power, they'll come begging for the Fairness Doctrine to get their views across.

Conservatives warn of good intentions gone wrong, saying the doctrine would mean bureaucratic nightmares for broadcasters and less choice for consumers.

Whether that's a question best left to federal bureaucrats -- or to the media, the marketplace of ideas, and the public, is still up in the air.

[Zebediah]

I believe it's not in the hands of Congress, or in its purview: it's an FCC doctrine, determined by commissioners appointed by the executive branch.

Once there's a dem in the White House, I'd say it's not unlikely... but then, I think the FCC would be going after the conglomerate control of radio and TV stations first, changing the ownership guidelines, long before they touch programming issues.

The airwaves belong to the people, not to the highest bidder, and the way in which three or four companies have gobbled up the competition is unfortunate... and gives us what we're left with today.

Thanks goodness for the Internet, and a lack of corporate dominance in the land of http. Isn't it great what Al Gore invented?

[Rafael]

[Spartan]

If the "fairness" doctrine was brought back, then CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS, and other stations like that would have to become "fair and balanced."

[Texred]

Is the Pope Catholic??? Yes?, No?, Unknown?, Guaranteed.
I keep telling you people
Keep your powder dry
Texred

[BRamey]

That's part of the problem. Those stations really believe they are fair and balanced despite their promoting of lefty agendas and selected news coverage that only matches their own beliefs. If forced to put more conservatives on the air, they'll just put the Roberston and Farwell types to make fun of, which they've done for years.

[David R Gold]

Paul Weyrich is on the ball. He understands what's at stake. I can't tell you how badly the Dems want to push the "Hush Rush" legislation. AIM Report
SOURCE
Preserve Talk Radio: The Threat of Reimposition of the So-called Fairness Doctrine
By Paul M. Weyrich | December 7, 2006
Now that Democrats will have majorities in both Houses of Congress they want to attempt to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine, which would effectively shut down conservative talk radio.

In 1982, under the leadership of Chairman Richard E. Wiley, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed a major broadcasting restriction, the Fairness Doctrine. There were howls of protest from conservatives who did not understand the effect this action would have upon the broadcast industry.

Some even pleaded for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. That is because prior to 1982 conservatives had had so little access to the media they wanted to use government to force stations to give them a few minutes to reply to a controversial issue.

What they didn't understand was that the FCC action paved the way for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mike Reagan, Mark Levin, Janet Parshall and the host of other syndicated radio shows. In addition there are some 1,100 local conservative talk-show hosts. At the time AM radio was going down the drain. Stations were sold for a song. Some even went off the air. Why? Because no one under age 30 had even heard of AM radio. FM was the rage. The FCC action saved AM radio. In the process, controversial issues could be discussed without the need for the Fairness Doctrine. Liberals have tried to imitate what conservatives have done with radio. First, they tried various programs. They all failed. Then with Air America they were going to try to put a network together. In case you haven't heard, it went belly up. Now they are trying again. Likely they will fail. Why? Because of the hopelessness of their message. A third of self-professed liberals listen to conservative talk radio. Why ? Because we offer hope.

I say we because the Free Congress Foundation has an hour show each Friday on Rightalk Radio (www.rightalk.com) at 1:00 PM EST.

Now that Democrats will have majorities in both Houses of Congress they want to attempt to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine, which would effectively shut down conservative talk radio. How do I know? Because liberals in Congress have said so.

Under the law regulatory agencies such as the FCC have a majority and minority status depending on which President is in power. The Free Congress Foundation has decided to make the preservation of talk radio a major effort. First, we want to be sure if President George W. Bush is able to nominate any potential FCC Commissioner that the nominee would oppose reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine, whether he nominated a Democrat or a Republican. Next we want to secure commitments from Senators that they will filibuster any nominee put up by a subsequent Democratic occupant of the White House who seeks to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine or its equivalent. We want to press for legislation which would outlaw re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine.

