novatownhall blog

updated, and a little more mellow

Here Comes The Fairness Act

Author | jacob | Posted on | February 6, 2009 | 16 Comments

Despite insistence from our local left-wing apologists, the Democrat party is going to push censorship and call it fairness.   Orwell would be proud.  Here it comes.  From the Politico:

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.

Despite insistence that no one is talking about the Fairness doctine, Nancy Pelosi, several house members, and several senators are talking about it.  Considering the drumbeat from the left, it will be coming to a station near you, real soon.  The following screed from Common Dreams:

The necessity for the Fairness Doctrine, according to proponents, arises from the fact that there are many fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation was the Fairness Doctrine, which was meant to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves. (Since cable’s infrastructure is privately owned and cable channels can, in theory, be endlessly multiplied, the FCC does not put public interest requirements on that medium.)

is typical of what passes for thinking from the left.  From the LA Times:

Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and such influential Democratic senators as Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer are pushing for its return, or something like it. Could the equal-time provisions pull a Don Imus and make a radio comeback?

This is an idea that will be used to shut down talk radio.  Radio is the one medium that is not dominated by the left.  It appears dominence in print media such as newspapers and magazines, cabal TV, and broadcast TV.   This is not enough.  Those inconvenient voices on the right must go.  Fair?  Hardly.

UPDATE

Prester John makes an interesting point.  If broadcaste TV and Public radio and TV have provide equal time, won’t that bring balance to the airwaves?  Hardly.  Bill Moyers will be held up as a centrist.  As will the current broadcaste TV crews.  ‘MSNBC is unbiased and only reports the truth.’, will be stated with a solemnity and a straight face.  Only talk radio will be found to be in need of a fix. 

Category: Politics, War

Comments

16 Responses to “Here Comes The Fairness Act”

  1. Janie
    February 6th, 2009 @ 3:26 am

    Seeing this coming, I got a satellite radio for Christmas. I suspect many other conservatives will be doing the same.

  2. G. Stone
    February 6th, 2009 @ 8:14 am

    Do not believe satellite radio is safe. This will not stop at the AM/ FM dial.

  3. Prester John
    February 6th, 2009 @ 9:17 am

    Are not the broadcast TV stations also operating on the public air ways? If so, would that not make them also subject to a “Fairness Doctrine”?

    Forcing that on TV networks might be cruel though, half of the staff of People’s Broadcast System would probably stroke over if they were forced to give equal time to those on the other side of Bill Moyer and company.

    And I’m sure ABC, NBC, and CBS would not appreciate having to put on Fox News-like morning and evening news broadcasts to blance out their own news shows which are nothing more than propaganda outlets for the DNC.

  4. Jack
    February 6th, 2009 @ 9:27 am

    You are trying to apply logic to liberals, John. It just doesn’t stick.

  5. dans
    February 6th, 2009 @ 12:43 pm

    “broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies.”

    Let’s expand on this logic, a term I use loosely.

    The Internet also has a finite number of public IP addresses. Given this, shouldn’t this ‘Fairness’ also apply to the Internet as well ?

    I would say it is samo-samo. Sites like Huffington, KOS and others need to offer a counterpoint “to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored were heard”.

  6. ACTivist
    February 6th, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

    I’m for it. Think about when O-bummer gets on the tube and rants, cries and whines on all the networks. Then think about an equal time rebuttal from, say, Mark Levin. That would put an end to the fairness doctrine and just plain ban conservative talk.

  7. stay puft marshmallow man
    February 6th, 2009 @ 8:13 pm

    How did all y’all feel about CBS getting sued for Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction?

    MSNBC is cable, by the way.

  8. Wolverine
    February 6th, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

    I would absolutely love equal time. Imagine Mark Levin co-hosting with Chris Matthews at that moment when Chris described the thrills running up his leg! That would make media history!

  9. Rachelfriend
    February 6th, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

    CBS/Janet Jackson? I was against the government suing CBS, just like I’d be against the station down south being sued because someone spliced porn into their live feed. It was something done using their airwaves but not by them. I would have preferred it if Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson had been sued.

  10. Jack
    February 6th, 2009 @ 9:31 pm

    That was ridiculous, puffy. Suing Janet Jackson and her side-kick, sure, but w/o evidence that CBS knew of the stunt beforehand, no.

  11. dans
    February 6th, 2009 @ 10:01 pm

    Going after CBS was the wrong thing to do here.

