First They Came for Imus (Fairness Doctrine Days)

4/15/07 | Self

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Thanks for this. It highlights the fact that defenders of freedom must be ever vigilant.

[steve7]

Would satellite subscription radio be subject to any Fairness Doctrine laws?

[LimaLimaMikeFoxtrot]

Rush will NOT be more careful (or less careful) than he’s always been. He is in the power chair. I DO look for oblique attacks on the Glenn Becks and Michael Savages, while Olbermann will be given a free pass to spew on and on.

[Cacique]

btt

[Erik Latranyi]

Would satellite subscription radio be subject to any Fairness Doctrine laws?

Currently it is not subject to FCC regulation.

However, there is a movement underway to implement decency standards on satellite (subscription) radio as well.

The liberals will not rest until they are the only ones left controlling speech.

[kenth]

Manufactured by Imus.

There’s a website whose members do the same sort of thing. When they come across outrageous comments, they seek out the advertisers and hosts of said persons or shows and lets forth an outcry in hopes it would be taken off the air.

It’s just that Soros doesn’t fund us when we do it.

[L.N. Smithee]

Magnificent post! While I have known about the Fairness Doctrine for decades, I never knew there was such a serious fight over it when it was put into place. Thank you so much for filling in the blanks.

That bit about the preacher broadcasting a poem in which a dog urinates on Dr. King's grave is illuminating. It provides a stark contrast of the racist speech controversies of today versus those in the latter half of the 20th century, and puts the lie to the notion that things haven't changed.

What has changed? Well, nobody can get away with calling black women whores on the air unless they are black themselves. Not really progress, but at least now it's not a dog pissing on King's grave, it's a Dogg (as in Snoop).

[sig226]

Amen and thank you. This controversy is bordering on ridiculous. Don Imus wasn't censored, he was fired. He can find another station to employ him, or he can use some of his pile of money to buy a radio station and broadcast. Meanwhile, citizens are free and welcome to protest companies whose policies they don't like. It is mostly done by liberals, but we do it, too. Those companies have a choice. They can change their position based on the demands of their customers, or not.

In the case of Dan Rather, CBS chose to take him off the air in part due to pressure from us. In the case of Don Imus, they did it because of pressure from the other side. If Al Sharpton had demanded Dan Rather's resignation for biased reportage of George Bush, no one here would have complained. The principle is the same.

Or have we all forgotten this?

[FlipWilson]

Quote: “What he said in this case was over the line, and I’m not surprised there are consequences, not legal ones, but business ones, you can’t stay in business if your listeners don’t listen and your advertisers don’t want to be associated with you. Thats not censorship, though. Its the reason producers have to think twice before using Sean Penn in one of their movies, since there are any number of people who won’t buy the ticket if he’s in it.”

That Imus is getting what the market dictates or what he deserves is not the issue anymore. I will go as far to say that Imus ceased being the issue almost from the start. What is the issue is that the Left is using the Imus flap as justification and an opportunity to silence ALL who they disagree with. It is a simple morphing using liberal logic that goes something like this: Imus said something racist, Imus lost his radio show, All conservatives are racist, therefore all conservatives should lose their radio shows.

I watched last week as Olberman, Fraken, MSNBC and CNN tried their best (and continue to try their best) to morph Imus with Rush et. al. Of course, they provide allegedly racist quotes by Rush et. al. as evidence of their racism. Ah, but under scrutiny it becomse evident that most of those quotes have little to do with race and more to do with positions that the left doesn’t like. The left just labels it all as “racism.” To wit, expressing an opinion against rampant illegal immigration is “racist.” Thus, if you are against illegal immigration you are a racist and should be silenced.

Thus, the simple question is this, do you think that Imus’ statements justify the institution of a “fairness” (read Stalinist) doctrine effecting all who dare to speak on the public airwaves?

[AmericanMade1776]

You are most Welcome, and No I haven’t forgot the times Freepers have boycotted products, because of their displeasure with certain action of an individual or a country ( I still do not drink French Wine).

[patriotspride]

This is the real issue.

Not many in the print/TV media, including Fox have pointed this out.