Broadcast Blackout of Left’s 'Fairness' Doctrine Push

Barack Obama’s transition team has tapped former FCC Commissioner Henry Rivera, a longtime proponent of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," to head the team looking for the man or woman who will soon give Democrats a 3-to-2 advantage on the Federal Communications Commission.

It’s another troubling sign that Democrats are serious about trying to reinstate the long-defunct FCC regulation, which can more aptly be described as the "Censorship Doctrine" because of its chilling effect on free speech. In effect from 1949 to 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was an obstacle to open discussion of public policy issues on the radio; its removal in the Reagan years spawned the robust talk radio marketplace of ideas now enjoyed by millions.

While talk radio hosts often warned during the campaign that free speech could be trampled by an all-Democratic majority, the broadcast networks have failed to react to this dangerous threat to the First Amendment. A review shows the broadcast networks — whose affiliates could also be regulated — have failed to run even a single story mentioning the push for a new Fairness Doctrine.

The most recent mention of the Fairness Doctrine was on May 30, 2007, when in an interview on CBS’s The Early Show, Al Gore bizarrely called it a "protection" that was removed during the Reagan years.

But there has been news to report, as Democrats have been more than candid about their plans. On Election Day, for example, New York Senator Charles Schumer justified regulating political speech. "The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air," Schumer told the Fox News Channel. "You can’t say, ‘government hands off in one area’ to a commercial enterprise, but you’re allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent."

In late October, Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman told a New Mexico radio station how he "hopes" the Fairness Doctrine returns so radio will be more to his liking: "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."

Democrats have launched various attempts to control of broadcast content since the Fairness Doctrine’s demise in 1987, but the push has become more insistent in the past couple of years. After the failure of a liberal immigration bill in 2007, Senator Dianne Feinstein told Fox News Sunday that she was "looking at" a new Fairness Doctrine because "talk radio tends to be one-sided....It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information." As with Schumer and Bingaman recently, none of the broadcast networks thought Feinstein’s threats worth reporting.

Journalists aren’t known for turning a blind eye to free speech issues. In 2003, ABC, CBS and NBC ran 33 stories on criticism of the Dixie Chicks for speaking out against President Bush and the Iraq war. ABC’s Jim Wooten darkly warned: "All this has reminded some of the McCarthy Era's blacklists that barred those even accused of communist sympathies for working in films or on television."

When Democrats first pushed to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in 1987-88, both the New York Times and Washington Post came down strongly on the side of free speech. In a June 24, 1987 editorial, the Post called the concept of a Fairness Doctrine repulsive:

"The truth is...that there is no ‘fairness’ whatever in the ‘fairness’ doctrine. On the contrary, it is a chilling federal attempt to compel some undefined ‘balance’ of what ideas radio and television news programs are to include....The ‘fairness doctrine’ undercuts free, independent, sound and responsive journalism — substituting governmental dictates. That is deceptive, dangerous and, in a democracy, repulsive."

Now that the Left is gearing up to suffocate talk radio, the media’s First Amendment solidarity seems to have been eclipsed by their loyalty to the would-be censors of the Democratic Party.

Not a trivial threat -- see this article:

Red Dawn Over America: Defeat & Despair

Our new leaders, the Socialists of the Democratic Party, reject the fundamental premise of a Democratic society, that things work best with the least possible government interference. Their ideology originates from a profoundly mistaken understanding of human nature, one that misinterprets human self-interest as greed and holds human altruism in disdain, assuming it is calculated by self-interest alone. Their formula is founded on the belief that government involvement in all aspects of the lives of its citizens will create the greater good. This Statism inevitably leads to a society controlled by political elites, where citizens lose their voice and then their freedom. The Socialist state assumes it can solve societal problems and shape that society through its policies and taxes, and uses ever more draconian methods to force compliance.

We now find ourselves about to be governed by the left of unrepentant terrorists, communists, and socialists, radical academics and revisionists, the dregs of failed revolutionaries and “progressive” organizations, of entitlement activists and race scam artists, with all their hatred and contempt and disrespect. Their candidate had nothing to qualify him, no achievement, no legacy, no history of conviction and action, just a solid socialist upbringing, with communist mentors and radical friends, nurtured and promoted in the corruption of Chicago politics, and enabled by the radical rich.

They will follow a deconstructive script. In attempting to consolidate and perpetuate their power, they will dismantle many of the guarantees Americans count on for their liberty. They will regulate, restrict, punish and intimidate to get their programs through. They will use enticements such as welfare and entitlements. They will cajole and lecture and wrap their actions in moral arguments. They will come after our freedoms by changing the Constitution, by expanding and warping the role of the judiciary, and by using the press to influence the population to accept their changes. They will manipulate the 2010 census to rewrite electoral boundaries in their favor. They will restrict the freedom of speech on radio and television. They will come after the right to keep and bear arms. They will steal our 401k’s to bail out Social Security. They will place their operatives in every American institution and government department, looking to the day when they will need influence. Their goal is no less than to make America a one-party system, a Socialist Democrat monopoly, with the Republican opposition a mere stage piece.

The face of America Obama sees is a caricature, a myth found in the radicalism into which he was bred. He holds no love for us, and desires to erase what we are. Voter fraud, illegal campaign finance, manipulative litigation and lies are easy for him. He has no ethical concern, no morality beyond the morality of power. Vladimir Lenin wrote that, “A lie told often enough becomes truth.” In the struggle for the soul of America, the Socialists are counting on it. We are at risk as never before, no enemy is at our gates. They are defeating us from within. This is a battle for our survival, for our unique place in human history, for our creativeness and energy, for our strength and character. This is where we make the decision, we have battled and defeated the foreign enemy, how then will we defeat the domestic one?

I propose that conservatives go on the offensive with this. If we simply play defense, WE WILL LOSE! As soon as the fairness doctrine is enacted, we should target each and every radio broadcaster that does NOT air Rush or Shawn Hannity, and file suit for equal time every time something is said that criticizes republican issues. One of the left's favorite tactics is to render good law useless by bogging down the system which enforces it. Baseless and bogus charges are also used to cover their own hypocrisy. If republicans do this properly, they can actually win a lot more cases than liberals will because their case logic will be much more sound. At the same time, the onslaught against liberal owned broadcasters will force them to defend conservative competitors on their own dime.

They want war? fine... lets give em one.

Time to review what the Constitution has to say on this subject. In case you have forgotten, here is the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Seems quite clear to me. I wonder what it is about "no law" and "abridging the freedom of speech" that the Dems don't seem to understand. I guess I need more "nuance training" so that I can see what they see in the First Amendment that would allow anything so obviously in violation of the Constitution as the (Un)Fairness Doctrine.

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.