Obama Would Toss Limbaugh, Hannity From Radio

[stephanie]

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 7:46 AM

By: Brad O’Leary Article Font Size




Barack Obama has a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech. And one thing Americans can expect from an Obama administration, and a Democratic-controlled Congress, is a legislative attempt to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which will limit free speech and diminish the conservative influence on talk radio.

A new ATI-News/Zogby International poll released on Oct. 26 made it clear that those who intend to vote for Obama support re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine.


The poll asked likely voters, “Some members of Congress have discussed reinstating the Fairness Doctrine for broadcasting. The Fairness Doctrine requires radio stations to provide equal air time for opposing viewpoints.


"If reinstated, regulators determine if both sides of an issue are equally presented. There is concern among some broadcasters that this equal presentation could lead to dropping some popular conservative talk shows in an effort to avoid airing less popular liberal talk shows. Knowing this, do you support or oppose reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine?”


Those likely to vote for Obama support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine by a margin of 49 percent to 36 percent, and Democrats support it 47 to 38 percent. Independents marginally support the fairness doctrine 42 percent to 40 percent, though this is within the poll’s margin of error. (The remaining respondents all replied “not sure.”)


Those polled were then asked, “Some say the Fairness Doctrine could result in popular radio shows, such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, to be taken off the air in some markets. Knowing this, do you support or oppose reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine?"


When informed that the Fairness Doctrine might take Limbaugh and Hannity off the air, the percentage of Democrat likely voters who support the Fairness Doctrine rose to 53 percent. The percentage of Obama supporters supporting the Doctrine rose four points to 53 percent. However, the percentage of Independents opposed to the Fairness Doctrine rose to 49 percent.


It is clear that Obama supporters and Democratic leaders want to see the Fairness Doctrine invoked. If the poll numbers don’t convince you, current events certainly should.


When Chicago radio station WGN scheduled journalist Stanley Kurtz to talk about Obama’s ties to Ayers, the Obama campaign recruited 100,000 supporters to act in a cult-like manner and besiege the station with protests.


When “Joe the plumber” questioned Obama about his plan to raise taxes on small businesses, Obama supporters sought to destroy Joe and publicly embarrass him by digging through his tax files, work history, and personal life. Was this a warning to average Americans not to ask questions?


Obama forces also tried to hush a national organization that ran TV and radio ads attacking the candidate’s position on an issue. In that instance, Obama’s general counsel fired off a letter threatening the licenses of stations that didn’t pull the ad “for the sake of FCC licensing and the public interest.”


When KDKA (Pittsburgh, Pa.) talk-radio host Kevin Miller gave air-time to guests who were critical of Obama, his producer reprimanded him on the air and read a statement from CBS accusing Miller of unfair bias against Obama. The producer then offered Obama his own three-hour segment to run in place of Miller’s time slot.


After seeing a dip in the polls in September, the Obama campaign dispatched prosecutors and law enforcement officials in Missouri to act as “truth squads” to target anyone who runs ads on TV or radio critical of Obama.


Senior Democrats, including Sens. Bingaman, Clinton, Durbin, Kerry, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi show angry intolerance with their desire to re-introduce the doctrine.


Originally instituted in 1949 by the Federal Communications Commission, the Fairness Doctrine was soon recognized as a tool for silencing any opposing views — particularly conservative views.


President Kennedy’s assistant aecretary of commerce, Bill Ruder, said, “We had a massive strategy to use the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hoped the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”


read the rest..
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_fairness_doctrine/2008/10/28/144803.html

[red states rule]

http://wethemedia.edublogs.org/files/2007/11/fairness_doctrine.jpg

[Immanuel]

When informed that the Fairness Doctrine might take Limbaugh and Hannity off the air, the percentage of Democrat likely voters who support the Fairness Doctrine rose to 53 percent. The percentage of Obama supporters supporting the Doctrine rose four points to 53 percent. However, the percentage of Independents opposed to the Fairness Doctrine rose to 49 percent.

