Fairness Doctrine

[Jerk]

The consolidation of power continues...

Her Royal Fairness

The American Spectator (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11427)
Published 5/14/2007 12:09:36 AM

SALEM'S WITCH TRIAL

According to two members of the House Democrat Caucus, Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them that they will "aggressively pursue" reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine over the next six months. In January, Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich announced that he was going to pursue the Fairness Doctrine through his Government Reform subcommittee. That announcement was greeted with silence. But now, Pelosi has moved things to the front burner.

Much of the doctrine, regulated through the FCC, was largely dumped in 1987. Other parts of it, related to "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in place until 2000. The personal attack rule required anyone "attacked" over the airwaves to be notified beforehand and given an opportunity to respond. A similar rule was followed for the political editorial, where a broadcaster endorsing one political candidate or issue had to give similar time for a response from those not endorsed or supported.

The decision to press for re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine now seems to have developed for two reasons. "First, [Democrats] failed on the radio airwaves with Air America, no one wanted to listen," says a senior adviser to Pelosi. "Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don't want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008."

That last comment appeared to be a veiled reference to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who appears to be gearing up for a presidential run. Over the past year, he has built a following both over the AM airwaves through the ABC Radio network, as well as through almost daily appearances across cable TV on the TV show Law & Order, where he plays a tough-talking district attorney.

According to another Democrat leadership aide, Pelosi and her team are focused on several targets in the fight, including Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network. In fact, Kucinich's staff has begun investigating Salem, one of the fastest growing radio networks in the country, which features such popular -- and highly rated -- conservative hosts as Bill Bennett and Michael Medved, and Christian hosts such as Dr. Richard Land.

"They are identifying senior employees, their political activities and their political giving," says a Government Reform committee staffer. "Salem is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can't shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him

[Fraggle145]

Rush Limbaugh sucks big fat :twinkies:, but this is just ghey.

[crawfish]

"I can't win the game, so I'm gonna change the rules".

Bah.

Sounds like Oregon.

[85Sooner]

So the libs are for freedom of speech huh? Just goes to show that the left does not want to allow free expression unless they themselves ok it. Sounds like russia to me.

[jk the sooner fan]

i'm glad that rule doesnt apply here.......can you imagine the PM's you'd have to go thru letting you know you were about to be attacked in a thread?

what a stupid law - just really sad that they feel like they have a mandate but need to resort to this

[Widescreen]

America is getting what we deserve. And we can thank the elephants in the last couple of congresses for it.

[Hatfield]

So the libs are for freedom of speech huh? Just goes to show that the left does not want to allow free expression unless they themselves ok it. Sounds like russia to me.

first, please point out where freedom of speech is being attacked.

second, you really think if the dems had an advantage the repubs wouldn't attempt to level the field? (notice this question doesn't speak to right or wrong, just if they would level the playing field)

[SoonerBorn68]

The first domino.

[jk the sooner fan]

first, please point out where freedom of speech is being attacked.

second, you really think if the dems had an advantage the repubs wouldn't attempt to level the field? (notice this question doesn't speak to right or wrong, just if they would level the playing field)

the dems were in power when Rush began his run on the air

and if you dont see this as a breach on freedom of speech, then you've got your head buried in the sand

[SoonerBorn68]

first, please point out where freedom of speech is being attacked.

second, you really think if the dems had an advantage the repubs wouldn't attempt to level the field? (notice this question doesn't speak to right or wrong, just if they would level the playing field)

Laughable. It's like saying Baylor should get spotted 31 points when they play OU to "level the playing field". :rolleyes:

[Hatfield]

why is it laughable? in a 2 party system when one side has a clear advantage the other side would be foolish to not try and negate that advantage.

alls i is sayin

[landrun]

This is typical of the left.
They want to a nazi type of left wing regime controlling the government.
If you can't win the debate, force the opposition to shut up. Throw them in jail if they disagree with you ('HATE' crimes) and pass laws censoring your opposition in the name of 'fairness'.

[picasso]

I heard about this a few weeks ago. No way it's happening.

