Talk Radio Under Fire

[N0NJY]

Originally Posted by noreault

I can't find anything to suggest that the fairness doctrine is being revisited. Might I suggest that we wait for an actual problem before slamming. The fairness doctrine was sensible when the outlets were limited. A few national stations, both TV and radio, were capable of monopolizing the discussion. Today that just isn't true. I don't think you will see anything on this front.

White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows

Posted agenda issues warning about new 'obligation' review

Posted: January 26, 2009
By Bob Unruh



The White House is promising new reviews of the "obligations" to the government by broadcasters who "occupy the nation's spectrum" just as the president has targeted conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh for a public attack, raising concerns over the possible restoration of the "Fairness Doctrine," a policy that failed as unneeded and unconstitutional two decades ago.

Paul Ibrahim of NorthStarWriters.com cited Obama's warning to congressional Republicans that "you can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done" in suggesting the president has become the "driving force" because a new "systematic" plan to "intimidate and demonize Obama's opponents."

That such a campaign was launched only days after Obama's inauguration is "tremendously perturbing," he wrote.

"Welcome to the politics of hope 'n' change. Obama's startling attempt to hang Limbaugh's scalp on the wall is a warning that the new ruler does not want unity – he demands it," Ibrahim wrote.

On Obama's agenda, according to his White House website, is the goal to "encourage diversity in media ownership."

Obama elaborates on the site that his aim is to "encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum."

The plan apparently aligns with longstanding Democratic suggestions to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine."

The policy was abandoned in 1987 under President Reagan when there were 75 radio talk shows in the U.S. Reagan opposed the policy because it required broadcast TV and radio programs to air "opposing views" on political issues, which had the practical effect of virtually eliminating opinion programs.

Since abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine, the number of radio talk shows has risen to more than 3,000.

WND founder and editor Joseph Farah long has warned about Democrats' plans to revive restrictions on the airwaves.

"If the Democrats and their me-too Republican allies are successful at sacking talk radio, there will be no stopping them," Farah warned. "Broadcast will be first. Then they will go after the Internet with taxes and new regulations and hate-crimes laws. And when they succeed at muzzling dissenting voices there, they will even turn to print. Remember, we are dealing with a neo-fascist mentality here."

Many fear the Fairness Doctrine would drive talk radio hosts – like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage – out of business.


During the presidential campaign, spokesman Michael Ortiz indicated Obama thought the debate was "a distraction."

But author Brad O'Leary examined Obama's legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race and came to a different conclusion.

"Barack Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of [his] campaign," said O'Leary. "His presidency, combined with supermajorities for Democrats in Congress, would almost certainly bring back the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' and allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., affirmed her support to Human Events reporter John Gizzi for a "Fairness" policy, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told radio host Jim Villanucci, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum]."

Ibrahim noted the president's public verbal condemnation of Limbaugh makes clear his "rejection" of the old "Bush" politics.

"You see, President Bush did not launch assaults on private citizens, nor did he ever label anyone as 'unpatriotic' for disagreeing with him. Thus, Obama and his friends are now effecting the change they promised. Welcome to their 'new' politics," he wrote.

The National Review's Byron York said Obama's criticism of Limbaugh makes it appear he considers the talk host "the true leader of the Republican opposition."

York said Limbaugh responded that Obama was trying to make the arguments about the radio show instead of Obama's actual plans.

"To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective," Limbaugh told York. "Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts.

"I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing 'eternal' power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy," Limbaugh continued. "If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle."

Limbaugh added: "One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals: 'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.'"

Michael G. Franc, writing on the National Review's "The Corner" blog, noted that attorney general nominee Eric Holder also has refused to commit to opposing to Fairness Doctrine.

Obama's choice to head his FCC transition team, Democrat Henry Rivera, added to fear in media circles that the Fairness Doctrine might return to silence conservative talk radio.

Brian Maloney of the blog The Radio Equalizer said in his post "Meet Talk's Executioner" he believes Rivera will use his position to bring back the law for that very purpose.

Rivera, according to Maloney, "is expected to lead the push to dismantle commercial talk radio that is favored by a number of Democratic Party senators. Rivera will play a pivotal role in preventing critics from having a public voice during Obama's tenure in office."

[N0NJY]

Originally Posted by noreault

I can't find anything to suggest that the fairness doctrine is being revisited. Might I suggest that we wait for an actual problem before slamming. The fairness doctrine was sensible when the outlets were limited. A few national stations, both TV and radio, were capable of monopolizing the discussion. Today that just isn't true. I don't think you will see anything on this front.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/technology/

Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.

COLIN POWELL UNLEASHED: 'Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?'

December 11, 2008
Powell: GOP 'polarization' backfired in election

Powell says the GOP tried to use 'polarization for political advantage.'

(CNN) — The Republican party must stop "shouting at the world" and start listening to minority groups if it is to win elections in the 21st century, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday.

In an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria for Sunday's "GPS" program, President Bush's former secretary of state said his party's attempt "to use polarization for political advantage" backfired last month.