That just goes to show you what a large percentage of Democrats really think about free speech. The fact that they seem to like the idea of conservatives being totally removed from the airwaves is absolutely un-american.

Immie

[theHawk]

Freedom of speech is the first and foremost threat to shitbag liberals. Followed by of course the right to own a firearm for self protection.

[stephanie]

Democrat=fascist.

[red states rule]

Dems future plans for conservative talk radio

http://erlc.com/images/article_photos/misc/istock_mic.jpg

[red states rule]

http://bp1.blogger.com/_RaRg5_v_Eus/RoScCJ9zQgI/AAAAAAAAAsE/_z7Jwvqaj2Q/s400/FairnessDoctrine.jpg

[Sitarro]

Imagine what these assholes will do with the internet. No more free speech, no more tax free sales........ see ya e-bay, see ya YouTube, see ya Drudge.

Of course if these asswipes try to enact this garbage it will mean war. The real Americans aren't going to put up with their shit....... Independents, Republicans, Democrats will all rebel and it could be devastating to our Country. Our ancestors had to do it against tyranny, we will have to follow their defense of our Country.

[gabosaurus]

Total bullshit from an unreliable right-wing source. As usual.

[Sitarro]

Total bullshit from an unreliable right-wing source. As usual.

You liberal clowns better remember before you start this war with real Americans. We have all of the guns and aren't afraid to use them against those that threaten our country from the outside or from within. Don't count on the military either because they are overwhelmingly on our side. You want to silence us, you want to take away our freedom, you better duck, it's not going to be pretty.:fu:

[red states rule]

Total bullshit from an unreliable right-wing source. As usual.

You do like to avoid the truth Gabby


DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT

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.

Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dems_get_set_to_muzzle_the_right_134399.htm

[retiredman]

why do you always post opinions and try to pass them off as "the truth"?

That is merely some NY Post op-ed writer's opinion of the fairness doctrine....

ho hum.

[red states rule]

why do you always post opinions and try to pass them off as "the truth"?

That is merely some NY Post op-ed writer's opinion of the fairness doctrine....

ho hum.

Libs have made it known they want to "hush Rush" and Dems have shown how they want to silence anyone who disagrees with them

[retiredman]

Luibs have made it known they want to "hush Rush" and Dems have shown how they want to silence anyone who disagrees with them


you didn't answer my question.

[red states rule]

you didn't answer my question.

Only an idiot would deny the Dems want this and how it would have zerop effect on political speech on the radio


Pelosi Supports Return of Fairness Doctrine

The mainstream media have remained virtually silent about Pelosi’s support for the Fairness Doctrine.

Talk radio’s suspicions of a movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine were confirmed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Tuesday June 24 during her comments at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. When John Gizzi, an editor for Human Events asked Speaker Pelosi whether she favored a return of the Fairness Doctrine, she told him an unhesitating “yes,” reports Gizzi.

Moreover, when Gizzi asked if she supports the Broadcaster Freedom Act, “She added that ‘the interest in my caucus is the reverse’ and that New York Democratic Rep. ‘Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now,’ he writes.

Representative Slaughter (D-NY) introduced the 2004 MEDIA Act to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reintroduced it in 2005 as the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.

Conservative critics have been very concerned that Congress had supported a one-year moratorium on the return of the Fairness Doctrine, but has not supported the Broadcaster Freedom Act (BFA), which would permanently prevent these regulations from returning.

Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced the BFA last June, where it is still awaiting a vote. As of June 25, 200 Members have signed a discharge petition which would force the House to make an up or down vote on the legislation, but an additional 18 signatures are needed.

“And so far, not one single House Democrat has signed our petition for an up-or-down vote on broadcast freedom...and now we know why,” announced Pence in response to Pelosi’s comments. “I say to Speaker Pelosi with respect: Defending freedom is the paramount interest of every Member of the American Congress.”

