Back Door Fairness Doctrine?

A new style of censorship is being considered by the Federal Communications Commission. The left understands the stigma attached to the “Fairness Doctrine,” so rather than try to reestablish it, they are taking another route to achieve the same goal:

In a 2007 report, an ultra-liberal think tank known as The Center for American Progress issued a report called “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” Jim Boulet of English First says its agenda was to cleverly recast the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” by using the term “localism.”

“In 2007, they issued a report in which they bragged that if they could get more women and minorities to own stations, there’d be fewer stations carrying programs like Rush Limbaugh. What the regulations also do is we create a board of censors, really, who the radio station would have to meet with four times a year to listen to all their complaints — and if they weren’t satisfied, the radio station could lose its license,” Boulet points out.

What they can’t stop with the “Fairness” Doctrine, they will stop with affirmative action in broadcasting.

One of the proposed regulations would require racial and sexual quotas for station ownership, and another would require that all “licensees should convene and consult with permanent advisory boards.” Boulet says he knows what that will mean.

“These boards are going to be made up of people like the [Council on] American-Islamic Relations, The National Council of La Raza – all a bunch of professional grievance mongers who will never be satisfied until programs like Rush Limbaugh are no longer on the air,” Boulet explains.

According to Boulet, the review process is expected to end on June 11, at which time the FCC will decide what to do.

There is an alternative. We preach active citizenry here, and one way of making your voice heard is via petition. There is a petition to tell the FCC what you think about this. It is at Keeprushontheair.com.

It is incredible they are even considering these things. As one Freeper said, “What part of the First Amendment, is so complicated?”