Obama to appoint talk radio's executioner?

[Doots]

MEDIA MATTERS
Obama to appoint talk radio's executioner?
Expected FCC transition chief served during 'Fairness Doctrine' days

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 08, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Democrat Henry Rivera, a former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, is expected to head President-elect Barack Obama's FCC transition team, a move that has sparked fear in media circles that the Fairness Doctrine may return to silence conservative talk radio.


Henry Rivera

If reenacted, the "Fairness Doctrine" would require broadcasts over the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views. For talk radio, which boomed after the law's repeal in 1987 by building an audience devoted to conservative talk, the law's return would decimate the industry's marketability.

Many fear the "Fairness Doctrine" would drive talk radio hosts – like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage – out of business.

Brian Maloney of the blog The Radio Equalizer said in his post, "Meet Talk's Executioner," he believes Rivera will use his position to bring back the law for that very purpose.

Rivera, according to Maloney, "is expected to lead the push to dismantle commercial talk radio that is favored by a number of Democratic Party senators. Rivera will play a pivotal role in preventing critics from having a public voice during Obama's tenure in office."

Rivera served on the five-member FCC from 1981 to 1985 under Republican chairman Mark Fowler. He is now a partner at the Wiley Rein law firm, the same firm current FCC chairman Kevin Martin worked at prior to his appointment to the FCC.

Rivera resigned from the FCC in 1985. The remainder of his term was served by President Reagan appointee Patricia Diaz Dennis, who opposed the Fairness Doctrine. The law was then repealed in 1987 after the FCC admitted it "had the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the discussion of controversial issues of public importance."

Rivera himself has not confirmed his selection as Obama's FCC transition team chief, first reported by Multichannel News.

"The only thing I can tell you is that there will be a release of the folks involved in that," Rivera told the News. "I just can't comment on anything. They told us not to talk to the press."

Rivera also declined to answer WND's request for his position on reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

Obama's position on the law also remains unclear.

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," campaign press secretary Michael Ortiz told Broadcasting & Cable earlier this year. "He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible."

As WND reported, ATI-News President Brad O'Leary examined Obama's legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race and came to a different conclusion.

"Barack Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of this campaign," said O'Leary. "His presidency, combined with supermajorities for Democrats in Congress, would almost certainly bring back the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' and allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree."

Democrats in Congress have been more definitive in advocating the "Fairness Doctrine."

In June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., affirmed her support to Human Events reporter John Gizzi.

Speaking on Albuquerque station KKOB, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told host Jim Villanucci, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum]."

Bingaman said, "For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country. I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."

Rush Limbaugh, the most-listened to radio host in American history, however, blasted Bingaman's comment that there were "a lot of talk stations" before 1987.

"A 125 radio stations talking about carrot cake recipes for the holidays," Limbaugh said. "Senator Bingaman, do you know how many talk-radio stations there are in America today? Try over 2,000 since the Fairness Doctrine was lifted, and on those 2,000 radio stations are countless points of view, from the extreme communist left to the wacko whatever it is way out on the fringe right. They're all over the place."

Republican Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana has opposed to the Fairness Doctrine by introducing the Broadcasters Freedom Act, arguing that lifting the restrictive law has "opened the public airwaves to free and vigorous discussion of controversial issues by individuals of all political stripes."

"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves," Pence said. "It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech."

Pence, a former broadcaster, said his Broadcasters Freedom Act would ensure that "true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves."



http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80424

[crazybird]

Speaking on Albuquerque station KKOB, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told host Jim Villanucci, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum]."

Does this apply to the TV stations as well? They sure don't keep their positions neutral. The newspapers? It's gotten so bad there, you don't even hear 1/10th of whats really going on.

What's wrong with the ability to simply turn off a channel you don't like? Lord knows in my opinion there's tons of junk out there ...... especially on TV and I'm told to turn it off or use my "parental controls" to cut them off. I swear, I listen to some liberal stations and they should be glad I just turn it off because there's times I'd like to pitch the whole darn radio through the window. Not to mention my constant complaining about the garbage they have on TV and the fact I have to pay big money to have it in order to just get the 3 or 4 stations I actually watch. Which basicly is 1/2 hour of commercials for 10 min. of actual show. You have to buy something else to weed that out. I hate the endless commercials....you can't even go to another channel to escape them because they all are on commercials. I don't like to have to explain what "erectile disfunction" is or "summers eve" to have you feel fresh.....on down the line. I didn't like endless commercials of junk food and toys for my kids....for the endless "I wants".

