Tag Archives: Fairness Doctrine

Fairness Doctrine, Pensacola, Politics

Rush Has Zero Impact, Part 2

Following up on an opinion piece in the Pensacola News Journal by Air America Radio host Mike Papantonio, the Lunch Counter post Rush Has Zero Impact was essentially, a copy of the comment I made on the PNJ’s website where the talk show host’s column first appeared.

Curiously enough, that same comment does not pass moderation on the Huffington Post, where the same article appeared today.

No, I’m not complaining. Just observing the thin skin of the Air America Radio people on Baylen Street. Actually, it is the Fairness Doctrine in action, as they would like it. Liberals in action are so amusing.

Fairness Doctrine, Politics

Fairness Doctrine Sleight Of Hand

Referring to the little war going on over the Fairness Doctrine. Why is it that only Republicans seem to favor free speech nowadays? I can say that because there is not one Democrat that is a co-sponsor of the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009. And Democrats’ opinions are all over the place. Some agree that regulating free speech, including and especially political speech, is necessary and should be content-neutral, like Barack Obama, and some are, oh, I’ll call them deniers, like Craig Aaron, who think that Republicans’ concern that the Fairness Doctrine will find its way back under an Obama administration ‘is completely imaginary.’ That, and that he says there are no bills pending to reinstate it, so there’s nothing to worry about.

And then there’s this guy (girl?), NewsCorpse, who must be a superdenier when he says . . .

Conservatives fear that Liberals want to destroy talk radio. Oh please! They can have talk radio. It’s last century’s broadcasting platform.

Aaron says . . .

Let’s review: It wasn’t in the Democratic Party platform. No bill has been introduced in the Democrat-controlled Congress. No FCC rules are pending. And President-elect Barack Obama has stated unequivocally that he “does not support re-imposing” the Fairness Doctrine.

See if you can spot a reason for concern here. A denier will say that Obama does not support the Fairness Doctrine.

And Obama’s position is . . .

‘He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.’

I like the part where he defines restricting the airways as opening up the airwaves. Now that you know Obama’s position on the Fairness Doctrine, did he not make that perfectly clear? He isn’t in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. He is in favor of ‘network neutrality.’ Know what that is? That’s Democrat-speak for the Fairness Doctrine.

Where in the First Amendment does it say that the government should make speech content neutral? If the government MAKES anything about speech, or makes any law regarding the content of political speech (the very kind of speech that the 1st Amendment was drawn up to protect), then IT ISN’T FREE is it? It is regulated.

I don’t know what Aaron was doing when he said that no FCC rules are pending. Is that supposed to make you feel complacent, and satisfied that there isn’t anything coming out of the FCC to cause concern? He is either not informed on WHY there is nothing coming out of the FCC, or he knows why and is being deceptive about it. You make the call.

So, if the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 is so trivial and even unnecessary, then what is the problem with allowing it to come to the Senate floor for a vote? If it is so inconsequential, that nobody really wants to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, then there shouldn’t be any opposition to INSURING that it won’t be reinstated, either in its original form or in some other form.

links: Huffington Post | News Corpse | The First Amendment Needs Protecting

Fairness Doctrine, Politics

Democrats Still Attacking Limbaugh

My friends at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have a petition going. ‘Stand strong against Rush Limbaugh’s Attacks — sign our petition, telling Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama. We’ll send Limbaugh your comments. When members of the Republican Attack Machine like Rush Limbaugh kick into action, we need a strong grassroots response.’

What could possibly be accomplished by a campaign like this? Do they really believe that their hate mail will cause Rush to accept and support Obama’s so-called stimulus plan? The DCCC is showing just how shallow they and their grassroots are when it comes to the arena of ideas. And I’m sure that Rush will be more than happy to point that out.

Rush’s response, “I am greatly puzzled. Why would the Democrats petition against me if I am doing such terrible damage to the GOP? ”

Once again, like Harry Reid tried a couple years ago with the infamous letter he sent to ABC, the political party is attacking a private citizen based on lies. Limbaugh is not attacking Obama. He is attacking Obama’s so-called economic stimulus plan. Unfortunately, the lemmings that believe their tripe can’t tell the difference.

Won’t you help them? Here’s my message. Your mileage may vary.

Since President Obama’s so-called economic stimulus plan is mostly a democrat party / special interest stimulus plan, and as proscribed, has more pork in it than economic stimulus, then I too hope he fails. Not as president, but in passing this plan as he has proposed it. Which is the exact context that Limbaugh’s comment was meant.

Be sure to send my comments to Limbaugh. Thanks for your help.

