and the RATS, take another one in the...............HA ha!!!
Posted on 06/28/2007 3:54:50 PM PDT by rface
At the end of Thursday’s debate, Democratic House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (Wis.) agreed with Republicans that the government should not regulate conservative radio hosts such as Limbaugh and Hannity......“We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now,” he said. “Rush and Sean are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton.......”
The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday ( June 28, 2007 )to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters who feature conservative radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
By a vote of 309-115, lawmakers amended the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to bar the FCC from requiring broadcasters to balance conservative content with liberal programming such as Air America.
The vote count was partly a testament to the influence that radio hosts wield in many congressional districts.
It was also a rebuke to Democratic senators and policy experts who have voiced support this week for regulating talk radio.
House Democrats argued that it was merely a Republican political stunt because there is little danger of the FCC restricting conservative radio while George W. Bush is president.
Republicans counter that they are worried about new regulations if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Tuesday that the government should revive the Fairness Doctrine, a policy crafted in 1929 that required broadcasters to balance political content with different points of view.
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” he said. “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, said this week that she would review the constitutional and legal issues involved in re-establishing the doctrine.
Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic Party’s 2004 presidential nominee, also said recently that the Fairness Doctrine should return.
In 1985 the FCC discarded the policy after deciding that it restricted journalistic freedom and “actually inhibit[ed] the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists,” according to a Congressional Research Service report.
Thursday, the House firmly rejected the prospect of requiring balanced views on talk radio.
Before the passage of the amendment, which he sponsored, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former full-time radio host, forecast a big majority and took a shot at the Senate, saying: “This House will say what some in the other body are not saying, that we believe in freedom on the airwaves. We reject the doctrines of the past that would have this federal government manage political speech on the public airwaves.”
Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) also sponsored the legislation.
Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would slash profits and pressure radio executives to scale back on conservative programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from government regulators. Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine argue that radio stations would suffer financially if forced to air liberal as well as conservative programs because liberal talk radio has not proven popular or profitable. For example, Air America, liberals’ answer to “The Rush Limbaugh Show” and Michael Medved, filed for bankruptcy in October.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday that listeners should be able to decide if they want to hear different political arguments.
“The best way is to let the judgment of the American people decide, and they can decide with their finger,” Boehner said. “[People] can turn it off or they can turn it on. They can go to their computer and read it on the Internet.”
Flake added: “Rather than having the government regulate what people can say, we should let the market decide what people want to hear. That’s precisely why the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned, and that’s why it ought not to be revived.”
At the end of Thursday’s debate, Democratic House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (Wis.) agreed with Republicans that the government should not regulate conservative radio hosts such as Limbaugh and Hannity.
“We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now,” he said. “Rush and Sean are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibility by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become modestly influential or respected.”
They're (ir)rationalizing that just because it was enacted in 1929 and let expire in 1988 that somehow it's got enough "street cred" to justify its resurrection.
Like the McKennedy Destroy-America-via-Shamnesty Bill, the F.D. is a dumb idea. I guess that's why liberals are so enamored with it; like the battered wife in love with a scumbag husband, dhimmocrats just can't let go.
One can only hope...
4 losses including the Supreme's decision on school race-based programs. It has been a good day to be a conservative.
Any time this is brought up, the conservatives need to suggest that this will be done at exactly the same time that there is a fairness docrtine instated for all other forms of media, including hollywood movies, tv shows & “the news”. And schools.
Would that be the same George Bush who signed that abomination to the First Amendment, Campaign Finance Reform?
The same George Bush who just saw his pet amnesty bill shot down, in large part because of talk radio?
George Bush is a Republican, he's not a conservative. I certainly wouldn't take it for granted he's against the Fairness Doctrine.
Man it felt good.
Seems like Washington perks for liberal Congressmen are more interesting than Paris Hilton, too.
If you replaced Obey with Paris Hilton, no one outside of Congress would notice the difference.
CFR would have passed even if Bush vetoed it.
You know... I thought Democrats supported Freedom of Speech??? Oh, yeah, I forgot... not when it interferes with their SOCIALIST AGENDA, or it comes to views that are in contrast to their delusions. This is totally in line with those over on DU who were praising Chavez for shutting down the TV stations and beating college students who had the gall to protest for freedom of speech...
If they tried to institute the so-called “fairness” doctrine upon the mass media (TV or Papers), you can bet it wouldn’t get far at all, and any sponsors of such legislation would be facing recall actions in a heartbeat...
Censorship of any sort by the government is not ‘fair’ at all, and shame on those Representatives on both sides of the aisles who believe the government should be doing so. MORE speech helps the debate on any issue, not less, and not some so-called ‘fairness’ rule that completely ignores that there may be more than 2 sides to an argument, or more than 2 offered solutions (not all things in this country can be split down the middle or fall into a two-party division).
Thank the Lord we won 2 battles today that for the moment preserve our Republic...
I guarantee Americans know who Rush, Sean, and Paris are. Who the heck is David Obey. (The really notable people only need their first name and you know who they are.)
Wow. It was a good day in Washington.
When it rains good news, it pours.
Sure. Tell it to the MSM, the alphabet networks, most of the cable "news" programs, and the alleged "institutes of higher learning." Then, when they have all complied with the requirement of letting "Americans hear both sides of the story," we'll talk about radio.
Yep, and I have the unfortunate displeasure of having this idiot ‘represent’ me... I hope the GOP finds someone to kick this idiot out when he comes up for re-election — I’ll gladly help...
It’s really too bad he doesn’t realize what is wrong with this bill in regards to the Constitution, and speak out about Freedom of Speech as the reason the government shouldn’t be involved in actions of this kind... I guess that would be asking too much...
If this were the 1920's when each city had only ONE radio station, he might have a point but today, there are scores of radio stations in every market and people can chose to listen to whatever they want. The only reason he's upset is that liberal talk radio is so bad, liberals don't even want to listen to it!
Lots of good news today!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.