"I think the party has to take a hard look at itself," Powell said in the interview, which was taped Wednesday. "There is nothing wrong with being conservative. There is nothing wrong with having socially conservative views — I don't object to that. But if the party wants to have a future in this country, it has to face some realities. In another 20 years, the majority in this country will be the minority."

Powell, who crossed party lines and endorsed President-elect Barack Obama just weeks before the election, said the GOP must see what is in the "hearts and minds" of African-American, Hispanic and Asian voters "and not just try to nfluence them by… the principles and dogma."

"I think the party has to stop shouting at the world and at the country,"Powell said. "I think that the party has to take a hard look at itself, and I've talked to a number of leaders in recent weeks and they understand that." Powell, who says he still considers himself a Republican, said his party should also stop listening to conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?" Powell asked. "Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?"
Zakaria's full interview with Powell will air Sunday at 1 p.m. ET on CNN.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...d-in-election/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/..._conserva.html

November 17, 2008 Obama Declares War on Conservative Talk Radio

By Jim Boulet, Jr.

Barack Obama sought to silence his critics during his 2008 campaign. Now, with the ink barely dry on this November's ballots, Obama has begun a war against conservative talk radio.

Obama is on record as saying he does not plan an exhumation of the now-dead "Fairness Doctrine". Instead, Obama's attack on free speech will be far less understood by the general public and accordingly, far more dangerous.

The late community organizer Saul Alinsky taught his followers to strike hard from an unexpected direction, an approach known as Alinsky jujitsu.

Obama himself not only worked as an organizer for an Alinsky offshoot organization, Chicago's Developing Communities Project, but would go on to teach classes in Alinsky's beliefs and methods.

"Alinsky jujitsu" as applied to conservative talk radio means using vague rules already on the books to threaten any station which dares to air conservative programs with the loss of its valuable broadcast license.

Team Obama and the "localism" weapon

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule in question is called "localism." Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses.

Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming.

Localism is one of the rare issues on which Obama himself has been outspoken.

On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing held at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.'s Operation Push.

Furthermore, the Obama transition team knows all about the potential of localism as a means of silencing conservative dissent. The head of the Obama transition team is John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress.

In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. This report complained that there was too much conservative talk on the radio because of "the absence of localism in American radio markets" and urged the FCC to "[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

Podesta's choice as head of the Federal Communications Commission's transition team is Henry Rivera.

Since 1994, Rivera has been chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council. This organization has specific ideas about localism:

In other words, it would not do for broadcasters to meet with the business leaders whose companies advertise on their station. Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.

Rivera's law firm is also the former home of Kevin Martin, the current FCC chairman. Martin is himself an advocate of more stringent localism requirements.

It was on Martin's watch that on January 24, 2008, the FCC released its proposed localism regulations. According to TVNewsday: "At the NAB radio show two weeks ago, Martin said that he wanted to take action on localism this year and invited broadcasters to negotiate requirements with him."

FCC complaints as politics by other means

Remember that an FCC license is required for any radio or television station to legally operate in the United States. A single complaint from anyone can significantly hinder a station's license renewal process or even cost the station its FCC license entirely.

There have been some attempts to utilize the FCC complaint process for partisan political ends, most memorably in 2004, when Sinclair Broadcasting agreed to air a documentary questioning Senator John Kerry's war record:

Poised to pre-empt programming on its 62 television stations to run a negative documentary about Sen. John Kerry, Sinclair Broadcast Group has come under fire from critics calling it partisan and questioning whether it is failing federal broadcast requirements to reflect local interests.

Members of Congress and independent media groups have questioned the company's willingness to respect "localism," a section of federal law that requires media companies to cover local issues and provide an outlet for local voices.

One group, The Leftcoaster, went further:

But what isn't done a lot which requires the broadcaster to rack up expensive legal fees, is to challenge every one of their affiliates' FCC license renewals as they come up this year and next. ... [T]here still is time to organize and file Petitions or objections by November 1, 2004 for Sinclair stations in North Carolina and South Carolina, and for Florida by January 1, 2005.

More recently, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium issued a "fill in the blanks" official FCC complaint form which begins "Anything that you feel is offensive is worth reporting."

Community advisory boards as permanent complaint departments

These random efforts could be far more effective at silencing conservatives if they could only be systematized and institutionalized. That is exactly what the FCC proposed on January 24th. Every radio and television station would be required to create:

[P]ermanent advisory boards comprised of local officials and other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs and issues, and seek comment on the matter. ...

To ensure that these discussions include representatives of all community elements, these boards would be made up of leaders of various segments of the community, including underserved groups.

The "community advisory board as permanent complaint department" model may well be based upon the 1995 revisions of the Community Reinvestment Act, as described by Howard Husock in City Journal:

[T]the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. ... [F]or advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. ...


By intervening-even just threatening to intervene-in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York...[emphasis in original].

Understand that even allowing conservatives to be radio talk show guests may provoke a FCC licensing complaint. Just ask "right wing hatchet man" Stanley Kurtz.

For Obama, when it comes to radio talk, silence is golden, at least when it comes to conservatives.

