Talk Radio Under Fire

[N0NJY]

February 05, 2009
Categories: Talk Radio Sen. Stabenow wants hearings on radio 'accountability'; talks fairness doctrine

This morning, radio host Bill Press brought up the recent closing of liberal station Obama 1260 when speaking with Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, and talked about whether there needs to be a balance to right-wing talk on the radio dial.

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.

Although Obama has been publicly opposed to reinstating the fairness doctrine, conservative radio has talked nonstop about the fear of it returning (or perhaps something like it with another name) while there's a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress.
UPDATE: A commenter points out that Stabenow is married to Tom Athans, a liberal talk radio executive.

[N0NJY]

Audio:
(Courtesy of The Bill Press Show)

[N0NJY]

Alert: They are moving fast!

Most assumed Congress would simply re-enact the "Fairness Doctrine", but the clever libtards are no longer calling it The Fairness Doctrine anymore - now it is called "The Diversity in Media Ownership Act", which essentially uses government to MANDATE "different and diverse voices" whereby they consider the entire radio, TV, Internet and Cable spectrum to be "public airwaves/public interest" and will mandate 'diverse' views and opinions.

This will kill completely, the success of advertising-sponsored AM/talk radio.

Obama's new White House website highlights this agenda here:

Quote:

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.

While the GOP tries in vain to halt implementation of the "Fairness Doctrine", Diversity in Media Ownership achieves the same results without appearing to look like a silence of Conservative views.

Of course once Talk Radio is silenced, they will silence Christian radio shortly thereafter.

With the rest of the patriotic Christians held up in rural Churches with compromising Pastors fearing of losing their 503c status. They won't want to risk a Waco insurrection followed up with BATF repercussions.

They will cave in and sign up for FEMA Clergy Response Detail.

They have nearly thought of everything.

[N0NJY]

Rush Rattles Obama the Whiner’s Cage

Doug Giles
Sunday, February 01, 2009

Evidently Obama the Whiner can’t work his socialistic voodoo if Rush Limbaugh keeps free thinking and running his mouth off. Dammit, Rush, you’re ruining Obama’s ability to cast his spell! Barack’s aversion to Rush reminds me of how my brother never liked using the Ouija board when I was around because my presence always “grieved the spirits.”

Yep, if Limbaugh unleashes his First Amendment rights, the President cannot make manifest his mucked-up machinations he learned as a pup sitting in Saul Alinsky’s literary lap (which means that Obamaland cannot be built). This would be too funny if it wasn’t so pathetically sad and a prophetically bad precursor of the mitigating muzzle Obama would like to strap on the conservative mouth.

In contrast to Obama’s bleat last week, hearken back to days of yore when 43 was in office. Dubya got some “work done,” if I’m not mistaken, and he had everybody and their rabid dog railing against him 24/7 from every conceivable sector of the MSM. Please note: Bush didn’t whine about it and call on the carping clods to cease and desist their vitriol because he couldn’t “kill terrorists if Keith keeps complaining.”

Matter of fact, when GW was attacked the most viciously and the reporters asked what he thought about the rancor, he routinely said that his enemies’ ability to spew their insanity on their ubiquitous, poorly-rated sucky “news” shows is exactly what makes America great, i.e. the freedom to be an ass if you insist. Bush, for all his foibles, played a true cool hand with his critics, laughed when shoes were thrown at him and reveled in this thing that is about to go on the endangered species list in our nation—namely our freedom.

Socialists like Obama, however, cannot work in an environment in which leaders and citizens do not do-si-do when he says so. Geez, the press corps can’t even toss him a question during a meet and greet without Barack getting testy. Therefore, Limbaugh, and all dissenters like him, must bow and kiss the ring or suffer vilification and marginalization for not being “bipartisan and tolerant.”

I would rather bikini wax a sensitive and livid grizzly sow than be a “tolerant bipartisan” toward the bloated government, pro-death, anti-free market, crap on traditional values, socialism squared, nanny state policies Obama has floated in the last few days.

For Barack and his buddies to accomplish the creation of Obamaland, they must level critics, rewrite records, become judge and jury of all things everywhere, homogenize cultures, pimp style over substance and deify power while they prop up the “victims of the system” to run their Circus Maximus.

In Obamaland where truth is dead, muscle power becomes the operative standard of speech. The results are cultic conformity and group bullying.

The chief orgasmic goal of the elders of Obamaland is to create a rock-solid environment of political correctness—with the intended end being the cowing of people who might rustle their feathers by not parroting their already tried (and been found wanting) opinions. They can’t allow people to speak and think freely because the realist and the truth dealer would pee on their little party. That’s exactly what Rush is doing, and I’ll think I’ll join him.

