The Fairness Doctrine is a Democrat’s best friend. The Fairness Doctrine was enacted in 1949 and lasted until the Reagan Administration. In 1985, the FCC issued a report. According to the Museum of Broadcast Communication, the report said the Doctrine was stifling debate:
By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.
The Democrat Congress, in the face of a report saying they might be violating the First Amendment, voted the Fairness Doctrine into law in 1987. Reagan squashed it with a veto. Thus, Rush Limbaugh and talk radio was born.
The Democrats are going to try to destroy talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine is the way to do it.
In June of last year, Dick Durbin said:
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
In the same month, Diane Feinstein said:
Asked if she would revive the fairness doctrine, which used to require broadcasters to present competing sides of controversial issues, Feinstein said she was “looking at it.”
“I remember when there was a fairness doctrine,” she said, “and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.”
John Kerry voiced his support for the doctrine, also in June of 2007:
In a radio interview on WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show, excerpted on YouTube, Senator Kerry said he thought the doctrine should return. Calling it one of the “most profound changes in the balance of the media,” he said conservatives have been able to “squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views. I think it has been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public dialog,” he said.
Again in June of 2007, Sen. James Inhofe said he overheard Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer discussing a “legislative fix” for talk radio:
SENATOR JAMES INHOFE (R-OKLAHOMA): I was going over to vote the other day, and I was walking with two very liberal gals that were, they didn’t pay any attention to me being with them. They were outraged by something you said, or Rush Limbaugh said. Somebody said something that upset them. They said, “We’ve got to do something about this. These are nothing but far rightwing extremists. We’ve got to have a balance. There’s got to be a legislative fix to this.” And as we got off the elevator, I said, “You gals don’t understand. This is market driven. And there’s no market for your liberal tripe.”
And that’s in, so I see…
JOHN ZEIGLER, HOST: You can’t tell us which Senators they were Senator? You can’t tell us who they were? Was that Boxer and Feinstein?
INHOFE: Uh, you’re halfway there. The other one’s running for president. You figure it out.
ZEIGLER: Oh wow. So, it was Boxer and Hillary. Boxer and Hillary told you that, you overheard Boxer and Hillary saying…
Clinton and Boxer said that never happened, and you can trust Hillary to tell the truth.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi came right out and said she supported the return of the Fairness Doctrine. When questioned on whether she foresaw Rep. Mike Pence’s “Broadcaster’s Freedom Act,” put it right out there:
Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall. There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.
“So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,” Pelosi said.
“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.
“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation
Just yesterday, the Democrats showed their hand again:
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said right out loud in an interview with 770 KKOB Radio’s Jim Villanucci what many of his fellow Democrats have been reluctant to say out loud — that he favors the restoration of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that would require a balancing of viewpoints on the largely right-tilting world of talk radio.
Obama has said he doesn’t support the “Fairness Doctrine.” But do you really think that a bill with the support of the Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, John Kerry and the other liberals in Congress will be vetoed by President Obama? Neither do I.
But here’s the thing. With Obama, you have to look a little deeper. Rather than supporting the Fairness Doctrine, Obama supports localism. I heard a little bit about localism and the Conservative Leadership Conference, and it sounds like a different was of stifling opposing points of view on talk radio:
“Under the rubric of ‘broadcast localism’ it is clear the Commission is proposing no less than a sweeping takeover by Washington bureaucrats of broadcast media. The proposals and recommendations for Commission action contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking amount to the stealth enactment of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy designated to squelch the free speech and free expression of specifically targeted audiences,” wrote Boehner.
Why is this such a big deal to conservatives? Why is it supported by a majority of liberals? Because it would hush Rush. It would destroy talk radio, which, as Front Page.com says, “the only form of communication that conservatives have through which they can certainly and consistently connect with the general public. Most major television and print media are dominated by liberals, but conservatives are successful on talk radio.”
I’m sure Rush and Co. would simply jump to XM, but the folks who can’t afford XM would be without a way to hear conservative points of view. Which is exactly what the liberals are planning on.
Here are some other bloggers who are talking about the Fairness Doctrine:
- Reihl World View: Dem Senator: Fairness Doctrine Is A “Higher Calling”
- Hot Air: Jeff Bingaman: You know what would be sweet? Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine
- Red State: Barack Obama: One Man, One Vote, One Time
- American Thinker: What’s so ‘fair’ about the Fairness Doctrine
- Babalu Blog: Obama’s threat to free speech
- LibNot: WSJ: What could happen if the Democrats have a “super majority” in Congress
- Betsy’s Page: Bringing back unfairness in broadcasting
- Self-Composed: Would the fairness doctrine work both ways?
- Moonbattery: If Obama Wins, Damage Likely to Be Permanent
- Stop the ACLU: The Impending Obama Thugocracy
- Pajamas Media: Obama and the Fairness Doctrine
Related posts:
