Skip to comments.Stopping Obama's new Fairness Doctrine is essential
Posted on 01/14/2009 5:10:19 AM PST by jmaroneps37
There is some encouraging data in a new Pew media poll. It gives us strong reason to believe we can turn things around if we can stop the so- called Fairness Doctrine.
Pew found 4 groups of news consumers: those who go to all sources, 23%,
only Internet news gatherers 13%,
only old media news consumers 46%,
and the clueless who dont care 18%.
The newspapers only readers dropped 7 points to 27% since 2006 which is good news.
But the really good news is: for the first time the number of both online and radio news (outlets we have an edge in) gatherers, has overtaken the newspaper readers.
Predictably young people dont give a damn whats happening. Regardless of old media reports, only 10% of Youtubers care about the news and Smart phoners number just 6%.
The believability ratings for online news is less than for old news providers which is not good, but time and demographics will change this perception.
Television news consumers are declining, but still numerous. Theyre older people who will eventually die watching antenna television and never look elsewhere.
Nevertheless, these older people are still a source of net gain support for the GOP. Old Republican votes still virtually cancelled out old Democrat votes last November.
To maintain our communications advantage, we have to build on this good news, work hard and fight off liberal efforts to pass a new Fairness Doctrine. This Orwellian named farce is designed to destroy the edge we have in the new media, and frankly that edge is all we have.
Of course having Americas ear and making our case are two different things. Voters heard our message... decided it was a pile of murky unfathomable crap. We cant let that happen again. We need to use our voice...
(Excerpt) Read more at collinsreport.net ...
We Americans were darn tired of being thought of as dumb, by the rest of the world.
So we went to the polls in November and removed all doubt.
What are you talking about? I read many sites and watch all the news channels,Obama is up to no good but FR is the only place I see the FD mentioned and there never any factual stories about it.
If you want to worry about something worry about republicans voting for democrats massive 1T welfare bill. That will give democrats 2010 too.
We had one hell of a choice. Both Obama and McCain were completely fake but Obama was unknown and hailed by media so public was more likely to believe him than McCain, even on taxes. McCain stood for nothing, nothing relevant anyway. At least Obama's lies were consistent from day to day.
Yes. A so-called 'moderate.'
The Republicrats keep puking out crap like Bush and McCain instead of someone who stands for conservative and Constitutional principles.
Where is the beginning of a legitimate third party whose members would tack these liberal pansies to the wall?
“..The title covers it all.” ~ jmaroneps37
November 17, 2008
Obama Declares War on Conservative Talk Radio
By Jim Boulet, Jr.
Barack Obama sought to silence his critics during his 2008 campaign. Now, with the ink barely dry on this November’s ballots, Obama has begun a war against conservative talk radio.
Obama is on record as saying he does not plan an exhumation of the now-dead “Fairness Doctrine”. Instead, Obama’s attack on free speech will be far less understood by the general public and accordingly, far more dangerous.
The late community organizer Saul Alinsky taught his followers to strike hard from an unexpected direction, an approach known as Alinsky jujitsu.
Obama himself not only worked as an organizer for an Alinsky offshoot organization, Chicago’s Developing Communities Project, but would go on to teach classes in Alinsky’s beliefs and methods.
“Alinsky jujitsu” as applied to conservative talk radio means using vague rules already on the books to threaten any station which dares to air conservative programs with the loss of its valuable broadcast license.
Team Obama and the “localism” weapon
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule in question is called “localism.” Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses.
Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming.
Localism is one of the rare issues on which Obama himself has been outspoken.
On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing held at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.’s Operation Push.
Furthermore, the Obama transition team knows all about the potential of localism as a means of silencing conservative dissent. The head of the Obama transition team is John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress.
In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. This report complained that there was too much conservative talk on the radio because of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urged the FCC to “[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
Podesta’s choice as head of the Federal Communications Commission’s transition team is Henry Rivera.
Since 1994, Rivera has been chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council. This organization has specific ideas about localism:
In other words, it would not do for broadcasters to meet with the business leaders whose companies advertise on their station. Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.
Rivera’s law firm is also the former home of Kevin Martin, the current FCC chairman. Martin is himself an advocate of more stringent localism requirements.