I'm trying to think of what used to count as talk radio......call in, lets play psychology programs. Garden hints. Relegious programs. And please....those boring money matters or house swapping shows that some are nothing more than an infomertial. I can't remember for sure......Guess I was listening to music only during that time. They weren't "fair and balanced" either. LOL You had rock, hard rock, country, relegious, classical, rap etc. Why can't you just have the freedom to choose? Why not ban things that are outright lies and scams promoting something that doesn't work or is unethical if not illegal? Why can't it just be that throughout the day a station has a variety of fair and balanced programming and not each individual show?

[wmarincic]

Hugo Chaves, Kim Jung Il, Mahmood Ardinijjad, Fidel Castro all have State Run Radio and Television. Are we next???

[Gogo]

Remember people, the congress doesn't get to vote on this. It is up to the FCC period. It is a five member panel and the President makes his appointments. I believe that he can only appoint one member. So if there are two already wanting the Fairness Doctrine he will appoint someone who will be open to placing it back into action.

NO it doesn't not affect TV. IT should. Then we'd like to see MSNBC, ABC, CBS, AND other TV outlets who were in the tank for Obama be made to have more balanced programs and views.


Thursday O'Reilly and Ingraham were talking about it and the challenged Congress to push it. They said, "bring it on" Now O'Reilly has the money to take it all the up to the Supreme Court and so does Limbaugh. So it would be an interesting fight and I think Fox News would back them. Lots of money there.

Can you imagine half of this country calling the White House over this? Can you imagine jamming the Senate phone lines about this? How about the Congressional switchboard.

Air America was all radical left-wing hosts and it went bankrupt. No one wanted to listen to them. George Soros backed it with his money and it still went belly up. People don't want that. IF they try it, then Fascism has arrived and the Dems and Obama have blown their cover.

[butterbean]

"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves," Pence said. "It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech."

GO PENCE! Obama and the democrats are afraid the public will become too informed and that would stop alot of their liberal plans to pass outrageous legislation that Americans will have no say in.

[Gogo]

"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves," Pence said. "It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech."

GO PENCE! Obama and the democrats are afraid the public will become too informed and that would stop alot of their liberal plans to pass outrageous legislation that Americans will have no say in.

I think Fox News would hit it so hard they wouldn't know what hit them. Then the socialism argument will finally hit home with some people who were duped to vote for this guy.

[crazybird]

I hear this and I wonder what's next......I was thinking of Russia banning certain music and people using an underground to hear Beatle music.....forget anything political. I just find it frightening. I mean I might begin to understand it if it was at the level of recruiting terriorists and talking of bombing places and hurting people.......but geese...this isn't anything more than a difference of opinion or pointing out the "other side" of an issue. Otherwise we'd all be sold the bill of goods that the economy is wonderful, illegals are doing jobs they can't find Americans to do because we're all to lazy, there's so many jobs out there we NEED millions of people to be brought in here year after year to do these jobs. Nothing is wrong with the goods we're importing, on down the line.

I wondered about TV because there was one guy on TV talking about porn. Maybe I'm not with it, but is there porn on the radio? LOL Or is radio the first avenue before they do start hitting the TV and computer?

[Gogo]

What is scary is that the CEO of Google is one of his advisors. I have trouble with one of my Gmail accounts because of articles I send out. They keep disabling it. The internet will also be in peril.

[chloe24]

I heard that we'll start seeing more of our freedoms being erroded by Pelosi and company, like criminalizing hate speech as one example.

Could you imagine what that would do to decent people like us in fighting against illegal immigration? We may be told that using the term "illegal alien" is a form of hate speech! It's becoming more like Orwell's 1984 everyday.

[Gogo]

I heard that we'll start seeing more of our freedoms being erroded by Pelosi and company, like criminalizing hate speech as one example.

Could you imagine what that would do to decent people like us in fighting against illegal immigration? We may be told that using the term "illegal alien" is a form of hate speech! It's becoming more like Orwell's 1984 everyday.

An AZ judge already said in her court the "illegal alien" can't be used in form her court. I think it's the AZ supreme court. There is an article on here some where. BUT federal documents on immigration use those very terms.

If someone wants to fight it I think they can.