Some of you may support some type of re-regulation upon the ground that it would rid the airwaves of raunchy material. The FCC took care of that problem by enacting far greater fines than ever in history so all stations which carry filth can be penalized. Further, the FCC ruled that if a network carried the show every affiliate must be fined. The fine was 30 times higher than the previous fines.

That was the reason that Howard Stern took himself off AM radio and on to satellite, which at this time is not regulated.

The higher fines are driving filth off of the airwaves. If you hear filth complain to the FCC. FCC likely will take care of it. The protection of children and sensitive people from raunchy radio is a wholly separate issue from the Fairness Doctrine.

Talk radio is our answer to THE NEW YORK TIMES and WASHINGTON POST. Without talk radio we have very little sway over the electorate. With it our experts are interviewed. Even the views of the talk show host are challenged. Some times they don't know the facts.

WMAL Radio in Washington, D.C. carries three syndicate programs with local hosts all morning. I never cease to be amazed at the intelligence and the ability to inform of the listeners of WMAL. They have to be among the best and most informative audiences in the country. So talk-show hosts who have it wrong get chapter and verse from listeners.

The point is all of this will be gone if certain legislators have their way. Members of Congress in both the House and the Senate want to re-regulate radio. They must be stopped. We intend to do everything in our power to do prevent re-regulation.

On a separate matter, both domestic liberals and the United Nations want to tax the Internet. Some also want control over so-called bloggers, those people who have an opinion and who express it. Yes, I know the downside to the Internet. But I also know that it is a powerful tool to get out information fast. Some of the best sites are Newsmax.com, which carries our commentaries, by the way. But the largest sites are those with a conservative viewpoint, such as Worldnetdaily.com. Attempts will be made to tax or otherwise interfere with the Internet. I can assure you that Free Congress will be in the forefront of the fight.

Every time liberals can't get what they want though persuasion or the free market they legislate. This is true of compulsory unionism. This is true of campus groups which operate from compulsory fees from students. Now that talk radio has failed, rather than try further they want to shut down their competition. This much I can promise you. They will not get by with it without the fight of their lives.

[NetGear]

I love this stuff.

Main Entry: gal·va·nize
Pronunciation: 'gal-v&-"nIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -nized; -niz·ing
transitive verb
1 a : to subject to the action of an electric current especially for the purpose of stimulating physiologically <galvanize a muscle> b : to stimulate or excite as if by an electric shock <an issue that would galvanize public opinion>
_________________
KEEP AND BEAR ARMS - AN INALIENABLE RIGHT
CAN THE SPAMMERS!

[gary]

With Campaign Finance Reform shutting down conservative interest groups 60 days before an election, the libs will most assuradly try to put the fairness doctrine back in place. It would scuttle talk radio for good and leave the internet with the only voice that opposes them. They will exempt the MSM except for Fox from the rules. This is not a joke folks.

gary

[Zebediah]

You all seem to be assuming that the White House will also go Dem in the next election, 'cause it'll take executive action to make this occur through the FCC... Congress has nothing to do with it.

Glad to see that you've got such faith in the Republican't party that you assume you've lost the Executive branch too.

[james2]

The alternative media is where it is at.

DEMOCRACY NOW!
_________________
"By now you know I'm not using the teleprompter."

-Ralph Nader

[Rafael]

[Spartan]

If you bring back the "Fairness" Doctrine, then you'd have to put conservatives on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and most of the networks' nightly comedy and drama programming. And most major newspapers would have to fire about 40% of their reporters and half their editors.

[gary]

Spartan you assume that he fairness doctrine is there to produce fairness. This is not even close to the case. When it was done a quarter of a century ago it did not apply to news reporting. It only applied to oppinion shows and pieces. This would not change the MSM one bit. It would be applied to shows like David Gold, Mark Davis, Rush Linbaugh, and Sean Hanity. There are a few liberal shows but they would be ignored because they are not a threat to the liberal plans for the US.

gary

[BRamey]