  12. Rachelfriend
    February 7th, 2009 @ 1:51 am

    I would love equal time too. I think the Republicans should draft legislation tonight, and call it the “Equal Time Act of 2009″. All radio and broadcast television news and information programs (including NPR) would be required to give equal time to conservatives and liberals. If Democrats are planning their “Fairness Act” then Republicans should beat them to it with an “Equal Time Act”. Be proactive and start the debate early, don’t wait for Democrats to draft the legislation. Include provisions that truly support “equal time” and then step back and watch the Democrats try to fight against the “fairness” of it all. If we end up with Mark Levin vs. Chris Matthews on a regular basis, I’ll be thrilled!

  13. Had Enough
    February 8th, 2009 @ 9:53 pm

    On September 20, 2007, Obama submits a letter to a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) hearing encouraging diversity in the media and the promotion of “localism;” one month later Obama sends another letter to FCC Chairman Martin emphasizing that the Commission has failed in that regard. Note that the FCC “localism” rule can be used to remove a radio station’s broadcast license, putting it off the air and out of business. Note also that the liberal organization, “Center for American Progress” (CAP), issued a report in 2007 concluding there were too many conservatives on the radio and called on the FCC to use the localism rule accordingly; the CEO of CAP is John Podesta, former Clinton staffer and the eventual head of Obama’s White House transition team. Obama’s pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, had successfully lobbied the FCC to take away the broadcast license of a station it felt was not covering the civil rights movement fairly.

    When questioned about attempts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to introduce legislation (a re-introduction of a “Fairness Doctrine”) that would restrict conservative radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, Obama’s campaign press secretary, Michael Ortiz, says Obama supports “media-ownership caps, network neutrality” and more “public broadcasting.” Obama will support the Pelosi legislation. Ortiz further states that Obama considers the fairness doctrine 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.” Obama’s approach to silencing radio critics like Limbaugh and Hannity will likely rely, instead, on an existing “localism” rule in FCC regulations; that rule requires stations to serve the interests of their local communities in order to keep their FCC broadcast licenses. As President, Obama will have the opportunity to replace at least one FCC member, which could allow him to define “localism” in a way that reduces the influence of conservative broadcasters, and allows radio station licenses to be revoked and given to liberal minority owners.

  14. Had Enough
    February 14th, 2009 @ 10:30 pm

    Talk of halting talk radio continues:

    Fairness Doctrine Talk Floats

    http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/74668

  15. diana
    August 17th, 2009 @ 9:54 am

    Would a possible workaround be for servers to be bought and maintained offshore? Then people could get e-mail addresses, post blogs, get web sites, etc. and the US would have no control or authority over them. Am I correct?

  16. dans
    August 17th, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

    diana,

    This in essence is the situation in China. Google, Yahoo, and others have been quite active in helping to close access to “unapproved” internet sites at the request of the Chinese government.

Leave a Reply





  • SUBSCRIBE!
  • CREATE A GRAVATAR!


  • GREG'S ENDORSEMENT OF CANDACE HERE

    JOE'S ENDORSEMENT OF CANDACE HERE

  • Message to Democrats

  • Good Guy Award

    joe_wilson_fan_club.jpg

  • NICE WORK, AMERICA

    You elected a community organizer as your president.

  • U.S. Apology Tour 2008-12

  • Fight Mass Hysteria

    Save the Earth -
    FROM INSANITY!

    Eco-Freaks by John Berlau

  • Quote of the New Year

    Last March, NASA reported the oceans have been cooling for the last five years. Sea level has stopped rising, and Northern Hemisphere cyclone and hurricane activity is at a 24-year low.

    Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover. Their rationale for continuing a lost cause is that weather events in the short term are not necessarily related to long-term climatic trends. But these are the same people who screamed at us each year that ordinary weather events such as high temperatures or hurricanes were undeniable evidence of imminent doom.

    Now that global warming is over, politicians are finally ready to enact dubious solutions to a non-existent problem. In Britain, Parliament is intrepidly forging ahead with a bold new plan to cool the climate, even as London experienced its first October snowfall since 1934 and Ireland went through the coldest October in the last 70 years.

    This is an absurd spectacle. Our advanced civilization is being systematically mismanaged by technologically illiterate lawyers responding to political pressures from irrational fanatics. Would someone please tell these people it is impossible to overturn the laws of thermodynamics?

    David Deming

  • Ecosystem

    roadsignsm.0.jpg
    Keeper1.0.jpg