Thread: Dems Get Set To Muzzle The Right

The Fairness Doctrine in the news again. Hope they never start this again.



DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT

Comments: 339Read Comments Leave a Comment By BRIAN C. ANDERSON
Last updated: 8:49 am
October 20, 2008
Posted: 4:51 am
October 20, 2008

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."



Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful.

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.
Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage?

For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of "fairness" might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer "equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary," with 39 percent opposed.

Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of "fairness" is seductive.

Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn't sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.

He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters' public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater "local accountability" on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.

Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.

It's worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children's programming.

Regrettably, media freedom hasn't been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real - and profoundly disturbing.

Brian C. Anderson is editor of City Journal and co-author, with Adam Thierer, of "A Manifesto for Media Freedom," just out from Encounter Books.





http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/po ... 134399.htm

Video at the source link.
~~~

Limbaugh fights 'Hush Rush' push
Democrat senator thinks America 'well-served' by Fairness Doctrine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 22, 2008
7:50 pm Eastern


By Joe Kovacs
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


On-the-air comments by a Democratic senator looking to bring back the Fairness Doctrine are sparking new fears the voices of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage could be silenced if Democrats control the White House and Congress.

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]."



Instituted in 1949 when radio ruled the airwaves, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to allot airtime for controversial public matters, as well as time for opposing viewpoints. It was repealed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission, leading to an explosion in the numbers of talk shows and hosts.

Bingaman said when the doctrine was in effect, "there were a lot of talk stations that seemed to do fine."

"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."

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

"A hundred twenty-five 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."


Limbaugh said it was clear that Bingaman "wants all of this kind of conservative talk, because it's effective, shut down."

Brian Maloney, who runs the Radio Equalizer blog, stated:

If enacted, the Fairness Doctrine (which is anything but) would create logistical nightmares for radio programmers, leading quickly to shuttered stations. The need to "balance" every viewpoint presented would also destroy the entertainment value of talk radio, driving away the audience.

With most major operators currently in deep financial trouble for unrelated reasons, these new restrictions on free speech could represent the final blow for the commercial broadcasting industry.

Even when confronted with the fact that Albuquerque is home to conservative and liberal commercial outlets, as well as public and satellite radio offerings, Bingaman still indicated he would support the move to silence talk radio.
In August, a poll by Rasmussen Reports found 47 percent of Americans believe the government should require stations to "balance" the political viewpoint expressed over the airwaves.

Get Brad O'Leary's authoritative blockbuster, "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values" – TODAY ONLY for just $4.95, a $21 savings!

Rasmussen found, however, 71 percent say it is already possible for just about any political view to be heard in today's media.

President Bush believes the so-called Fairness Doctrine is "Orwellian" and disagrees with its very concept.

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has expressed his opposition to bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and an Obama aide told Broadcasting and Cable magazine in June that the debate is "a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible."

www.worldnetdaily.com