Fairness Doctrine

[Kathianne]

While posted in its 'entirety' this post only requires credit given, I am doing that. He nails it:

http://www.extrememortman.com/president-george-bush/president-bushs-big-news-on-fairness-doctrine-opposition/



President Bush’s Big News On Fairness Doctrine Opposition

March 11, 2008 at 8:57 pm

President Bush said something quite newsworthy today.

Here he is at the National Religious Broadcasters 2008 Convention in Nashville:


There’s an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides. This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington’s definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don’t like. (Laughter and applause.)

We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don’t agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don’t acknowledge that you are the balance; that you give voice — (applause.) The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we’re strengthened by diversity of opinions.

If Congress truly supports the free and open exchange of ideas, then there is a way they can demonstrate that right now. Republicans have drafted legislation that would ban reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have blocked action on this bill. So in response, nearly every Republican in the House has signed onto what’s called a “discharge petition,” that would require Congress to hold an up or down vote on the ban. Supporters of this petition are only 24 signatures away.

I do want to thank Mike Pence, who is with us today, and Congressman Greg Walden, for pressing this effort and defending the right for people to express themselves freely. And I urge other members to join in this discharge petition. But I’ll tell you this: If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, I’m going to veto it.

That’s President Bush twice mentioning the Fairness Doctrine. A yawner, right? Don’t we hear that all the time?

Actually, we don’t. In fact, we never have before. Search “Fairness Doctrine” on the White House website and today’s speech is the only Bush remarks that come up — and one of only two results (a 2005 Scott McClellan presser being the other).

Meaning today was the first time the President has mentioned it specifically. Making it quite newsworthy indeed.

March 11, 2008 at 8:57 pm - Permalink - Filed under President George Bush

[stephanie]

That will be the first thing all three of these Presidential Bozos running now, will try and get passed when they get in office....

Mark my words...:cheers2:

[Little-Acorn]

But I’ll tell you this: If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, I’m going to veto it.

That's mighty white of you, Mr. President. Too bad that sentiment didn't occur to you earlier, when the so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" censorship act landed on your desk, prohibiting political speech by anyone except the mostly-liberal press before an election. You signed it into law - your most egregious act as President, with the possible exception of failing to protect the country from the ongoing invasion by 15 million illegal aliens (as several Presidents before you have also failed to do).

Nice to hear you've finally changed your mind.

[Little-Acorn]

Dear Mr. President,

Just in case you change your mind yet again about vetoing the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", how about at least making it truly equitable? As long as we're dictating what people can and can't say or show, apply those restrictions to TV, movies, and newspapers as well.

For every Fonda-esque movie depicting industry as heartless, greedy monsters, there has to be one showing an industry moving into a blighted area and providing jobs, money, lower product prices, and increased prosperity for large segments of the population (something that happens far more often than the occasional Enron, in fact).

For every TV show displaying supposedly "conservative" people as ignorant clowns and buffoons, one must be produced showing conservatives accurately outlining their arguments and reasons why conservatism promotes the shrinking of overbearing government and the resulting freedom to follow your own wisdom, work for tangible rewards, take your lumps and learn from your mistakes, help and get help from your neighbors, and grow and modify your own business for your own (and, not coincidentally, your fellow men's) benefit.

For every newpaper story (and editorial, why stop your restrictions at the news pages?) screaming over the United States' "abject failures" in Iraq and other such places, there must be one describing the increased freedom (and citizen responsibility, the two are inseparable) of the people, the massive rebuilding and construction of infrastructure (schools, roads, water supplies, homes, stores, hospitals etc.) also done by the U.S. in those places, as well as the mounting rates of territory released back to the Iraqi citizens and armed forces - again, things that happen far more than IED explosions and terrorist sabotage of that infrastructure.

And that's just for starters. Since U.S. leftists are so interested in regulating what people can do or say on the airwaves (mimicking the pattern they established in other countries such as Cuba, the USSR, communist China etc.), the areas ripe for such regulation are virtually endless. This will take a massive government program, with bureaucracy to match, to watch, evaluate, and regulate all the media that can possibly present "unbalanced" views.

The above is just a sample of where this so-called "Fairness Doctrine" can go, Mr. President... just in case you're thinking of changing your mind about that veto.