"AM Radio will die,” conservative radio talk-show host Michael Reagan told me as we discussed the consequences of a reinstated Fairness Doctrine.
“It would be used as it was used in the past, that's the reason my Father got rid of it. It will be used as a political weapon against radio station owners, program directors and managers.” said Reagan.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ended the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 under Ronald Reagan. First enacted in 1949 the Fairness Doctrine mandated that when a broadcast station presented one viewpoint on a controversial public issue it must also counter with the opposing viewpoint. Repealed by a vote of 4-0 it was concluded that the Fairness Doctrine had begun to inhibit political discourse rather than enhance it.
Congress tried to reinstate the doctrine but President Reagan vetoed their attempt. Again in 1991 another attempt to revive the doctrine failed when George H. W. Bush threatened a veto.
In recent weeks, politicians Diane Feinstein (D.-Ca.), Trent Lott (R.-Ms.), John Kerry (D.-Ma.) and Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio) have called for the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated once again.
“One of the most profound changes in the balance media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements. The result is they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion and opposing views, and I think it’s a major transition of the imbalance…” said Kerry on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC.
The Fairness Doctrine and its equal time requirements were in action before I was tall enough to reach the radio dial but conservative Radio talk-show host Barry Farber knows how the Fairness Doctrine worked first hand. “I don’t think that most people realize what it said” he told me.
“If someone was negatively referred to we didn’t have to grant equal time if that person asked… it was our job to seek out the parties that had been attacked and offer them equal time… That’s how unfair the law was.”
“I don’t think you’re going to see the left saying we have to apply this newspapers or we have to apply this to network television” said Farber.
In what is clearly a direct hit on conservative talk radio the Fairness Doctrine seems anything but fair. With the mainstream media being predominantly liberal, talk radio is the only outlet that conservatives can utilize. As Gary Bauer pointed out in his column last week in HUMAN EVENTS conservative talk radio is the Fairness Doctrine.
“It is the liberal left that shuts off the debate. It’s the liberal left that refuses to debate before FOX Television for the presidential campaign. The Republicans are willing to go to Chris Matthews and MSNBC” said Reagan.
In February, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D.-NY.) attempted to introduce the Media Ownership Reform act (MORA). MORA’s concepts included regulations that would prohibit consolidation and mass domination of broadcasting groups to in order to properly serve the public interest BUT at the same time slipped in the Fairness Doctrine. MORA went no where fast. Now those in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine are no longer trying to deceive the public with rhetoric of media ownership regulations and going straight in for the kill.
Just like MORA was dead on arrival, last Thursday the House rejected the Fairness Doctrine. By vote of 309-115 it was decided that the FCC would not be able to use taxpayers dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) introduced the bill that blocks funding of the Fairness Doctrine.
There is little is little hope that the Fairness Doctrine can get the votes it needs to move anywhere in the Senate.
So are we in the clear? It may not be the Fairness Doctrine that Conservatives have to worry about…and we may have been victorious through the amnesty bill, but one can only wonder whats next -- and who can we trust?
President Bush’s spokesman Tony Snow told HUMAN EVENTS White House Correspondent John Gizzi while answering questions on the Fairness Doctrine, that he was “Not going to argue with Sen. Lott.”
“The President is going to undermine his own party on the way out the door.” Michael Reagan told me.
“His legacy right now -- came in like Reagan -- went out like Carter, being Ronald Reagan’s son I can say these things… because I get it.”
“Its so sad what is going on and what we are seeing…When you think that my father used to have HUMAN EVENTS on his night stand in the White House to get what was going on and to have our side so attacked by our own people in Washington DC is unbelievable” said Reagan.
No, what makes you say that? They'll just drive the people off regular radio to satellite, just like they're pushing people to cable/satellite or TV now.
Most people don't have satellite but it may push them to cable and as far as regular TV goes it's so far left it might fall over. By passing the fairness bill they're trying to force people to watch the liberal point of view that no-one wants to watch. Example all the liberal radio shows that have gone off the air due to lack of listeners, so if nobody listens to the libs lets get rid of the conservatives too. The fairness bill was passed when there were just 3 TV stations and the networks needed some equality on the air waves. There are hundreds of radio, TV, and satellite stations available now so if you don't like whats on change the channel.
Here's the story....the rep's have had much success with their conservative radio talk shows. Whether we like them or not, you have Rush, Michael Savage, Hannity and the list goes on. They have millions of listeners each. Now the dem's tried it and it flopped. Even if you are a dem supporter, pissing and moaning gets old. So now the dem's want to even the playing field. Well, there is no playing field. If they even it...then there will be NO talk am radio cause the dem's have ZERO! And that is what they would want the rep's/conservatives to have. If you notice, they have had to resort to Youtube. Ya got your Hillary/Soprano thing, the Obama thing but let us not forget the John Edward's hair thing goin' on....