Howzabout you?

[noreault]

It is true that several legislators have expressed support for the fairness doctrine. But, not a single piece of legislation has been entered to do that. It is true that Obama supports a diverse public dialogue, but the only on record public statement is opposed to the fairness doctrine. While being one of those whacky liberals, I would be strongly opposed to its reintroduction.

Can't stand listening to Rush, but my radio has tuner that gets a variety of stations.

BTW, the fairness doctrine never required equal time. It simply said the public airways, leased to the stations, should have some public affairs programming and that it should represent diverse opinions.

[N0NJY]

The "fairness doctrine" isn't and was not then, legislation.

It was a policy dictated by the Federal Communications Agency.

The thing you mentioned was called the "Equal time rule", and those are two distinct and separate things.

You are correct they have not YET introduced legislation, but it is not a secret that several Legislators have voiced they would support such legislation were it introduced....

"For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country," Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told Albuquerque radio station KKOB last year. "I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told WYNC's Bryan Lehrer Show in 2007, "I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back."

In June of last year, John Gizzi reported in Human Events a conversation with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in which he asked her if she personally supported revival of the "Fairness Doctrine."

"Yes," Pelosi answered.

As recently as December, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. – who serves on the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee – told the Palo Alto Daily Post she still believes in the "Fairness Doctrine" and will work on bringing it back.

As WND reported, the Democratic National Congressional Committee also launched a petition to reprimand Limbaugh directly for his criticism of Obama.

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee whose term runs through June, however, warned that Democrats may be adopting a stealthier approach to shutting down conservatives on talk radio.

In a speech to the Media Institute in Washington last week, Multichannel News reports, McDowell suggested there are efforts to implement the controversial policy without using the red-flagged "Fairness Doctrine" label.

"That's just Marketing 101," McDowell explained. "If your brand is controversial, make it a new brand."

Instead, McDowell alleged, Democrats will try to disguise their efforts in the name of localism, diversity or network neutrality.

McDowell further suggested that the FCC may already be gearing up to enforce the "Fairness Doctrine" through community advisory boards that help determine local programming. While radio stations use the boards on a voluntary basis now, McDowell warned if the advisory panels become mandatory, "Would not such a policy be akin to a re-imposition of the Doctrine, albeit under a different name and sales pitch?"

And while Republicans' prediction of "Fairness Doctrine" legislation remains unfulfilled and highly speculative, a WND investigation has revealed that McDowell and Walden aren't just fear-mongering, as some have suggested. A think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on talk radio using language that has since been parroted by both the Obama campaign and the new administration's White House website.

[N0NJY]

Q&A: NRB’s Frank Wright Sees Fairness Doctrine As Credible Threat

National Religious Broadcasters president girds for David-and-Goliath fight against return of defunct policy

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 2/6/2009 3:53:22 PM MT

When the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) conference gets underway in Nashville, Tenn., on Saturday, look for hundreds of faith-based broadcasters to warn their viewers and listeners about the return of the fairness doctrine.


NRB president Frank Wright considers the re-imposition of the defunct broadcasting policy—which the FCC discarded as unconstitutional in 1987, thus clearing the way for the explosion in conservative talk radio—a credible threat under the Obama administration.


NRB represents 1,400 organizations, from Billy Graham to Focus on the Family, as well as TV and radio stations and some cable programmer members. Invoking the image of David taking on Goliath, the association recently said that it was "girding itself for a major battle over broadcasting freedoms," and was prepared to go to court, lobby Congress, or take its message to the public.


In the days before the conference, Wright spoke with B&C Washington bureau chief John Eggerton about the fairness doctrine, among other. He doesn't see much hope in stopping a congressional push for the doctrine but suggests he has other rocks in his sling. And while combating the doctrine will be on the agenda in Nashville, Wright says NRB plans to do more than just talk.

In a recent statement, NRB sounded a little like David preparing to go up against Goliath and talked about an "girding itself for a major battle over broadcasting freedoms, including the fairness doctrine and hate crimes legislation?

We have talked before about many of these issues, but now, with the shift in the political landscape, I think these same things have a much higher probability of being enacted or at least having legislation and hearings and debates, and on the regulation side at the FCC.

So what are your key legislative and regulatory concerns?

The fairness doctrine has a tremendous potential for constraining free speech, but hate crimes has the potential of criminalizing it. In the short run, the fairness doctrine has the immediate threat of being applied to Christian broadcasters and to the church in a very deleterious way. Hate crimes legislation, if that is enacted, will evolve over time and bleed over into speech and have a negative effect, but not right away. The fairness doctrine will have a negative impact the day it is implemented.

And we can expect religious broadcasters to speak out against the doctrine?