Can localism be stopped?

FCC observers agree that the outpouring of complaints from groups like the National Religious Broadcasters during the original comment period helped delay matters.

However, Kevin Martin's determination to enact a localism regulation has led him to ask the broadcast industry to accept a voluntary standard that the FCC would then enact. If industry failed to agree now, Martin warned, "a future FCC may be less willing to compromise than the current one."

This scare tactic -- agree to our demands today or suffer dire consequences tomorrow -- is having an impact.

What broadcasters need to do: speak up now

Radio and television station owners need to become engaged in the localism issue and then take the time to educate their own Congressman and Senators about the dangers of the FCC's proposals.

If broadcasters get involved, it just may be possible to block implementation of any localism rules during the few months remaining of the Bush Administration.

This delay is critical, since once it is the Obama Administration leading the fight for rules which would shut down conservative talk radio, Republican Congressmen and Senators will find it easier to fight back.

The Senate needs to draw a line in the sand: free speech, not localism

While President Obama will have the authority to name Commissioners as their terms end, these nominations must be confirmed by the Senate.

A few pointed questions on localism to FCC nominees during their confirmation hearings would be useful. A filibuster of any and all pro-localism FCC nominees would be even better.

Any Senator leading such a filibuster would earn the gratitude of millions of fans of talk radio as well as everyone who believes in free speech..

Jim Boulet, Jr. is the founder of the anti-localism web site, KeepRushontheAir.com. Research assistance for this article was provided by Richard Falknor of Blue Ridge Forum.

[N0NJY]

Let's see.... what else? "Fairness Doctrine" is NOT an issue, let's "wait and see"...

Perhaps we should wait until free speech is gone...

Obama Appoints Fairness Doctrine Backer

Monday, November 10, 2008 10:41 AM

By: Jim Meyers

President-elect Barack Obama has designated former Federal Communications Commissioner Henry Rivera to head the team that will select the next FCC chairman — an Obama move that bodes poorly for conservative talk radio.

That’s because Rivera is widely believed to support the reinstitution of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Originally instituted in 1949 by the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters over the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views.

Since talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and liberal talk radio draws few listeners, the “equal time” provision would likely force many radio stations to pull popular conservative hosts from the air rather than air low-rated liberal hosts.

Rivera served on the five-member FCC from 1981 to 1985 under Republican chairman Mark Fowler. His departure paved the way for the Fairness Doctrine’s repeal when President Ronald Reagan replace him with an opponent of the doctrine, Brian Maloney disclosed on his Web site The Radio Equalizer.

The FCC admitted before the repeal that the doctrine "had the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the discussion of controversial issues of public importance."

Rivera is a partner at the Washington law firm Wiley Rein, headed by former FCC Chairman Richard Wiley. He “is expected to lead the push to dismantle commercial talk radio that is favored by a number of Democratic Party senators,” Maloney wrote.

“Rivera will play a pivotal role in preventing critics from having a public voice during Obama’s tenure in office.”

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/o...mo_code=70D7-1

[N0NJY]

Schumer: AM Radio is like Porn, Will Be Blocked
YouTube - Schumer: AM Radio = Porn, Will Be Blocked

and more past debates on the subject...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJOk3XiZTGQ

YouTube - Revive the Fairness Doctrine?

[Brezzin]

Ok riddle me this? Who decides whats liberal and what's Conservative?
That my friends is the slippery slope that this country is on should the fairness doctrine return.

Parents in a town in CT tried to have Harry potter books banned from local schools because they promoted witchcraft and Satanism.. Remember when Twain's Huck Finn was going to be stricken from librarys because it used the "N" word.

Cold hard fact:
Here in Connecticut, the big station carry's Rush then after that a local personality Colin McEnroe, who is very left leaning comes on (Edit: Colin was canned after many years. Didn't bring enough listener$ apparently).
Who will decide if Colin was liberal enough to offset Rush?

Also I don't know if this has been said but the Fairness Doctorine only applies to Radio. Not print or Television.

[xort]

consider that the dems won a big majority without the fairness doctrine. why then do they want to silence oposition? because they know they are about to undertake some very dirty games and make major changes to this country that will forever change america. silencing critics will assit their changes. they want to control the media TOTALLY.
Just as castro has jailed hundreds of reporters. just as chavez has killed disenting reporters in venezuala. just as all of the middle eastern countries control their media; except Iraq!
The slippery slope is covered in sh!t

[erps]

Also I don't know if this has been said but the Fairness Doctorine only applies to Radio. Not print or Television.

I actually understood some of the reasoning with prior court cases that these broadcasting stations are using public airwaves. I don't understand why it should apply differently between radio and TV though. Anyone know? Anyone? Anyone?

[xort]

the new fairness doctrine will apply wherever the left wants it to be applied

[camaraderie]

fairness applies to BROADCAST TV stations as well. No real issues there though as in any local market you have a very limited broadcast channel lineup and over 78% of the country has dish or cable making the issue pretty moot.

[danjarch]

It applied to broadcast TV, but it did not apply to cable. Same as profanity and vulgarity today.