Without conservative talk radio...there would be no more am radio as we know it today. Not to worry though, the radio stations and their advertisers know that the money comes from the reps/conservatives...clearly not from the other side.
I personally am a Michael Savage fan....7pm - 10pm wgy monday thru friday...give him a try!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
The Battle for Talk Radio: Powerful Foes Want to End the Gabfest
The 2008 election has yet to be decided, but one thing is clear: If the Democrats win the White House, expect an all-out attack on talk radio. Political talk, as we know it, could end.
If they win, Rush, Imus, Savage, Beck, and dozens of other major hosts will be muzzled by using federal regulations to control political talk.
So, what's their plan of attack?
As Newsmax magazine reveals in its just-released special report, "The Battle for Talk Radio," leading liberals in Congress, the Democratic presidential candidates, and even some Republicans speak openly of their plans to end conservative talk radio using federal regulations.
Their weapon: a revived Fairness Doctrine, which would once again require stations to air divergent points of view — a clever ruse that makes station owners leery of airing controversial talk-radio hosts fearing law suits and federal sanctions.
With a new Fairness Doctrine, you could see many top conservative radio hosts canned.
The Battle for Talk Radio: Powerful Foes Want to End the Gabfest
The 2008 election has yet to be decided, but one thing is clear: If the Democrats win the White House, expect an all-out attack on talk radio. Political talk, as we know it, could end.
If they win, Rush, Imus, Savage, Beck, and dozens of other major hosts will be muzzled by using federal regulations to control political talk.
So, what's their plan of attack?
As Newsmax magazine reveals in its special report, "The Battle for Talk Radio," leading liberals in Congress, the Democratic presidential candidates, and even some Republicans speak openly of their plans to end conservative talk radio using federal regulations.
Their weapon: a revived Fairness Doctrine, which would once again require stations to air divergent points of view — a clever ruse that makes station owners leery of airing controversial talk-radio hosts fearing law suits and federal sanctions.
With a new Fairness Doctrine, you could see many top conservative radio hosts canned.
This Newsmax special report also features an exclusive interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly who tells Newsmax there is no question a plan is being hatched. "The far-left kooks will try, but they will fail," O'Reilly says.
Far from spouting standard talking points, I believe Ron Wheeler was genuine in his Nov. 14 letter when he claimed there was no need to "legislate balance" through the Fairness Doctrine because conservative talk radio is "balanced by the liberal media."
In a world where any departure from logic can be justified with the qualifier "Some say," it must seem like balance when Mr. Wheeler's talker of choice harps on about "the questions that need to be asked" about Barack Obama's "relationship" with Bill Ayers, and the "liberal media" doesn't rise to the challenge. Mind you, the media did ask those questions at least eight months before the election, but apparently the answers they got just weren't satisfactory.
And it probably does seem like the media is being a big mean old bully when it keeps disproving things like Sarah Palin saying "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere, John McCain "has no relationship with lobbyists", or the White House had "no role whatsoever" in the outing of a CIA agent. On that last point, I will wait to hear Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity attack any pardons disbursed by President Bush in the same last-minute way President Clinton did in 2000.
In any case, neither Mr. Wheeler nor the aforementioned blowhards need to worry about the Fairness Doctrine, for three reasons:
First, conservative talk radio is here to stay, if only because it makes tremendous amounts of money for the stations that carry it.
Second, the FCC's policing capabilities have been absolutely gutted by the current administration.
Finally, if Rush or Hannity are "forced" to book non-conservative guests, they'll simply do what they always do in that situation: Yell over whatever the guests are trying to say, accuse them of being "America-haters" and/or "radical Socialists", and cut off their microphones when it's time for a commercial.
Finally, if Rush or Hannity are "forced" to book non-conservative guests, they'll simply do what they always do in that situation: Yell over whatever the guests are trying to say, accuse them of being "America-haters" and/or "radical Socialists", and cut off their microphones when it's time for a commercial.
THIS statement I would heartily agree with.....no matter the setting be it liberal or conservative.....I HATE when they do that.....I want to SCREAM-- SHUT UP AND LISTEN AND HEAR YOU ARE NOT AN ANIMAL......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Liberals’ case for Fairness Doctrine never weaker George Will
George Will is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Reactionary liberalism, the ideology of many Democrats, holds that inconvenient rights, such as secret ballots in unionization elections, should be repealed; that existing failures, such as GM, should be preserved; and, with special perversity, that repealed mistakes, such as the “fairness doctrine,” should be repeated. That Orwellian name was designed to disguise the doctrine’s use as the government’s instrument for preventing fair competition in the broadcasting of political commentary. Because liberals have been even less successful in competing with conservatives on talk radio than Detroit has been in competing with its rivals, liberals are seeking intellectual protectionism in the form of regulations that suppress ideological rivals. If liberals advertise their illiberalism by reimposing the fairness doctrine, the Supreme Court might revisit its 1969 ruling that the fairness doctrine is constitutional. The court probably would dismay reactionary liberals by reversing that decision on the ground that the world has changed vastly, pertinently and for the better. Until the Reagan administration extinguished it, the doctrine required broadcasters to devote reasonable time to fairly presenting all sides of any controversial issue discussed on the air. The government decided the meaning of the italicized words. When government regulation of the content of broadcasts began in 1927, the supposed justification was the scarcity of radio spectrum. In 1928 and 1929, when Republicans ran Washington, a New York station owned by the Socialist Party was warned to show “due regard” for others’ opinions, and the government blocked the Chicago Federation of Labor’s attempted purchase of a station because all stations should serve “the general public.” In 1939, when Democrats ran Washington, the government conditioned renewal of one station’s license on that station’s promise to desist from anti-FDR editorials. In 1969, when the Supreme Court declared the fairness doctrine constitutional, it probably did not know the Kennedy administration’s use of it, as one official described it: “Our massive strategy was to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.” Richard Nixon emulated this practice. In 1973, Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, a liberal, said the doctrine “has no place in our First Amendment regime” because it “enables administration after administration to toy with TV or radio.” The court’s 1969 ruling relied heavily on the scarcity rationale. But Brian Anderson and Adam Thierer, in...........................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar04801
First published in print: Sunday, December 7, 2008
I sensed a great deal of anger (oh, the hypocrisy) directed at conservatives in the Nov. 23 commentary "Anger management" by K..C.Halloran. The title goes on to state: "Once amusing, right-wing talk radio is becoming increasingly hard to handle."
I doubt self-described bleeding heart liberals like Mr. Halloran ever really felt that conservative thinkers were "amusing." I've come to suspect that describing conservatives that way was simply one method some liberals employ to protect their contemporaries from the risk of being informed, educated and ultimately converted.
As an informed reader of all perspectives, I have to conclude that "Anger management" is one of many such articles we'll be forced to endure in the liberal media's concerted effort to reinstitute The Fairness Doctrine.
But you liberals may want to rethink — excuse me — you may want to think about how you feel about the so called "fairness" of forcing your opponents in the media to give equal time to your point of view. It works both ways.
I have firsthand experience in trying to submit rebuttals to a number of newspapers' biased and inaccurate editorials. Most articles that I have written in response to liberal falsehoods and misinformation have gone unpublished. I have longed for the day we could get an honest debate over the important issues of our time.
So if you think you will be happy when local radio stations are forced to provide three hours of Al Franken opposite Rush Limbaugh or equal time for Alan Chartock after Paul Vandenburgh, just remember you'll have to endure being informed of things the liberal media doesn't want you to know.
There are good reasons why Franken and Chartock's radio shows can't make it on commercial radio. Profitable radio stations will lose a great deal of income as advertisers choose not to pay for airtime when nobody is listening. Reduced profit also means reduced tax revenue to pay for public radio stations like WAMC.
I can think of at least one humorous plus that may come out of all this. If we could get Al Franken to co-anchor a show with Ben Stein, we could call it the Franken Stein Show.
I don't know for the life of me why the liberals would even consider reinstating the Fair Doctorine. With Rush, Savage, Hannity etc.....they still won this election! The conserv programs didn't seem to hurt the liberal movement what so ever!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Right-wing rants can lead to dangerous results First published in print: Monday, December 8, 2008
I read Mr. Paravella's letter about "bashing" of right-wing radio. While I believe most radio people are responsible in what they say on the air, many tend to sensationalize just to get bigger ratings. I'd like to highlight one recent incident: Eddie Burke, a longtime uber-conservative Anchorage talk show host, referred to organizers of a Sept. 14 anti-Sarah Palin rally as "a bunch of socialist baby-killing maggots," and read the home phone numbers of the organizers over the air.
Apparently, peaceful assembly by people expressing opposing viewpoints is grounds for name-calling. It may not be racist but it's certainly hate filled. Giving out the home phone numbers of the rally organizers could have led to serious consequences.
In fairness, Mr. Burke was suspended for one week without pay for this incident.
Sad to say, the days of educated, intelligent debate in the style of William F. Buckley have deteriorated to where Ann Coulter can label Sen. John Edwards with a homosexual insult and be applauded.
Logged