In his Human Events article, Gizzi recounted his conversation with Pelosi:

“‘So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,’ Pelosi said.

‘Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?,’ I asked.

‘Yes,’ the speaker replied, without hesitation.”

The Fairness Doctrine would force radio broadcasters to provide equal time for opposing points of view—essentially giving the government the ability to regulate media content.

107 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted for the one-year moratorium on the Fairness Doctrine but have not signed the discharge petition. This has prompted groups like Hypocrisy Caucus to launch grassroots efforts targeted at the wavering House members. AIM has published The Death of Talk Radio?, which details the history of the Fairness Doctrine and efforts to reinstate it.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pelosi-support-return-of-fairness-doctrine/

[retiredman]

why do you always post opinions and try to pass them off as "the truth"?

That is merely some NY Post op-ed writer's opinion of the fairness doctrine....

ho hum.

you still didn't answer my question.... posting yet another opinion is not really answering the question as to why you always post opinions...it merely proves my point!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

you still didn't answer my question.... posting yet another opinion is not really answering the question as to why you always post opinions...it merely proves my point!:laugh2:

I posted San Fran Nan admitting she wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine- not an opinion - a fact

[Immanuel]

One thing I would like to point out here.

MFM has consistantly said that he doesn't know what the "new" "Fairness Doctrine" would look like. He has fallen behind that statement many times in his claim that it would not infringe on free speech, yet, there has been no mention of a "new" "Fairness Doctrine" it is all about a return to the OLD doctrine.

To my knowledge, there has been no mention of rewriting the doctrine just reinstituting the old one in order to destroy Rush and Co.

I hate to tell you libs this, but different points of view are very valuable to this country. I come to this site to read your points of views and I, for one, do not want you silenced. I want you to have your say so that I can read other points of views and unlike many on these sites, I will admit to having changed my mind on issues or at the very least moderating them.

Immie

[red states rule]

One thing I would like to point out here.

MFM has consistantly said that he doesn't know what the "new" "Fairness Doctrine" would look like. He has fallen behind that statement many times in his claim that it would not infringe on free speech, yet, there has been no mention of a "new" "Fairness Doctrine" it is all about a return to the OLD doctrine.

To my knowledge, there has been no mention of rewriting the doctrine just reinstituting the old one in order to destroy Rush and Co.

I hate to tell you libs this, but different points of view are very valuable to this country. I come to this site to read your points of views and I, for one, do not want you silenced. I want you to have your say so that I can read other points of views and unlike many on these sites, I will admit to having changed my mind on issues or at the very least moderating them.

Immie


You have a firm grasp on the obvious. Rev MFM is not interested in the truth - only supporting the Dems no matter what the results.

Rev MFM would have no problem with a liberal government silencing conservative voices - he supports the 1st Amendment only for liberal speech

[avatar4321]

Total bullshit from an unreliable right-wing source. As usual.

Why is it unreliable? Every Democrat leader has stated it's their goal to reinstate the fairness doctrine. Why is it nonsense?

[Yurt]

One thing I would like to point out here.

MFM has consistantly said that he doesn't know what the "new" "Fairness Doctrine" would look like. He has fallen behind that statement many times in his claim that it would not infringe on free speech, yet, there has been no mention of a "new" "Fairness Doctrine" it is all about a return to the OLD doctrine.

To my knowledge, there has been no mention of rewriting the doctrine just reinstituting the old one in order to destroy Rush and Co.
I hate to tell you libs this, but different points of view are very valuable to this country. I come to this site to read your points of views and I, for one, do not want you silenced. I want you to have your say so that I can read other points of views and unlike many on these sites, I will admit to having changed my mind on issues or at the very least moderating them.

Immie

:clap:

exactly, they want to reintroduce it...

i would not be surprised though if it gets slammed down hard in the courts and they simply give it minor tweaks to get passed the courts...

[retiredman]

:clap:

exactly, they want to reintroduce it...

i would not be surprised though if it gets slammed down hard in the courts and they simply give it minor tweaks to get passed the courts...