It was on Martin’s watch that on January 24, 2008, the FCC released its proposed localism regulations. According to TVNewsday: “At the NAB radio show two weeks ago, Martin said that he wanted to take action on localism this year and invited broadcasters to negotiate requirements with him.”
FCC complaints as politics by other means
Remember that an FCC license is required for any radio or television station to legally operate in the United States. A single complaint from anyone can significantly hinder a station’s license renewal process or even cost the station its FCC license entirely.
There have been some attempts to utilize the FCC complaint process for partisan political ends, most memorably in 2004, when Sinclair Broadcasting agreed to air a documentary questioning Senator John Kerry’s war record:
Poised to pre-empt programming on its 62 television stations to run a negative documentary about Sen. John Kerry, Sinclair Broadcast Group has come under fire from critics calling it partisan and questioning whether it is failing federal broadcast requirements to reflect local interests.
Members of Congress and independent media groups have questioned the company’s willingness to respect “localism,” a section of federal law that requires media companies to cover local issues and provide an outlet for local voices.
One group, The Leftcoaster, went further:
But what isn’t done a lot which requires the broadcaster to rack up expensive legal fees, is to challenge every one of their affiliates’ FCC license renewals as they come up this year and next. ... [T]here still is time to organize and file Petitions or objections by November 1, 2004 for Sinclair stations in North Carolina and South Carolina, and for Florida by January 1, 2005.
More recently, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium issued a “fill in the blanks” official FCC complaint form which begins “Anything that you feel is offensive is worth reporting.”
Community advisory boards as permanent complaint departments
These random efforts could be far more effective at silencing conservatives if they could only be systematized and institutionalized. That is exactly what the FCC proposed on January 24th. Every radio and television station would be required to create:
[P]ermanent advisory boards comprised of local officials and other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs and issues, and seek comment on the matter. ...
To ensure that these discussions include representatives of all community elements, these boards would be made up of leaders of various segments of the community, including underserved groups.
The “community advisory board as permanent complaint department” model may well be based upon the 1995 revisions of the Community Reinvestment Act, as described by Howard Husock in City Journal:
[T]the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. ... [F]or advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. ...
By intervening-even just threatening to intervene-in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York...[emphasis in original].
Understand that even allowing conservatives to be radio talk show guests may provoke a FCC licensing complaint. Just ask “right wing hatchet man” Stanley Kurtz.
For Obama, when it comes to radio talk, silence is golden, at least when it comes to conservatives.
Can localism be stopped?
FCC observers agree that the outpouring of complaints from groups like the National Religious Broadcasters during the original comment period helped delay matters.
However, Kevin Martin’s determination to enact a localism regulation has led him to ask the broadcast industry to accept a voluntary standard that the FCC would then enact. If industry failed to agree now, Martin warned, “a future FCC may be less willing to compromise than the current one.”
This scare tactic — agree to our demands today or suffer dire consequences tomorrow — is having an impact.
What broadcasters need to do: speak up now
Radio and television station owners need to become engaged in the localism issue and then take the time to educate their own Congressman and Senators about the dangers of the FCC’s proposals.
If broadcasters get involved, it just may be possible to block implementation of any localism rules during the few months remaining of the Bush Administration.
This delay is critical, since once it is the Obama Administration leading the fight for rules which would shut down conservative talk radio, Republican Congressmen and Senators will find it easier to fight back.
The Senate needs to draw a line in the sand: free speech, not localism
While President Obama will have the authority to name Commissioners as their terms end, these nominations must be confirmed by the Senate.
A few pointed questions on localism to FCC nominees during their confirmation hearings would be useful. A filibuster of any and all pro-localism FCC nominees would be even better.
Any Senator leading such a filibuster would earn the gratitude of millions of fans of talk radio as well as everyone who believes in free speech..