[Hatfield]

This is typical of the left.
They want to a nazi type of left wing regime controlling the government.
If you can't win the debate, force the opposition to shut up. Throw them in jail if they disagree with you ('HATE' crimes) and pass laws censoring your opposition in the name of 'fairness'.

oh come on.

that would be like someone saying the right wants a nazi type of right wing regime controlling the government. if you can't win an election, fire some attorneys that won't do what you in partisan witchhunts.

different variant but still illustrative that both side do things to get a leg up (when they can) or try and level out things when they can.

i really don't care one way or the other on the fairness doctrine. I think if it was revamped to fit with the current scene and spoke only to political content i might be able to fall in line with it....but to bring it back where people are saying you can't so any fred thompson movies without giving equal time is just stupid...not that it really was that way in the past.

i am just getting at quit being dishonest and acting like only 1 side of the coin engages in efforts to beat the other side.

[jk the sooner fan]

why dont we apply the same rules to newspaper columnists....you know, the editorial page

it floors me that you're remotely for even a portion of this....as long as whats said or written isnt libelous or slander, it shouldnt be muzzled in any way shape or form.......that goes for opinions from the right OR left

[Hatfield]

it has to do with the "limited" number of airwaves...at least that is what the court said when they ruled it didn't violate the 1st amendment....(they also recognized that similar laws were unconstitutional when applied to newspapers.)

and like i said i haven't been arguing for it. on the contrary i said i might be able to fall in line with it if it were revamped to fit with today's scene (which is dramatically different than when the fd first appeared (i think there were like 100 talk radio shows as opposed to 1400 now), i have just been talking about the actions of the 2 parties.

[StuIsTheMan]

"I can't win the game, so I'm gonna change the rules".

Bah.

Sounds like Oregon.

Word!

[crawfish]

why is it laughable? in a 2 party system when one side has a clear advantage the other side would be foolish to not try and negate that advantage.

alls i is sayin

I'm a bit offended when ANY party tries to legislate an advantage. The dems have been trying to offset the advantage that right-wing radio gives the r's; Air America was one attempt; the rash of anti-republican movies over the past three years has been another.

Essentially, they're trying to legislate this because they've tried to match their opponents methods and failed. If that doesn't offend you, I really don't know what to say.

[Hatfield]

didn't say it didn't offend me. said i understood why they would try something like that.

reading comprehension is deplorable around here. ;)

[Vaevictis]

The real issue, IMO, is that it's accepted that the federal government has the right to regulate radio airwaves. Once you've accepted this notion, stuff like the fairness doctrine is going to happen.

Being surprised when the powers du jour attempt to do whatever they can to reinforce their power is pretty stupid. The Democrats do it, and the Republicans do it, and both do as much as they think they can get away with.

I think that back in the day when there were three TV channels, the fairness doctrine made some sense; of course, my opinion on that had to do more with the fact that if the big three decided to, they could all endorse the same candidate and unduly influence the election. I don't think that anyone has that power anymore, and so the fairness doctrine is outdated.

[jk the sooner fan]

I think if it was revamped to fit with the current scene and spoke only to political content i might be able to fall in line with it..

i didnt have any problems reading that......

[85Sooner]

Keep in mind that "news" programming is not subject to the fairness doct.

Air America failed simply because democratic ideals cannot withstand arguement. They have tried and tried again to counter Rush et al... in thefree market. At every instance they have failed so now they want to legislate it.

I know it won't pass but I want everyone to see who the real ones are who are not serving the people and want to rule the people ergardless of the free market. uhhuh socialism at the very least.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

"They are identifying senior employees, their political activities and their political giving," says a Government Reform committee staffer. "Salem is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can't shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him."


This sounds familiar..... Can't quite put my finger on it though...

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/graphic/large/JosephMcCarthy.jpg

:pop:

[soonerscuba]

This sounds familiar..... Can't quite put my finger on it though...

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/graphic/large/JosephMcCarthy.jpg

:pop:

Some here think he is a hero.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Air America....

Why can't Pelosi & Co. just get over it? It's economics. If people didn't listen to those shows, advertisers wouldn't advertise there.

Idiots. Nothing like a congress full of liberals to attack whatever is working in the free market.

[85Sooner]

I am just curious They have been in office almost 6 months and the only thing they seem to have done is call for investigations, offered to surrender, go over and hold discussions with our enemies.

Have they done anything of value? Have they solved or attempted to solve anything. It seems as if their only position is f*&% Bush.

