Fairness Doctrine hammered 309-115 in the House

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
I wonder if Senator Finstein will shut up now about reviving the Fairness Doctrine.


Fairness Doctrine hammered 309-115
By Alexander Bolton
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fairness-doctrine-hammered-309-115-2007-06-28.html


The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters who feature conservative radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

By a vote of 309-115, lawmakers amended the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to bar the FCC from requiring broadcasters to balance conservative content with liberal programming such as Air America.

The vote count was partly a testament to the influence that radio hosts wield in many congressional districts.

It was also a rebuke to Democratic senators and policy experts who have voiced support this week for regulating talk radio.

House Democrats argued that it was merely a Republican political stunt because there is little danger of the FCC restricting conservative radio while George W. Bush is president.

Republicans counter that they are worried about new regulations if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Tuesday that the government should revive the Fairness Doctrine, a policy crafted in 1929 that required broadcasters to balance political content with different points of view.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” he said. “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, said this week that she would review the constitutional and legal issues involved in re-establishing the doctrine.

Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic Party’s 2004 presidential nominee, also said recently that the Fairness Doctrine should return.

In 1985 the FCC discarded the policy after deciding that it restricted journalistic freedom and “actually inhibit[ed] the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists,” according to a Congressional Research Service report.

Thursday, the House firmly rejected the prospect of requiring balanced views on talk radio.

Before the passage of the amendment, which he sponsored, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former full-time radio host, forecast a big majority and took a shot at the Senate, saying: “This House will say what some in the other body are not saying, that we believe in freedom on the airwaves. We reject the doctrines of the past that would have this federal government manage political speech on the public airwaves.”

Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) also sponsored the legislation.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would slash profits and pressure radio executives to scale back on conservative programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from government regulators. Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine argue that radio stations would suffer financially if forced to air liberal as well as conservative programs because liberal talk radio has not proven popular or profitable. For example, Air America, liberals’ answer to “The Rush Limbaugh Show” and Michael Medved, filed for bankruptcy in October.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday that listeners should be able to decide if they want to hear different political arguments.

“The best way is to let the judgment of the American people decide, and they can decide with their finger,” Boehner said.
“[People] can turn it off or they can turn it on. They can go to their computer and read it on the Internet.”

Flake added: “Rather than having the government regulate what people can say, we should let the market decide what people want to hear. That’s precisely why the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned, and that’s why it ought not to be revived.”

At the end of Thursday’s debate, Democratic House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (Wis.) agreed with Republicans that the government should not regulate conservative radio hosts such as Limbaugh and Hannity.

“We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now,” he said. “Rush and Sean are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibility by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become modestly influential or respected.”
 
Same circus, different clowns. It's all editorialized anyhow.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” he said. “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Just like NPR is fair and balanced?

“The best way is to let the judgment of the American people decide, and they can decide with their finger,” Boehner said.
“[People] can turn it off or they can turn it on. They can go to their computer and read it on the Internet.”

Exactly. Nobody is forcing you to listen to anything.
 
First, the immigration bill finally gets killed, and now the (un)fairness doctrine is also drop-kicked out the door. The political front has had some good news - for once.
 
Thank goodness there is a little sense and understanding of the Bill of Rights in D.C.

They always talk about how "both sides" should be heard. WHO gets to decide that there are only two sides to an issue? If we get a Democrat rebuttal to an opinion, why not a Libertarian rebuttal, or an African-American rebuttal, or a Native American Rebuttal, or a female rebuttal, or a male rebuttal, or Zaroastrian rebuttal, or gun-totin'-fiscally-conservative-socially-liberal-guys-with-mohawks-and-5+-tattoos rebuttal?

The only place where the marketplace of ideas does not weed out inefficiencies and create true "fairness" is in state-sponsored and overly-regulated media.
 
Exactly. Nobody is forcing you to listen to anything.

Nor watch anything.......So why can't I see boobs or hear the word sh1t while watching free TV? I am sure that there is a market for it.

I'm glad this is limiting the FCC, it just needs to go 1 million more miles and abolish the FCC.
 
Fairness Doctrine...

From what I know (or think I do), the FD came from one man who heard something on the radio about him with which he disagreed. He wanted to rebut but to do so, the radio station demanded $7.50 in airtime fees. The man said no dice, and sued for equal time. The end result was the FD. Anyone who knows more, please elaborate...

The Democrats want to control talk radio because at this time they do not. They do not want the American people exchanging ideas in an open forum. They do not want the American people to have access to a medium that can reach millions in a heartbeat about what the government is doing or not doing to promote the general welfare. They do not want the hosts of talk shows to be able to gin up sentiment and as an end result, bombard the offices of the legislators with phonecalls, faxes, emails, et cetera, in an effort to change the votes of the lawmakers we elected to serve us. They want to put the kibosh on talk radio to insulate themselves from us. They say talk radio is "not balanced" and that both sides are "not heard." Well, Rush Limbaugh has that argument nailed. He says that if you miss NBC, tune to CBS. If you miss CBS, tune to ABC. If you miss ABC, tune to MSNBC. If you miss MSNBC, tune to NPR. If you don't have a TV, read it in the Washington Post. If you can't get the Washington Post, read it in the New York Times. If you can't get the New York times, read it in the Los Angeles Times. You will get the same liberal drivel wherever you go. The drive-by media jackals have the networks locked up. He has but 15 hours a week (less with commercials) to talk. The drive-by media has all day, everyday, on every network, to spew their liberalism. It is they who owe us equal time...
 