My 11 yr old daughter knows more about current events than I did at twice her age. Must be the homeschooling. :)
What if McCain was honest and told us that “we can't afford anything new and the government is beyond broke, financially”, and “give-aways to get your vote now equal America much poorer and more unemployed tomorrow requiring much bigger borrowed bailout/stimulus packages“and “we have to cut spending and raise some taxes, but the taxes only after we cut spending, because the public cant trust us and shouldnt trust us, the elected and the press are telling you a big lie . The lie is we can do it because he have to “?? And if he said “Obama is lying to you, as soon as election is over he will start inventing reasons he can't keep his promises “ ?
I can only dream.
Unelectable Ron Paul was right about a lot of things. Especially the hole this country was being shoved into.
Does this mean cable TV will have to abandon their 24/7 Obama channel?
I was hoping when we lost we would see some republican heros appear with a winning message, like 16 years ago 1993. But GWB and others has dug us the hole. After election I started watch Schiff Paul’s advisor and I understand now.
The Jack Kemp-Economics theory was that as long as you cut taxes, specifically capital gains taxes, you can increase spending and make everyone happy, because tax cuts will pay for everything with economic growth. GWB jumped on this because it satified his short term political objectives(all it does) , it only works short term politically, economically its a disaster. Kemp-Economics has turned the public against taxes onto Obama-nomics.
Cutting capital gains taxes without other measures like cutting spending, and producing something just adds more fuel to the phony paper stock market bubble. And of course revenues go up if you increase spending astronomically like 1980s and GWB. That proves nothing. At least Reagan won the cold war, all GWB did for that money/debt is straightened out the mess he caused.
I am rethinking my conservative lessons.
If a 10% flat tax were enacted (for all citizens) and a viable 3rd party was established we could take our country back from the demopublicans. They are promoting big government by enforcing the progressive tax on income. If every person in the country paid a 10% tax on income we would be able to take back our freedom. We need to stop the government from “printing money” (debt) and get back to the basic principles of the Declaration of Independence for which our service men have fought and died for for the last 232 years. It is time to take our country back.
We need to establish a viable 3rd party, period. Only two pillars for our new poilitical party, 1-we need to stop the progressive tax on income, and 2 - we would need to tie our currency to a viable commodity, such as gold or platinum.
Conservative radio is already stifled. When was the last time any of them talked about this homosexual crap that goes on unchallenged?
This Kemp theory, shared by most neo-conservatives, is best illustrated by burning a candle at both ends. Eventually the flame causes you to drop the candle.
But it’s the short term political strategy like borrowed stimulus packages and bailouts. They are all called investments , investments that give short term political gain for long term disaster. The debt during Reagan blew up on Bush SR, but Reagan won the cold war. I can defend that. I really want a republican leader I canbrag about, we have a long painful road.
The topic of the Fairness Doctrine has many angles to it.
First, if it were brought back...on day one...there would be 500,000 complaints lodged. Rush might get 100,000 of those, but NPR would be near number two with 75,000. Count 50,000 each for CBS, NBC, and CBS. And CNN would be cruising around as much. Even Paul Harvey would have complaints drawn.
Shut down of any radio announcer? Fine, but NPR gets the same treatment. Numerous news presenters would be told to shut, or stand in fear of being dismissed.
Rush? He’d merely go to satellite radio and have the same numbers tomorrow. He might even go to Havana...and broadcast from there...via “Radio-Free-Rush”, which would make the Obama administration look like absolute fools as the satellite downlinks went on for twenty-four hours a day.
The court action? Over 1,000 lawsuits would be entered in the first six months alone. If they didn’t act against NPR....they’d be sued. If they didn’t act against Paul Harvey, they’d be sued. Even the ACLU would have to stand and defend Rush at the end...which would likely cause massive panic attacks for them.
This is all chatter. They’d like to claim that Rush is running America....but the truth is that barely fifty percent of the Republican right listen to Rush, and a quarter of this group is just listening for entertainment value only...with no real belief’s in Rush’s statements. The best that Rush can claim is that he might have influence over 20 million Americans. Out of 350 million (including Juan from Mexico who pretends to be American), he has some minor influence.
The Obama crew, to drag this topic out early....is now grasping that their “Jesus-candidate” isn’t so holy and losing influence. This is pretty pitiful to be going this negative...only two weeks into the administration.
it is important not to let leftists frame the argument. ask the mod to put censorship doctrine in parentheses next to the title.