Yes, you can, and not only to speak out but engage in the political and legal process on behalf of our members. The fairness doctrine has been sitting in dormant status on the Hill for years. Every year, Democrats have filed a fairness doctrine bill to reinstate it by statute that hasn't gone anywhere when Congress was controlled by the Republicans, and now it seems to be a pretty high priority.

Fairness doctrine implementation would have an enormous deleterious effect on our members because the burden of remedying the complaint is on the broadcaster. They had to go out and find the opposing viewpoint to air.

I have had a number of conversations with NRB members who operated under the old fairness doctrine regime. What happens is there is a chilling of free speech because the license-holder tends to take off the air the progammer whose content is deemed to be controversial.

Democrats say talk about the doctrine is a red herring. They have no plans to reinstate it, the president doesn't, and that this flap has been ginned up by talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

[House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi is considered somewhat influential and you can read her statements on the fairness doctrine. If they are going to call it a red herring they will have to ignore the statements of their own members seated in the Congress today who said the exact opposite.

The notion that there is some problem out there that needs to be resolved in the marketplace that can be fixed by government-controlled speech I think is very disturbing. And, by they way, the fairness doctrine can return not just by legislation but by regulation. It was a regulation to start with, repealed by the FCC.

And we have a personal concern. The only radio station that ever lost its license under the fairness doctrine regime was a Christian radio station in Red Lion, Pa. We are only responding now to the statements the Democrats themselves are making.

You say you will go to court if need be?

That is the logical next step for us in terms of trying to defend our members.

And you think an Obama FCC would reinstate it?

Yes, I do think so. Let the FCC do it and give cover to the elected officials who don't have to then pass legislation to enact it. It was repealed by a majority vote. It can be reinstated by a majority vote.

Will this be an issue at the convention?

Yes. I don't want to tip our hands on strategy except to say that if the approach taken by the administration is an FCC approach, we believe we can bring enough pressure to bear on the commission at the point of enactment to bring enough heat to get them to see the light, so to speak. I don't think we can stop it in the House or Senate.

We will be talking about that at our convention, because it will take a response by all of our members and all of their listeners. I will be a major initiative to develop and prepare for a fairness doctrine response.

And that includes the electronic pulpit.

Yes, to the extent that broadcasters who produce programs that may be church-based will speak to the issue to their listeners.

NRB appears to feel that some of the FCC's proposed localism initiatives might be the fairness doctrine in sheep's clothing, as it were.

I think that there are some folks being disingenuous about their fairness doctrine views. And I think to the extent that his representatives remarks represent President Obama's views, it is possible he is being disingenuous about it. That is to say that he is opposed to the fairness doctrine, but then his spokesman went on to detail changes at the FCC that they'd like to see, which is nothing more than fairness doctrine by other means, such as the establishment of community advisory boards.

You used Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh as examples. So, for the sake of argument, if you as a local broadcaster have a community advisory board and your community advisory board says we don't think you ought to carry Rush Limbaugh. Then, when your license renewal comes around, your license is in jeopardy because you didn't follow the dictates of the community advisory board. And statements that President Obama's spokesman made about license-holders being more diverse can be read as political diversity. So there are a number of things about localism that have the appearance of looking like the fairness doctrine without the name.

While fairness doctrine in the minds of the president, and perhaps many of the leaders of the Democratic Party, may be focused on leveling the playing field of political speech, it has enormous implications for religious free speech.

What is religious broadcasters’ problem with hate-crimes legislation?

There is nobody in the NRB that is in favor of hate, but the other side has somewhat successfully redefined traditional Jewish and Christian and Muslim values as being hate-inspired.

When our members preach and teach from the bible, they teach it as they find it. They don't edit it to inject something that is not there.... But it in the political world in which we live, any comments against the homosexual lifestyle have been successfully characterized by much of the media as being hateful, and hate-inspired, and it is not.

The president has talked about favoring technological solutions over government regulation in terms of media content. Are ratings and content-blocking and the V-chip sufficient?

We're certainly supporters of the notion of giving parents the tools to deal with these things, but I don't think they are sufficient by themselves. But you can't run away from a fight unharmed after someone has already punched you in the nose. When you have been exposed to indecency, the damage is done. And we're talking about children here. We're not talking about the Church Lady who doesn't like what she sees on television.

I think the tools are great. We agree with the president to that extent, but there has always been a compelling government interest to protect children by stepping in when there are egregious violations, and I still think that remains an important role of the FCC.

