Dems Get Set to Muzzle the Right

[Hoot Gibson]

The eagerness of liberals in Congress to suppress political speech from the right in this country is one of my major concerns with a potential Obama administration.

 

DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT

By BRIAN C. ANDERSON

New York Post

 

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

 

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."

 

Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful.

 

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

 

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.

[bballfamily]

They can put the liberals on from midnight to 6am, taking the place of the UFO'ers. Or they could still be the UFO'ers, The Unidentified Facts Organization, since liberals have never actually identified a fact to date.

[Hearsay]

I don't think Fairness Doctrine would survive Metromedia v. San Diego.

[True blue (and gold)]

They can put the liberals on from midnight to 6am, taking the place of the UFO'ers. Or they could still be the UFO'ers, The Unidentified Facts Organization, since liberals have never actually identified a fact to date.

 

Big on hyperbole, huh?

[mcpapa]

They can put the liberals on from midnight to 6am, taking the place of the UFO'ers. Or they could still be the UFO'ers, The Unidentified Facts Organization, since liberals have never actually identified a fact to date.

 

The international dialing code for Antarctica is 672.

 

So we can put that to rest...

[Habib]

The international dialing code for Antarctica is 672.

 

So we can put that to rest...

 

:laugh:

[Hoot Gibson]

I don't think Fairness Doctrine would survive Metromedia v. San Diego.

That will not stop Pelosi and company from resurrecting it. There are also many things that the liberals could do to intimidate and harass local stations that carry conservative talk radio such as shortening the license renewal cycle and requiring a high percentage of air time be devoted to local programming.

[mcpapa]

That will not stop Pelosi and company from resurrecting it. There are also many things that the liberals could do to intimidate and harass local stations that carry conservative talk radio such as shortening the license renewal cycle and requiring a high percentage of air time be devoted to local programming.

 

I must admit that I know less than nothing about who controls license renewals and programming at local radio stations. When you say "the liberals" in the above post, are you referencing people in the federal legislature, or some other group?

[Mr.Network]

I must admit that I know less than nothing about who controls license renewals and programming at local radio stations. When you say "the liberals" in the above post, are you referencing people in the federal legislature, or some other group?

 

License renewal is granted for up to 8 years at a time and is handled by the Federal Communications Commission. A broadcaster who follows FCC rules and broadcasts "in the public interest" has an "expectancy of renewal".

 

However, during the renewal process, the public may file a Petition to Deny the Renewal based upon the broadcaster's failure to "operate in the public interest".

 

Neither the FCC nor any other public body mandates what programming appears on any radio station. In fact, the FCC does not even keep records of the "format" of any station.

 

The Fairness Doctrine was started by the FCC in 1949 and abolished in 1984 and used to be a BIG issue for all broadcasters. Often, it would give a party a reason to file a Petition to Deny or a complaint with the FCC.

 

A related issue is "equal time" that is often confused with the Fairness Doctrine. Radio stations do not have to sell time to candidates for local elections but they do have to sell time to candidates for federal elections at the determined "lowest unit rate".

 

If a radio station sells time to a non-federal candidate, it must also make comparable time available to that candidate's competitors.

 

Here is the text of a letter that my father wrote to the FCC in 1969 seeking direction about "equal time" (I had this on my desk since I had been going through some of his papers recently)

 

April 1, 1969

 

Secretary

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.

 

Dear Sir:

 

We have a man who has a program on our station on Saturday which is sold to different sponsors for which he is paid a commission on the sales made for his program. He does not receive any other remuneration from us. This man is running for Magistrate in his home precinct, an office for which he filed for today. If we put this many on thie air again during the election campaigning, will we be liable for equal time for his opponents? Also, should he win the election in May, is he then considered by the Commission to be a qualified candidate all the way into the General Election in November? Arrangements have been made for a staff announcer here at the station to run this show unitl we hear from you. By the way, this man plays country and gospel records and reads requests on the air Saturday 2:00-3:30 PM.

 

I also have a problem at the station I own at Liberty, KY, WKDO. There we have a gospel singer who pays for part of his time on the air and has sponsors on the program who pay for part of the program. We do not pay this man anything whatsoever as he is solely responsible for the financing of the program. He of course does not gain anything financial from the program as the sponsors besides him are approved by the station and billed by the station. This man is at present a Constable and is planning on running for Constable in the coming May Primary. Will we have to make an announcement at the beginning and end of this program that it was paid for by this individual? Will we be liable for equal time in this case? This man at present has 45 minutes on Sunday afternoon.

 

We will appreciate the above information. We believe we would be liable for equal time in the first case above, but not in the second case.

 

Yours truly,

 

[Hoot Gibson]

I must admit that I know less than nothing about who controls license renewals and programming at local radio stations. When you say "the liberals" in the above post, are you referencing people in the federal legislature, or some other group?

Liberal Congressional Democrats and the liberals who would occupy the White House in the event Obama wins the election. Many Democrats in Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi strongly support the rebirth of the Fairness Doctrine. With all the whining that Obama has done about talk radio and Fox News, it is inconceivable to me that BHO would veto legislation that would eliminate talk radio as we know it.

[UKPat02]

Liberal Congressional Democrats and the liberals who would occupy the White House in the event Obama wins the election. Many Democrats in Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi strongly support the rebirth of the Fairness Doctrine. With all the whining that Obama has done about talk radio and Fox News, it is inconceivable to me that BHO would veto legislation that would eliminate talk radio as we know it.

 

:confused:

[Hoot Gibson]

:confused:

Here is a recent example. Obama even took a shot at FNC during the last debate and he has called out Sean Hannity several times by name.

 

If you want more examples, just Google "Obama whines."

 

Obama says FOX News has cost him a few points in polls

Thu, Oct 16 02:05 PM

 

New York, Oct.16 (ANI): Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is of the view that FOX News has cost him a few points in the polls.

 

In an interview with NYT reporter Matt Bai, to be published Sunday, Obama says: "I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls."

 

Obama says in the article. "If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, right? Because the way I'm portrayed 24/7 is as a freak!"

 

He continues that he is being typecast as "the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effet, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?"

 

 

[UKPat02]

Here is a recent example. Obama even took a shot at FNC during the last debate and he has called out Sean Hannity several times by name.

 

If you want more examples, just Google "Obama whines."

 

What's it called when Republicans rail against the "liberal media"?

[Hoot Gibson]

What's it called when Republicans rail against the "liberal media"?

In a typical presidential election, more than 80 percent of the national media votes for the Democratic candidate and that number may be even higher in this election. Republicans' complaints about media bias seem to be a little more solid.

 

Despite the fact that there were four liberals moderating the debates this year (three of whom did a good job, IMO), and despite the extremely favorable treatment that Obama has received in the national media, he makes a point to whine about the one major news outlet that is not in the tank for him. Not only that, San Fran Nan has made it clear that she wants to stamp out conservative talk radio by breathing life back into the Fairness Doctrine.

 

Liberal politicians seem to be a thin-skinned lot.

[UKPat02]

In a typical presidential election, more than 80 percent of the national media votes for the Democratic candidate and that number may be even higher in this election. Republicans' complaints about media bias seem to be a little more solid.

 

Despite the fact that there were four liberals moderating the debates this year (three of whom did a good job, IMO), and despite the extremely favorable treatment that Obama has received in the national media, he makes a point to whine about the one major news outlet that is not in the tank for him. Not only that, San Fran Nan has made it clear that she wants to stamp out conservative talk radio by breathing life back into the Fairness Doctrine.

 

Liberal politicians seem to be a thin-skinned lot.

 

It's just funny you would attack anyone for "whining" about the media.