Fairness Doctrine - R.I.P.

[red states rule]

The Dems attempt to monitor political speech on the radio has failed. I wonder how long before the kook left (and some RINO's) will try again


Let fairness doctrine R.I.P.
Star Parker
August 1, 2007

The conversation now about revival of the Fairness Doctrine, buried by the Federal Communications Commission 20 years ago, shows no idea ever dies. Even the worst ones.

The Fairness Doctrine's original logic was that broadcast media were transmitted over limited public airwaves. Therefore, the federal government had an obligation to ensure that competing views were aired

The FCC reasoned in 1987, when it closed the book on this doctrine, that emergence of cable to compete with broadcast had made media markets competitive enough to preclude government policing. If true 20 years ago, how much more so now. The Pew Research Center reports that in 2006 15 percent of Americans used the Internet as their primary source of political news, double that of the 2002 elections.

In other Pew research on media usage, those surveyed were presented with 16 alternative sources of news. Results show that, of those most informed, all use more than one source. Half of the most informed use seven different sources.

So if the openness and competitiveness of the information market today is so clear, with cable, satellite and the Internet in addition to broadcast media, why are we talking now about the Fairness Doctrine?

There appears to be two immediate sources of provocation.

First, a number of senators are unhappy about the defeat of the recent immigration legislation and blame the setback on conservative talk-radio hosts. Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Richard Durbin of Illinois have called for reviving the Fairness Doctrine to put some kind of governor on the likes of Rush Limbaugh. Even a Republican senator, Trent Lott of Mississippi, said "talk radio is now running America."

This is ridiculous. The Pew Center's research shows a whopping 8 percent of those surveyed say they regularly listen to Rush. If he and other conservative radio hosts were "running America," liberals like Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, certainly would not be holding the reins of power on Capitol Hill today.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070801/COMMENTARY/108010021/1012

[actsnoblemartin]

fairness doctrine = government imposed censorship of the right, by making the free market consumer listen to his ideas he could get from a-hole america, but chooses not too.

[red states rule]

fairness doctrine = government imposed censorship of the right, by making the free market consumer listen to his ideas he could get from a-hole america, but chooses not too.

What the left wanted to accomplish with the fairness doctrine was to FORCE people to listen to liberals sprew their hate and rage

Libs are happy with choice - as long as the people make the choice the libs want them to make

[red states rule]

fairness doctrine = government imposed censorship of the right, by making the free market consumer listen to his ideas he could get from a-hole america, but chooses not too.

Here is a grreat example of the softball questions CNN asks Dems


CNN's Blitzer Asks Rep. Ellison About Bush/Hitler Comment
By Brad Wilmouth | August 4, 2007 - 16:45 ET
On Wednesday's The Situation Room, CNN host Wolf Blitzer, while interviewing Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison about his recent trip to Iraq, asked the Congressman about his recent controversial remarks comparing President Bush to Hitler, words that could be interpreted as a suggestion that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, and comments that have received little media coverage. Blitzer gave Ellison the chance to "explain exactly what you did mean," and asked if the Congressman agreed that the "comparison of Bush and Hitler" was "inappropriate." (Transcript follows)

Ellison said that he "chalks it up to rookie error" and, regarding whether the 9/11 attacks were a "Bush-led conspiracy," the Congressman contended that "I never said it at the time, and I absolutely deny that now."

Below is a transcript of Blitzer's question and Ellison's response from the Wednesday August 1 The Situation Room on CNN:

WOLF BLITZER: Let me give you a chance to clarify some controversial remarks you made not that long ago, early in July, involving the Reichstag. You said this at one event for which you later clarified and apologized and said you meant no comparison, but I want to read it to you because it's still raising some concerns: "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the communists for it, and it put the leader," Hitler, "of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

BLITZER: The impression from that quote was that Bush, in effect, was responsible for 9/11 to create this opportunity to go in this war on terror and do whatever he wanted, and you were pretty much blasted for that. You later said you didn't mean that. But explain exactly what you did mean.

Rep. KEITH ELLISON (D-MN): Well, let me say, at the time, I specifically denied any plan, Wolf. But here's the thing, you know, I chalk it up to rookie error. And I'm trying to move on from it. Nobody always says the right thing. I didn't say the right thing at that time, and I'm trying to move on from it, Wolf. So I appreciate you asking the question. But I'm just trying to leave that, I've said what I had to say about it, and I'm trying to move forward.

BLITZER: But I just want to be clear. You never suggested that there was a Bush-led conspiracy-

ELLISON: Oh, no, I never said that.

BLITZER: -that resulted in 9/11.

ELLISON: I never said it at the time, and I absolutely deny that now.

BLITZER: And even the comparison of Bush and Hitler. That's inappropriate. I just want to make sure you agree with that.

ELLISON: I agree. Yeah, I do agree with it. And that's not an error I'll be making again, and, you know, look, you know, we're all doing the best we can, and we're trying to learn from the mistakes that we make.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/08/04/cnns-blitzer-asks-rep-ellison-about-bush-hitler-comment



Boy, hard hitting zingers from Mr Blitzed to a fellow lib. They kind Dems love to get

[red states rule]

Bozell: FCC Has No Human Reader to Prevent Obscene Radio Call Letters
By Tim Graham | August 4, 2007 - 22:39 ET
Can a radio station owner submit an obscene set of call letters for his station and have it approved by the Federal Communications Commission? Brent Bozell's culture column passes along that two prospective stations in Hawaii were granted the call letters **** (and KWTF), which the station owner quickly apologized for submitting. But the FCC, for its many millions in expenditures, has no living, breathing human checking to make sure that embarrassing call letters aren't included in their usual online submission process. Brent elaborates:

It wasn’t that long ago that the bureaucracy at the Federal Communications Commission fell on its collective rump when with Solomonic wisdom it announced that use of the “f-bomb” over the broadcast airwaves didn’t constitute an indecency so long as that word was used as an “intensifier” adjective, and not a verb. The real world shook its head in disbelief, the appropriate cobwebs were cleared, and ultimately the FCC reversed itself.

Never underestimate a federal bureaucracy. The FCC has struck again.

One responsibility of this agency is to assign call letters to new TV and radio stations. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin has reported that deep in a 15-pages list of new call letters issued by the FCC last month, the call letters **** were granted to a yet-unbuilt low-power digital television station in Wailuku, Maui.

The Honolulu paper discovered that the FCC doesn’t exactly hire a human to look over the call letter list. Apparently the agency’s $300 million annual budget goes only so far. Assignment of the station letters actually is an automated process, according to Mary Diamond of the FCC's Office of Media Relations. Broadcasters use the FCC Web site to request and receive call letters with no oversight from any FCC human.

The station owners have now stepped in to reverse this outrage and Kevin Bae, vice president of KM Communications Inc. in Skokie, Illinois, has now apologized. It is "extremely embarrassing for me and my company and we will file to change those call letters immediately."

But this is not the first time the FCC has been asleep at the assignment desk, nor have other station owners reflected KM’s responsibility. KCUF-FM near Aspen, Colo. got its F-word-in-reverse call letters in August of 2005 and has been on the air since December.


From there, Brent looks at how the Internet can be a haven for creeps, as in Jack McClellan, a self-promoting pedophile blogger in Los Angeles who drew some heavy publicity recently.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2007/08/04/bozell-fcc-has-no-human-reader-prevent-obscene-radio-call-letters

[actsnoblemartin]

why not k**** or ****. How come the fcc has nothing better to do then this?

[red states rule]

why not k**** or ****. How come the fcc has nothing better to do then this?

It is your tax dollars at work, or some would say, not at work