[N0NJY]

Stabenow: Hey, let’s hold hearings on bringing back the Fairness Doctrine

posted at 7:33 pm on February 5, 2009 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Nothing to worry about. Just another figment of your paranoid wingnut imagination, same as it was when Pelosi mentioned it and Durbin mentioned it and Bingaman mentioned it and Schumer mentioned it.
I’m trying to game out the politics but can’t get a good read. On the one hand, it’d thrust people like Limbaugh into the middle of a hot-button policy debate, making their already-big megaphone even bigger. Bad for Democrats. On the other hand, my theory during the recent Rush dust-up has been that Obama and the left want to raise his profile in order to drive the GOP away from the center and back towards the right. Good for Democrats! On the other other hand, would they really benefit by turning him into a free-speech martyr? Having people sympathize with him only hurts the left’s cause of making him look fringey. Bad for Democrats. On the other other other hand, there may be enough popular support for reinstating Fairness that the sympathy factor would be muted. Good for Democrats! Stop me before I “other” again by clicking on the image to listen.

[N0NJY]

McDowell: Fairness Doctrine Has History Of Abuse


WASHINGTON -- January 29, 2009: In remarks at the Media Institute in Washington yesterday, FCC Commisioner Robert McDowell discussed the practical and legal implications of a potential return of the Fairness Doctrine. But first, he said, "It's hard to tell if current calls for its return will gain traction or not. On the one hand, recently several prominent members of Congress have called for its restoration. Still others are strongly opposed to its revival."
McDowell said the main historical justification of the Fairness Doctrine was based on "spectrum scarcity" and ensuring that broadcasters steered away from "propaganda" for one political viewpoint or another. But, he said, "While intending to build a shield against hostile political ideas, the FCC also created a political weapon."
McDowell continued, "History proves that abuses of power brought forth by the doctrine are not partisan. Both right-leaning and left-leaning broadcasters have been attacked and intimidated. With that in mind, if the doctrine is reimposed in any form, how do we know that it will not be used to silence political adversaries?"
He also cited a long list of practical and enforcement problems that could arise from a revival of the doctrine, saying, "Once doctrine complaints were filed, unelected bureaucrats would be put in the position of determining: (1) what the opposing view, or views, might be; (2) which of several potential speakers should get a chance to voice them; and (3) when and how such opposing views should be presented."
Would It Stand Up In Court?
McDowell also believes that a revived Fairness Doctrine might well not stand up in court, saying that the "concept of 'spectrum scarcity' is an anachronism." He said, "In a string of media cases stretching back over more than 20 years, various judges on the DC Circuit -- both Democratic and Republican appointees -- have suggested that it is time for the Supreme Court to rethink the concept of spectrum scarcity as a justification for limiting broadcasters' First Amendment rights. A revived doctrine would provide a big, bright bull's-eye for those who wish to make that happen." He noted that if the "scarcity" rationale is invalidated, there may be serious legal challenges to other FCC regulations that rely on it, such as the children's programming requirement for television.
McDowell also said that those who are "most concerned about the 'fairness' of conservative talk [ radio] shows" should "pause to consider the widespread popularity -- and potential vulnerability -- of public radio programs to doctrine complaints."
Would It Cover Other Media?
McDowell also noted that a revived Fairness Doctrine might well be struck down as "underinclusive" if it does not cover other, non-broadcast media and said, "It is not clear how the imposition of the doctrine on cable and satellite could survive constitutional attack, given the higher degree of First Amendment protection afforded to these subscription-based media."


McDowell also talked about the potential effects of a new Fairness Doctrine on the Internet, saying, "The underlying infrastructure of the Internet also is subject to federal regulatory control, as is some of the content carried on it. Certain legal commentators have suggested that a new corollary of the doctrine should be fashioned for the Internet, on the theory that web surfers should be exposed to topics and views that they have not chosen for themselves. I am not making this up."


McDowell then quoted President Obama's inaugural address, in which Obama said those who "cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history," and said he is "encouraged that President Obama can, once and for all, end the speculation of whether something akin to the doctrine will come back to life during his term."

[N0NJY]

FCC Commissioner calls for clarification on Fairness Doctrine

Keywords: Equal time regulations; FCC; Obama Administration

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell on Wednesday urged President Obama to clarify his position on any potential reinstatement of the Commission’s now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, in a Media Institute speech at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington.


The Fairness Doctrine was a 20th Century FCC rule that required broadcasters to provide equal airtime to all sides of a political issue; the policy was repealed in the 1980s. Some Democratic leaders, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have spoken out somewhat positively about reinstating the policy. However, no such legislation has been introduced so far. In his speech, McDowell sharply criticized the doctrine, calling it outdated and possibly unconstitutional.


While an Obama spokesman during the 2008 presidential campaign said the president does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, and called talk of returning to it “a distraction,” McDowell called for the new Obama administration to “enunciate its strong opposition to anything resembling the Doctrine.”