 |
 Jim DeMint Ping! |
Want on or off this ping list? Just FReepmail me.
Posted on 02/26/2009 12:08:27 PM PST by andrew roman
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate has barred federal regulators from reviving a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves. The Senate vote on the so-called Fairness Doctrine was in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.
The Federal Communications Commission implemented the doctrine in 1949, but stopped enforcing it in 1987 after deciding new sources of information and programming made it unnecessary.
President Barack Obama says he has no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans, led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., say they still need a guarantee the government would not establish new quotas or guidelines on programming.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Now if we can do the same for 2nd amendment rights ...
Yea, right.
They will come up with something that is not called 'The Fairness Doctrine' but is the exact same thing with a different name.
They will just call it something else(i.e. localized programming), and they’ll be back. They always come back.
“President Barack Obama says he has no intention of reimposing the doctrine”
Same guy who promised open and transparent government?
They call it “localism” and supposedly there will be local boards set up to monitor stations.
the GOP is stupid.
it will be ‘localism’ and ‘diversity’. they won’t call it the ‘fairness doctrine’
Anyone who agrees to be on such a “local board” designed to shut down free speech should be subject to protests, in front of their houses at at their places of employment.
They should be called Nazis
They should be called Stalinists.
They should realize a heavy cost for this treason to our Constitution.
I think the left realizes the reality of the situation and that is that big leftists like ABC and CBS make way too much money with Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. and they know that the fairness doctrine would severely hurt their profits.
More details:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/26/demint-tries-prevent-fairness-doctrine-revival/
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: Senate vote to bar the Fairness Doctrine was 87-11, however it’s unclear
if this amendment—attached to a D.C. voting rights bill—will survive. This is Sen
Jim DeMint’s bill, but:
LOCALISM: Another bill, sponsored by Sen Dick Durbin, won 57-41 —an attempt to break
up big companies like Clear Channel. Some are calling this a back door attempt to
bring back the Fairness Doctrine
Beautiful, so not only is the censorship doctrine passed in its new form of “localism,” but the dhimmis who passed it now have political cover by voting for the broadcaster freedom amendment.
I’m not sure if they’re stupid or if they were intentionally providing political cover for themselves as well as the dems who just passed the localism bill. How long did they wait? 5 minutes tops? Goodbye first amendment, it was nice knowing you.
Next Bailout: Liberal Media? Posted February 26th, 2009
Over the past few months, we’ve seen a seemingly endless parade of bailouts from Washington — for banks, for automobiles, and just about everything else. Today, Congress may be voting on yet another bailout — this time for liberal media. This afternoon, the Senate is expected to take up a proposal by Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois which would clear the way for a restoration of measures designed to chill speech considered too conservative. The Durbin measure is being offered as a substitute to a contrary measure by Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina which would bar the FCC from re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine.
Interestingly, the Durbin amendment doesn’t actually address the Fairness Doctrine itself. Supporters of such a direct attempt to reimpose the doctrine know that such an direct attempt to return to the speech-muzzling rules of the past would be doomed to fail. Notably, even President Obama has declined to support such a step. Instead, the measure would simply require the FCC to promote “diversity” in media ownership and to ensure that broadcast stations licenses are used “in the public interest.”
But who’s to say after all what constitutes proper “diversity” and what is in the “public interest?” Would diversity be enhanced if there were less time devoted to conservative views? Would the “public interest” be served by increasing airtime for Bill Press and Air America?
Just a few days ago the pro-regulation advocacy group Free Press issued a report entitled “The Fairness Doctrine Distraction,” outlining just such a strategy. The problem, the group has long argued, is an imbalance in talk radio - specifically too many conservative voices. But the solution is not the Fairness Doctrine per se. The solution is stricter ownership rules governing who can hold a broadcast license, stricter “localism” and other public interest requirements, and strict rules on the Internet to enforce “neutrality” there.
This is the Left’s agenda for “correcting” the “problem” of too many conservative views on the air. Senator Durbin seems to have taken it to heart. No one should be fooled — it’s the Fairness Doctrine under a different name.
“The measure passed by a vote of 57-to-41.”
It seems the one by Durbin didn’t pass by as big a margin as the one by DeMint. It wasn’t even filibuster-proof.
Obama’s lying. His lips are moving..
DeMint ping!
I’m worried about the other amendment but with regards to the fairness doctrine, here’s part of a reply I made to a radio mailing list on the subject:
I responded:
Exactly!
Peter:
>>there is NO need to insist that
every single media outlet (including radio or TV stations) have to
provide “equal time” to every “Tom, Dick, Jane or Harry”.
Me:
Picture a liberal talk station being told to give equal time to
conservatives. How about public radio, too? A few years ago the NPR
morning show, IIRC, decided to have a conservative on for seven
minutes once a week, I believe. They were bombarded with complaints from
listeners (how DARE they!) SEVEN MINUTES! Now imagine if conservative opinions got even
more time from NPR. Imagine your Joe Sixpack right wing host suddenly
showing up on WBUR to lambaste illegal immigration, waste and
corruption in government, gay marriage, et al. HORRORS!!
But hey, let them run what they want. (How would people feel if their
donations to their NPR station were suddenly paying for...a host not
much different than Michael Savage?)
Let the free market decide. Radio can’t help it if people didn’t want to flock to what one _liberal_ on a messageboard once called “the molasses-dripped
voice of Al Franken”. What works, works! I’d hope program directors, etc., would be willing to give talk hosts of any stripe a chance but the
government shouldn’t force it.
Peter:
>> For the
most part, many stations DO provide for opposite opinions, already.
It’s part the free enterprise system, and it works.... pretty damn
well.
Me:
There’s a little something called callers, who hopefully will make
it past the call screener. A good example is the left-leaning
“Steve from Montreal” on Howie Carr’s show, though admittedly Howie has said he might make his show a “Steve-free zone” the rest of
the week. (But he was allowed on the air numerous times. I think he calls every day!) Heard some of the callers when Avi Nelson filled in for Howie,
disputing him?
Other opinions ARE heard on talk radio. They may be shouted down
or made fun of but could you imagine how dull a show would be if all you had was a host and callers who agree on every...single...issue?
So the government has someone in the control room with a stop watch.
“OK, cut off that caller. He’s had three minutes. Now put on a liberal
caller, line three. We have to give equal time to everybody.”
Would a religious radio station be forced to air opinions from
atheists (or a religion besides their own?) How about the government
stipulating “The KKK Hour” air on WILD (a soul and
“black talk” station in Boston)?
They will try ans silence all of us. They will fail..
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.