[Petro-Sooner]

I am just curious They have been in office almost 6 months and the only thing they seem to have done is call for investigations, offered to surrender, go over and hold discussions with our enemies.

Have they done anything of value? Have they solved or attempted to solve anything. It seems as if their only position is f*&% Bush.

Thats kinda what I've been wondering.

[Scott D]

This is a stupid thing. If the Dems REALLY wanted to get Rush, how difficult would it be to spike his oxycotin.


bunch of freakin liberal morons.

[Vaevictis]

Have they done anything of value? Have they solved or attempted to solve anything. It seems as if their only position is f*&% Bush.

They have a narrow majority, which means that they can only really do stuff that has some pretty strong support nationwide.

In case you hadn't noticed, that basically means taking the position of "f*&% Bush." That's what they ran on, that's what got them elected, and holy carp, that's what they're doing.

Would you prefer that they cram through a wingnut left position? (I mean, honestly prefer it for the agenda's sake, not for the resultant backlash.) Personally, I think right here near the middle is great.

[jk the sooner fan]

i love how they have a 35% approval rating and act as if they've got a mandate

[Vaevictis]

i love how they have a 35% approval rating and act as if they've got a mandate

That's what politicians do. All of them.

[85Sooner]

FUNNY i don't hear them sqwalking about gas prices the way they did last year when the repubs were in office. additionally the pubs aren't squalking either now that the dems are in office.

[Vaevictis]

FUNNY i don't hear them sqwalking about gas prices the way they did last year when the repubs were in office. additionally the pubs aren't squalking either now that the dems are in office.

Wow, politicians disingenuously using an issue to try to score political points? I'm shocked. Absolutely shocked.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

America is getting what we deserve. And we can thank the elephants in the last couple of congresses for it.I believe it's not wholly fair to blame the elephants. As unacceptable as some of those elephants were, too many people failed to consider the alternative that we are now stuck with, for at least 1.5 more years. Either by not voting, or actually voting for the democrat. Things are only going to get nastier.

[Vaevictis]

I believe it's not wholly fair to blame the elephants.

If the Congressional Republicans had done their job and behaved like a separate branch of government instead of just another wing of the White House, they'd still be in charge right now. It's completely fair.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That's what politicians do. All of them.When the repubs were in charge, they didn't act like they had a mandate, due mostly to being afraid of the oh so fair MSM. By caving so much, many lost their jobs.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If the Congressional Republicans had done their job and behaved like conservatives should, they'd still be in charge right now. It's completely understandable. fixed

[Vaevictis]

That's one way of looking at it. "Big government conservative" really just doesn't have much of a ring to it?

But, no, it's not fixed. Letting Bush's people get away with (even if only perceived) failure after failure after failure unchallenged is what cost them the election.

[soonerscuba]

They will do as much as the Republicans after '94. Book it!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That's one way of looking at it. "Big government conservative" really just doesn't have much of a ring to it?

But, no, it's not fixed. Letting Bush's people get away with (even if only perceived) failure after failure after failure unchallenged is what cost them the election.HUH?

[Vaevictis]

HUH?

Your "fix" to my comment didn't fix anything. Not acting like conservatives isn't what cost them the election. Acting like a bunch of lapdogs did.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Your "fix" to my comment didn't fix anything. Not acting like conservatives isn't what cost them the election. Acting like a bunch of lapdogs did.I respectfully say you are dead wrong. If the republicans would have behaved like conservatives instead of scairdy-cats, afraid of how many ways the MSM was going to rip them apart, the republican base would have shown up for the '06 election. As it was, people thinking like SicEm prevailed. (The repubs weren't conservativce enough, so let's not vote, or better yet, let's vote in a bunch of wild-eyes socialists, and really show them BUT GOOD!)

[Sooner_Bob]

"I can't win the game, so I'm gonna change the rules".

Bah.

Sounds like Oregon.


Kinda what I was thinking when I first read about it . . .

[royalfan5]

I respectfully say you are dead wrong. If the republicans would have behaved like conservatives instead of scairdy-cats, afraid of how many ways the MSM was going to rip them apart, the republican base would have shown up for the '06 election. As it was, people thinking like SicEm prevailed. (The repubs weren't conservativce enough, so let's not vote, or better yet, let's vote in a bunch of wild-eyes socialists, and really show them BUT GOOD!)
If you are afraid of the media you shouldn't be in politics.

