New Fairness Doctrine seen as threat to Christian radio!

Christian Gospel to be ‘balanced’ with Islamic, atheist programming!
RADIO, TELEVISION, POD-CAST, INTERNET BROADCASTING, WEB CASTING THE GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT TO NATIONALIZE THEM! NO MORE FREE SPEECH!

WASHINGTON – Another Democratic U.S. Senator has gone on record as supporting the reinstatement of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” adding, “I feel like that’s going to happen.”

Our good friend WND columnist Bill Press gave us this tip! © 2009 WorldNetDaily Posted: February 05, 200911:50 pm Eastern

ALERT! Ohio senator supports ‘goals underlying’ government speech rules. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, has joined up with other influential Democrats, including President Bill Clinton, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, in calling for a resurrection of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”.

The policy, originally introduced in 1949, required that radio and television stations with a broadcast license air contrasting views on matters of public importance. The policy made it practically impossible for talk radio to make a profit, because the market would not bear a lineup with an equal number of programs from the left and right. Since the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned in 1987, more than 2,000 radio stations have adopted a talk radio format.

But talk radio is dominated by conservatives, and Democrats in recent years have discussed restoring the policy, although during the Bush administration their plans went nowhere because of the president’s vow to veto it.

Now, however, the White House appears more receptive, and Brown’s recent comments add to the chorus seeking government regulation of talk radio, and possibly other formats.

“I support the goals underlying the Fairness Doctrine. Democracies rely on a dispassionate press that reports the facts with objectivity and presents a diversity of perspectives in its editorial content,” Brown wrote to a constituent who asked for the senator’s perspective.

“When a single ideology dominates the press – whether it is liberal or conservative – the line between information and propaganda can easily become blurred,” Brown wrote.

Besides Clinton, Harkin and Stabenow, other leading Democrats have suggested support for the regulations.

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].”

Michael G. Franc, writing on the National Review’s “The Corner” blog, noted that Attorney General Eric Holder also has refused to commit to opposing the idea.

The issue, while not formally proposed in Congress to this point, is getting a lot of attention because GOP opponents have tried to push through legislation that specifically would prevent the doctrine from returning.

They also are concerned that the issue will return under another name or procedure, such as a proposal to allow “local” boards to oversee radio station content and make decisions at that level.

Another concern is proposals, touted by the White House, to “diversify” ownership of media outlets.

Today, an amendment by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint that would outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” passed by an 87-11 vote. But Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin an alternative, which passed 57-41, that would encourage “diversity” of media ownership and “ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest.”

Brown’s office did not respond to WND e-mails and telephone messages requesting comment.

The response from Brown to a constituent included a description of the background of the doctrine.

The 1949 plan was crafted, Brown said, “to prevent privately owned stations from jeopardizing the public airwaves and presenting one single perspective.”

After it was dropped in the 1987, Brown wrote, that left “judgment of what is one-sided or unfair … to broadcasters and the viewing public.” If there does become a law or regulation resurrecting the plan, at least two organizations already have pledged to challenge it in court. Talk radio icon Michael Savage has reported joining forces with a Michigan-based civil rights advocacy organization to establish a battle plan to oppose the doctrine.

“A regulation of speech motivated by nothing more than a desire to silence political opposition on controversial issues of public interest is the purest example of a law abridging the freedom of speech,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.

“Such action is the hallmark of totalitarian governments, not a free society,” he said.

“Michael Savage is the personification of what the liberals hate about conservative talk radio,” said Thompson, “and we’re proud to represent him in this crucial battle to preserve the grand purpose of political speech protected by the First Amendment.

Just days earlier, the American Center for Law and Justice said its “litigation strategy” is prepared should the doctrine – or a similar regulatory measure – “be brought back to muzzle Christian broadcasting.”

The organization said more than 230,000 people have signed its petition urging members of Congress to support the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

DO NOT BE SILENCED BY ANYONE STAND UP! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

LIBERALS SAY: “FREE SPEECH IS TERRORISM, WE WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN SAY AND WHAT YOU CAN NOT!”

Senator Inhofe sends Faxdc a message!

What is Fair about the limitation of free speech?

Meanwhile, other Democratic legislators have tried to claim talk about a reintroduction of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is merely conspiracy-mongering by right-wing talk radio and its partisan cheerleaders.

But other Democrats in the Senate and House – and even a few Republicans – have made no secret of their support for such legislation.

“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.

And 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.

“It should and will affect everyone,” Eshoo pledged.

National socialism is upon us!

Meanwhile, President Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told Broadcasting & Cable during the presidential election campaign, “Sen. Obama does not support reemploying the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this 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.”

But the debate heated up again recently when Obama singled out Rush Limbaugh, the king of talk radio, for criticism: “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.”

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.

In June of 2007, Podesta’s Center for American Progress released a report titled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” detailing the conservative viewpoint’s dominance on the airwaves and proposing steps for leveling the playing field.

“Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system,” the report reads, “particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.”

The report then demonstrates how radio stations owned locally, or operated by female and minority owners, are statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.

Therefore, the report concludes, the answer to getting equal time for “progressives” lies in mandating “localism” and “diversity” without ever needing to mention the “Fairness Doctrine.”

To accomplish the strategy, the report recommends legislating local and national caps on ownership of commercial radio stations and demanding radio stations regularly prove to the FCC that they are “operating on behalf of the public interest” to maintain their broadcasting license.

And if stations are unwilling to abide by the FCC’s new regulatory standards, the report recommends, they should pay spectrum-use fees directly to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting “with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner.”

In this way, the report concludes, between $100 million and $250 million could be raised for public radio, which will be compelled to broadcast via the old standards established by the “Fairness Doctrine.”

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GETTING READY TO STEP ON CONSERVATIVE RADIO!

Since the report’s release in 2007, the Obama camp has twice gone on record advocating positions identical to Podesta’s think tank.

Last summer, in denying the presidential candidate’s support of the “Fairness Doctrine,” Obama’s press secretary said, “Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

Further, the White House website lists on its technology agenda page that the president plans 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 president’s position and proposals match the language of his transition co-chair’s think tank report almost word-for-word.

View this article at: www.faxdc.com/freedom.htm

• No Related Post