Dems to renew push for "Fairness Doctrine" (Fred Thompson is now a real threat)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Skibane

Member
Joined
May 11, 2003
Messages
206
Location
San Antonio
Her Royal Fairness

The American Spectator
Published 5/14/2007 12:09:36 AM

According to two members of the House Democrat Caucus, Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them that they will "aggressively pursue" reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine over the next six months. In January, Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich announced that he was going to pursue the Fairness Doctrine through his Government Reform subcommittee. That announcement was greeted with silence. But now, Pelosi has moved things to the front burner.

Much of the doctrine, regulated through the FCC, was largely dumped in 1987. Other parts of it, related to "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in place until 2000. The personal attack rule required anyone "attacked" over the airwaves to be notified beforehand and given an opportunity to respond. A similar rule was followed for the political editorial, where a broadcaster endorsing one political candidate or issue had to give similar time for a response from those not endorsed or supported.

The decision to press for re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine now seems to have developed for two reasons. "First, [Democrats] failed on the radio airwaves with Air America, no one wanted to listen," says a senior adviser to Pelosi. "Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don't want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008."

That last comment appeared to be a veiled reference to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who appears to be gearing up for a presidential run. Over the past year, he has built a following both over the AM airwaves through the ABC Radio network, as well as through almost daily appearances across cable TV on the TV show Law & Order, where he plays a tough-talking district attorney.

According to another Democrat leadership aide, Pelosi and her team are focused on several targets in the fight, including Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network. In fact, Kucinich's staff has begun investigating Salem, one of the fastest growing radio networks in the country, which features such popular -- and highly rated -- conservative hosts as Bill Bennett and Michael Medved, and Christian hosts such as Dr. Richard Land.

"They are identifying senior employees, their political activities and their political giving," says a Government Reform committee staffer. "Salem is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can't shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him."
 
Dingell to bring back the Fairness Doctrine

http://broadcastengineering.com/news/dingell-brings-fairness-doctrine-0507/

Dingell to bring back the Fairness Doctrine

May 7, 2007 12:00 PM

U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-MI, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wants to revive the broadcast Fairness Doctrine, an FCC policy that once required broadcasters to offer competing viewpoints on controversial issues.

Dingell made the comment last week at the annual government affairs conference of the three main advertising groups: the American Advertising Federation, the Association of National Advertisers and the American Association of Advertising Agencies.

Dingell said he sees no reason why broadcasters should have trouble with a return of the doctrine. He also indicated a more specific initiative is on the way.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-OH, who chairs a subcommittee under Dingell, said earlier this year that due to intense media consolidation, he would hold hearings on reviving the doctrine.

The NAB strongly opposes the Fairness Doctrine. “The last thing this country needs is the government telling NPR or local broadcasters how to cover the news,” said Dennis Wharton, the NAB spokesman. “We have gone without it for 20 years and there has been an explosion of coverage of issues from all angles.”

The FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, after complaints that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights. However, in 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality. It has longed been criticized by conservative groups for allegedly keeping their views from being expressed or of deliberately reducing their available airtime.

Related Newsroom Articles

* Senators, representatives introduce federal shield law
* Cox Television selects SGL FlashNet
* BBC News adds Carbon Coder to tapeless production workflow
 
Makes me wonder who's going to appoint/become the "Fairness/Equal Time" (Thought) Police Force ensuring that we get all three (or is it five?) sides to every opinion out there.

Sounds like a job for Homeland Security or maybe a new FCC F/ET Police Agency... maybe to pad their budget a bit, eh?

Hmmmm. TV. Radio. Cable. Satellite. Newspaper. Magazines. Blog. 'Net.

Could be some busy boys and girls and lots and lots of fines accumulated.

Good chance to make some money and we can tax things even more (gotta generate some revenue to grease the wheels doncha know?). An Opinion & Thought Tax.

Ahhh, Progress in the Land of the Free.
 
to some degree the internet may be included. sites that encourage political action can draw fire, including sites such as the high road. In fact, some would like to make it illegal to sponsor any activism viw internet, except progressive/socialist reform.

st
 
You think it's bad now - wait until someone tells them about the Internet!

They know. They'll be limited to an extent by the private nature of most blogs, but if someone is affiliated with a campaign (and finding an affiliation won't be that hard for the thought police), they'll argue for regulation of even blogs or websites.
 
Good.

Every episode of the three "Law & Order" shows will be three hours long:

One hour of drama
Two hours of rebuttals of anti-gun propaganda.