I don't know why we didn't press for a fairness doctrine for television while we had power... Maybe because we aren't tinpot dictators like Dick Durbin.
 
Fairness?

I agree with damien, the first to go under that law would be mainstream media. Except for LOU DOBBS. Thank you Rush for waking up, thanks to all the talk radio hosts that put their life and limb out for the truth, despite the evil persecution. They pay Rush 385,000,000 a year, Hannity 400,000,000 and last and the least Bill O' Reily 500,000,00 a year to say what they say. Thank you Alex Jones, Jack Blood, Dr Nick Baggiest, Officer Jack Mc Lamb, and all the other talk show hosts who have woke up the sleeping giants. This basic grass roots people, for we the people will prevail and they[the power they think they are] will disappear from history.
 
Good. I can't stand censorship.

Also, isn't it ironic that the biggest yappers for the "Fairness" doctrine are also the biggest gun grabbers. Durbin, Feinstein, John Kerry......
 
Would they have applied the FD to TV news and the print media? Somehow I doubt it. People on Pelosi's side of the fence think that Katie Couric, the NYT, and CNN are 'mainstream' and 'middle of the road', and that Fox is uber-right wing.

Talk radio IS the balance to TV and print media. The leftist-statists have tried to get into talk radio and failed. Why did they fail? Not because of some evil plot. The shows sucked and nobody listened. Advertisers aren't going to plop down money on junk that doesn't have an audience. Sorry Al Franken, ya shouldn't have sucked so bad.
 
House Democrats argued that it was merely a Republican political stunt because there is little danger of the FCC restricting conservative radio while George W. Bush is president.

Translation: "A Republican President is the only thing that's keeping us from restricting free speech." :scrutiny:
 
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” he said. “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Yup. And I already heard both sides. One from the old MSM and one from talk radio. I've made my choice, too.

What I was hearing on the old MSM was beginning to - lets just say "make me angry and suspicious" - and I turned it off. It saved my TV set from undue assault("It is just the mode of communication", I kept telling myself). A friend said that if I wanted some good entertainment to listen to Rush Limbaugh. His humor made sense. He said what I'd thought all along. I became hopeful.

My TV is back to doing its job of providing entertainment - and nothing more!

If the "Fairness Doctrine" is brought back anyway, I do believe they'll regret that more than not having it. The more exposure that lies and deceit get the better it is for truth and honesty as far as I'm concerned.(The economic viability of such a format considered notwithstanding for the sake of discussion.)



Woody
 
Radio is a business. It should be kept that way, and treated as such.

Assume you make tires. Your tires are up to legal standards, but only .05% of car owners by them because all you offer are 50's style (wide) white walls on a modern tire. You refuse to change your business plan, hoping that people will come around to your way of thinking. Your business will fail rather quickly with that line of thought because no-one wants your tires.

Now enters the government. They think tire retailers should sell an equal share of each manufactures tires. So they require Bob's white-walls to be sold, even at a lower price, to make them sell, so Bob can continue to make his horrible tires. It's only fair.


People do not want to listen to Air America because what they say is not what people want to listen to.

As for ballanced information... Talk Radio has been the only place to get ANY info on what the immigration bill was doing, because the elected officials thought they didn't need the people to know. I hardly heard a peep from any other outlet on it. That's balanced?

The people spoke, the bill crashed. Chalk one up for The People.
 
Those who would control every last bit of our lives will never tire, as they burn with a self-righteous zeal and belief that they are doing what is right that the most ardent televangelist can't match.

If you get tired and quit, you cede the field to the enemy.
 
Well - Lets see!!

“We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now,” he said. “Rush and Sean are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibility by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become modestly influential or respected.”

Given the import cast upon Paris Hilton by the press, that puts Rush and Sean up there pretty high in their eyes, doesn't it! The last part of that last sentence must be an attempt at double-negative pretension. Either that, or he doesn't want to lose constituents to someone who actually makes more sense than he does - even if it's just a little bit of sense, that his supporters just might recognize as sense(The chink in his armor).

Woody
 
Well thats good news. Silly Dems were about to make a real big freakin' mess.


I hate to say it folks, but if the "Fairness" Doctrine is ever revived it'll be one of those signs that its time to feed the hogs.
 
i don't know why they're making this a "democratic" issue. trent lott also spoke out in favor of it. i'm sure several RINOs (voinovich, specter, etc) would vote for it too
 
amen, jfruser

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent busybodies. The robber barons' cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

- C. S. Lewis
 
There might have been a silver lining.

What if, every time Rosie O'Donnell opened her ugly trap, they'd have to have Ted Nugent on for the same amount of time, during prime viewing hours?

It'd be funny, anyway.
 
It fails in a democratically controlled congress because:
-the liberal stations don't want to play conservative shows and the conservative shows are not afraid of having liberals on to debunk. Conservatives and libertarians have all the compelling ideas right now- many liberal leaders have recognized this for some time.
-Rush Limbaugh , as much of a hack as he is, has an enormous, politically aware following. This would surely become an election issue.
-many conservatives and independents listen to NPR. The big profitable radio networks can field millions of Fairness Doctrine complaints far more easily than NPR can.
 
The vote count was partly a testament to the influence that radio hosts wield in many congressional districts

not anything to do with the people or the 1st amendment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top