[85Sooner]

I respectfully say you are dead wrong. If the republicans would have behaved like conservatives instead of scairdy-cats, afraid of how many ways the MSM was going to rip them apart, the republican base would have shown up for the '06 election. As it was, people thinking like SicEm prevailed. (The repubs weren't conservativce enough, so let's not vote, or better yet, let's vote in a bunch of wild-eyes socialists, and really show them BUT GOOD!)


I agree and history says so,

[Jerk]

This sounds familiar..... Can't quite put my finger on it though...

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/graphic/large/JosephMcCarthy.jpg

:pop:

If anyone here wants the link, I can show you a video of the highest-level KGB defector telling all about the origins of modern American liberalism. You'd probably chose not to believe that your idealogy comes from Marx and Lenin, but it does. :pop:

[Jerk]

oh hell you know you want it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE8MCSu_K-A

[soonerscuba]

If anyone here wants the link, I can show you a video of the highest-level KGB defector telling all about the origins of modern American liberalism. You'd probably chose not to believe that your idealogy comes from Marx and Lenin, but it does. :pop:
Gawddamn. The KGB influenced Paine, Thoreau, Adams and Jefferson? They are more powerful than one could have ever thought possible.

[Rogue]

This is the kinda crap that gives politicians a bad name. :rolleyes:

[Jerk]

Gawddamn. The KGB influenced Paine, Thoreau, Adams and Jefferson? They are more powerful than one could have ever thought possible.


I'm talking about modern American liberalism which decends from 60's radicals... NOT classical liberalism like Milton Friedman.

[soonerscuba]

I'm talking about modern American liberalism which decends from 60's radicals... NOT classical liberalism like Milton Friedman.

Sorry Jerk, but I just don't buy it. I think that the 60's radicals were their own brand of stupid (save a few, which made serious impacts into the tech and music world). It seems akin to those who say that the CIA invented crack to keep the black population from fully integrating.

Plus, I find it just as hard to set a definition on modern liberalism as it isn modern conservatism. Personally, I support the revamping of the Freak Power Party.

[soonerbrat]

I don't read political threads..but this one keeps popping up with new posts, so I thought i'd participate

[SicEmBaylor]

It's a very very difficult thing to compare old liberalism, classic liberalism, and modern liberalism because the definitions change with succeeding generations.

Make no mistake, the Founding Father were radical liberals/leftists. Yes, leftists. To be a conservative was to be a monarchist both throughout Europe and when talking specifically of the colonies. Anyone who advocated popular sovereignty as opposed to an individual sovereign was considered a leftist/liberal. That's why I do not hate liberalism, even in the modern sense. Without them we wouldn't individual rights, the idea of popular sovereignty, or even basic civil rights that do not distinguish between skin color (although I think the civil rights movements itself, politically, went about things the wrong way and did more damage than good).

At any rate, my point is this. The only problem with liberalism is that they didn't know when to stop progressing.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It's a very very difficult thing to compare old liberalism, classic liberalism, and modern liberalism because the definitions change with succeeding generations.

Make no mistake, the Founding Father were radical liberals/leftists. Yes, leftists. To be a conservative was to be a monarchist both throughout Europe and when talking specifically of the colonies. Anyone who advocated popular sovereignty as opposed to an individual sovereign was considered a leftist/liberal. That's why I do not hate liberalism, even in the modern sense. Without them we wouldn't individual rights, the idea of popular sovereignty, or even basic civil rights that do not distinguish between skin color (although I think the civil rights movements itself, politically, went about things the wrong way and did more damage than good).

At any rate, my point is this. The only problem with liberalism is that they didn't know when to stop progressing.So, defend the Fairness Doctrine, already?!?!

[SicEmBaylor]

So, defend the Fairness Doctrine, already?!?!
I'm not. It's horrific. I'm too libertarian for that ****.

[Jerk]

Sic'em - there is absolutely no way to compare 18th century liberalism with the Marxists bunch. They are two totally different breeds of cat. Their whole world-view is completely polar opposite of each other; individual rights, the role of government, etc. They're not in the same universe. The classic libs believe that freedom leads to prosperity and happiness. The Marxists see the world as 'haves and have-nots' and believe government do whatever necessary to even things out.