All those (like Craig Aaron at the Huffington Post) who believe that Democrats don’t want the return of the Fairness Doctrine please raise your hand.

link: DCCC

Fairness Doctrine, Media, Politics

The First Amendment Needs Protecting

For years now, ever since Air America Radio first went bankrupt, when they learned that there wasn’t a viable market out there for their product, the Left has been longing for the return of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. As is always the liberal left’s way, if you don’t like the message, you shoot the messenger. In this case it goes like this, if you can’t compete in the market place, you kill the market. Not satisfied that the Left has hit the trifecta, the House, the Senate, and The White House without the Fairness Doctrine, the probability of its return has never been greater.

The truth is, the Fairness Doctrine does not need any legislators or votes for it to return. It was only suspended back in the eighties. All the FCC Commissioners have to do is to decide, on its own, to reinstate it. And all they need to do that is to have a majority of Commissioners on the FCC to make that decision. Right now there is an open seat and the FCC is split evenly with two Republicans and two Democrats.

Now there is nothing stopping President Obama from picking a Democrat to fill that vacancy, and nothing from stopping a 3-2 decision to reinstate it. Nothing except the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34) introduced by Sen. Jim DeMint (D-SC).

For an idea of what the Obama administration has in mind where organizations like ACORN and Media Matters are concerned, please check this newsletter from the Center for Individual Freedom.

Not surprisingly, not one of the 28 co-sponsors have a ‘D’ beside their name. The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 does only one thing. It would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine, and nothing else.

‘SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

‘Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).’.

Elections have consequences, and the possible curtailment of freedom of speech as described above is one of them. This ought not be a partisan issue. This is a freedom of speech issue, a constitutional issue.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) says . . .

the Left’s intention and goal is to silence millions of conservative Americans who disagree with the Left’s warped vision for America.

“Democrats want to impose an unfair doctrine that destroys talk radio and silences the voices of millions of Americans who disagree with their vision for America. But the First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, regardless of political affiliation…”

The entire text of the bill is one of the shortest considering that it will protect the free speech rights guaranteed to all of us in the First Amendment of our Constitution.

Time is now to petition your senators to voice your support for the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34)

related links:  CFIF.ORG | S. 34:Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009

S. 34: Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009
Introduced Jan 6, 2009
Sponsor Sen. Jim DeMint [R-SC]
Status Reported by Committee
Last Action Jan 7, 2009: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 12.
(Powered by GovTrack.us.)
Fairness Doctrine, Media

Singapore, Making Fairness Doctrine Proponents Jealous

Oh if they could just have their way, which is to silence ‘free’ speech that they don’t like, Democrats in Washington could always try what the city-state of Singapore is doing. In Singapore, if the shoe fits, and you report that the shoe fits, that is tantamount to defamation. And because the WSJ had reported on cases in Singapore’s legal system before, and been sued for doing so, they are now being charged with contempt.

From Singapore’s Law Ministry, Justice Tay Young Kwang interprets it this way . . .

“Words sometimes mean more than what they appear to say on the surface,” he writes, going on to interpret the words as contemptuous because they had an “inherent tendency” to “scandalise the court.” The fine he levied, S$25,000 ($16,500), is the largest ever meted out for such an offense. Justice Tay expressed the hope that it will deter “future transgressions.”

To Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, are you taking notes on this? As for the Journal . . .

Let us begin with an apology to our readers in Asia. Unless they are online, they will not see this editorial. For legal reasons, we are refraining from publishing it in The Wall Street Journal Asia, which circulates in Singapore.
We’ll pay the fine. We’ll also continue to express our views about politics, the courts and other subjects that we think our readers should know about. And we’ll let readers decide what to make of the judiciary in Singapore.

link: Singapore Strikes Again

Fairness Doctrine, Media, Politics

Go Left TV Takes On Conservative Media

2 Comments

Proof that the fairness doctrine is a big mistake, the left has sprouted up a new presence on the Internet in the form of GoLeft.tv. It’s a mistake in the sense that everyone has a shot at playing pundit, success or failure depends on them, not the government.

They are properly optimistic, with all the bravado of the kick-off of Air America Radio a couple years ago. From the press release. . .

“Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Medved and the rest of right-wing, conservative media, beware!”

Among the people behind GLTV is a familiar face in Air America Radio land. Pensacola attorney Mike Papantonio, and his buds at his BIG LAW law firm are the major “investors” in the project. The “Pap Attack” is something he does on his Air America Radio show called the Ring of Fire, available on short wave, the Internet and a few conventional AM outlets. As referenced in the previous post, watching a minute or two of the Pap Attack will give you an idea what hate radio (hate Internet?) is.