"minor tweaks" to get by the courts would mean a different doctrine that passed judicial muster from the Roberts Court. I have no idea what that would look like and neither do any of you. When I see what they come up with, I will be able to tell you all whether it is something that I approve of.

[red states rule]

"minor tweaks" to get by the courts would mean a different doctrine that passed judicial muster from the Roberts Court. I have no idea what that would look like and neither do any of you. When I see what they come up with, I will be able to tell you all whether it is something that I approve of.

If conservative talk radio remains intact - you will disapprove. Only when the libs rule 100% of the media, with only their opinion being heard - will you "approve"

[retiredman]

If conservative talk radio remains intact - you will disapprove. Only when the libs rule 100% of the media, with only their opinion being heard - will you "approve"

You are wrong. I would miss Rush... I listen to him at least twice a week every week as I drive back from visiting my hospice patient. I find him thoroughly entertaining. The local clear channel station had low ratings for Hannity and Carr et.al. and recently switched to a sports talk format. I must admit that didn't upset me much.

[red states rule]

You are wrong. I would miss Rush... I listen to him at least twice a week every week as I drive back from visiting my hospice patient. I find him thoroughly entertaining. The local clear channel station had low ratings for Hannity and Carr et.al. and recently switched to a sports talk format. I must admit that didn't upset me much.

Oh wow, now Rush is only on about 599 stations and Sean in on about 500

[retiredman]

Oh wow, now Rush is only on about 599 stations and Sean in on about 500

I know. Like I said...I like Rush...I listen to him for the sheer entertainment... I used to listen to Hannity on the drive home, but obviously, not enough folks up here were doing likewise... Jim Rome has a good sports talk show, however, that fills that slot nicely.

[red states rule]

I know. Like I said...I like Rush...I listen to him for the sheer entertainment... I used to listen to Hannity on the drive home, but obviously, not enough folks up here were doing likewise... Jim Rome has a good sports talk show, however, that fills that slot nicely.

Libs like you would love to see ALL conservative hosts off the air. Which is what Pelosi and her buds will try to do

You wil sit back, smile, and allow the government (a liberal government) regulate political speech

[retiredman]

Libs like you would love to see ALL conservative hosts off the air. Which is what Pelosi and her buds will try to do

You wil sit back, smile, and allow the government (a liberal government) regulate political speech
did you read what I wrote?

I LISTEN to Rush Limbaugh every week. I would be sad if he were not on the air.

[red states rule]

did you read what I wrote?

I LISTEN to Rush Limbaugh every week. I would be sad if he were not on the air.

Given your past - I find a severe lack of credibility in that post

[retiredman]

Given your past - I find a severe lack of credibility in that post

I don't care. I meant every word.

I am glad that Hannity is no longer available. He got me angry listening to him.... Rush just gets me laughing. I like laughter.

[avatar4321]

"minor tweaks" to get by the courts would mean a different doctrine that passed judicial muster from the Roberts Court. I have no idea what that would look like and neither do any of you. When I see what they come up with, I will be able to tell you all whether it is something that I approve of.

The sad fact that youd support any congression restriction on speech tells us you've lost any value in what this country stands for.

[red states rule]

The sad fact that youd support any congression restriction on speech tells us you've lost any value in what this country stands for.

Rev MFM is all for free unregulated speech - as long as it is liberal speech

[Yurt]

"minor tweaks" to get by the courts would mean a different doctrine that passed judicial muster from the Roberts Court. I have no idea what that would look like and neither do any of you. When I see what they come up with, I will be able to tell you all whether it is something that I approve of.

no, but you believe the one on the books now is about equal time, you are wrong....but guess is you would press your reps, with honestly deceptive repetative phone calls, to approve an equal time amendment to the doctrine...

i might be wrong, but i don't think it necessarily means a "different" doctrine, i thought they could amend doctrines so as to pass judicial scrutiny...still the fairness doctrine, but more "legal"