I hope they enjoy it.
 
This has a lot less to do with Fred Thompson than it is about Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham and the other conservative oriented radio programs and the repeated dismal failures of every syndicated Liberal talk show and the Air America "network" fiasco.

They tried the free market and they lost big time. So obviously the free market is riggged against them and it needs to be regulated by the lawmakers, e.g. them.

You have to remember that liberals actually think the ABC, NBC and CBS are conservative, because they are all big corporations. They also feel that NPR is conservative.

In fact any media outlet that does not spend it's entire broadcast day calling for the immediate impeachment and imprisonment of Bush and Cheney MUST, therefore, be part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

It absolutely grinds them that Rush and Hannity are on the air 3 hours a day and they can not counter them or put up any viable on-air alternative that will last more than 15 minutes.

When ever you hear the phrase "Fairness Doctrine" give it the same consideration you give "Common Sense Gun Control". They pretty much mean the same thing, one about the 1st amendment, the other about the 2nd.
 
This has a lot less to do with Fred Thompson than it is about Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham and the other conservative oriented radio programs and the repeated dismal failures of every synbdicated Liberal talk show and the Air America "network".

And you know what, its fine they tried this approach (Free market). THat's how it is done. No one would complain if they were able to find an audience.

I am not even a big listener to any of the guys. I liked Bortz until he went all liberventionist on me.
When ever you hear the phrase "Fairness Doctrine" give it the same consiuderation you give "Common Sense Gun Control". They pretty much mean the same thing, one about the 1st amendment, the other about the 2nd.

But, remember the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine - for broadcast media. I hate to say it, but I agree with that decision. Network broadcasts are not free speech...otherwise you could see porn on NBC. When they try to include the internet, well thats a little different as it is not covered by the FCC.

That said I still dont like them trying to bring it back. It is not fair, as the market has decided who has the upperhand in Radio. To me, all the network and cable news networks are leftists, but I dont complain as apparntly the market is there for it.
 
Fox news is as liberal as cnn

Hannity, which used to be one of my favorite shows is backing Rudy
and obfuscates the gun issue.

The fairness doctrine will make the already liberal media even more liberal:barf:
 
I see alot of potential for this to backfire on them. All that they need to do is give equal airtime to the opposite views, so all the have to do is find the most extremist over the top spokesperson they can dig up for the opposite side (or somebody to pretend to be) and go about alienating voters.
 
The "Fairness Doctrine" does not apply to newscasts or other journalistic endeavors, only to so called entertainment shows. This allows the blatant pro-Democrat position of the major networks to do unchallenged. The fact that this rule was not identified by the Supreme Court as a gross violation of the 1st Amendment is almost more frightening than the thought of the Dems trying to resurrect this failed policy. Many, including Rush Limbaugh, have stated that even if this passes, Pres. BUsh will surely veto it. I am not so confident about his use of the veto since he allowed the highly flawed, and clearly unconstitutional Campaign Reform Act to be made into law. Many Democrats in Congress clearly feel that any means is worth the end of maintaining and expanding their political power. If they can get away with this, taking our guns (or trying to do so) is surely not far behind.
 
Pres. BUsh will surely veto it. I am not so confident about his use of the veto since he allowed the highly flawed, and clearly unconstitutional Campaign Reform Act to be made into law.

Unlike CFR, this bill wouldn't be sent to him by a Republican-controlled congress.

He's not up for re-election.

In short, he has nothing to lose by vetoing it.
 
Let me see... I will now have to post positive posts for kucinich as he holds the opposite POV.

Let me try...

Kucinich: for a gun free utopia where the government is involved in every aspect of your life from cradle to grave. Taking care of all your needs all day, every day.
 
If the damn dirty liberals pwn the airwaves and keep all the poor, downtrodden conservatives from being heard... why would they need to institute such 'fascism'?
 
you guys are confusing your dingells!!!

John Dingell from NY is a fruit loop commie with a D in front of his name.

John Dingell from MI also has a D in front of his name but used to be on the NRA board.....Dingell MI is (I believe, I'm not sure) in favor of a "new improved brady bill" (HR 297)

I am not sure what is going on with this

Anyway, lets stay on topic! this so called fairness doctrine is a real PITA, THE LIBERAL MEDIA CAN SAY WHATEVER LIE IT WANTS TO ...oops sorry for the caps....and the not really conservative will be able to reply with a counter view at 2am on Sunday morning for 1 minute
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top