Battle Lines Being Drawn in Fight Over Fairness Doctrine
What seemed a pipe dream six months ago is now a serious movement in Congress.
Radio stations have become merely one channel we can turn to for entertainment or news, not the only channel in town. Some would say this alone negates the need for a so-called Fairness Doctrine.
Others could point to history and note our nation’s early newspapers were neither fair nor balanced.
Just like in those days, people today can choose not to purchase a paper, watch a television show, read a blog, or even tune to a radio station in which they are not interested. Our citizens actually vote with their feet and vote with their ears when they choose from which medium they wish to gather information.
However, those promoting the Fairness Doctrine want us to believe that people should not have the right to make choices in determining what is fair on their dial.
Those who wrongfully supported the Fairness Doctrine back in the 1940s claimed the regulation would ensure local station owners’ opinions could not dominate local policy discussions. They thought it would encourage lively debate. However, it did just the opposite.
When it was in place, political opponents used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to harass stations and encourage them to take shows they did not like off the air. They used it to intimidate stations into avoiding topics. This seems to be exactly the type of “fairness” the current proponents are interested in.
Steve Rendall, who is affiliated with the left leaning Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting organization (FAIR), makes the case for the need of the Fairness Doctrine by citing the airing by Sinclair Broadcast Group’s of what was perceived as a critical documentary of John Kerry.
Mr. Rendall does not cite the liberal media bias noted in studies from the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University and UCLA. Nor does he cite the ongoing multi-year reports from Pew Research Center for the People and the Press that demonstrate journalists are much more liberal than conservative. He only cites perceived conservative bias.
But his own research shows that Sinclair Broadcast Group dialed back their plans to air the documentary in 2004 because of a negative reaction on their stock value. Rendall’s own research seems to indicate that the FCC’s decision in 1987 was correct in removing the Fairness Doctrine because voters and citizens can discern what is important to them and vote with their ears, their eyes, and now their keyboards.
Taken together, many believe, the Fairness Doctrine should end up where those old dial radio station control boards reside — on the scrap heap of history.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Brent Littlefield is a Republican strategist. He makes his home in Virginia.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
97 Comments
1. Patterson:Well here comes the first wave of the Obama administration BS. This is an absolute crock of sh*t. The fairness doctrine is flawed from the ground up. Did they ever think of all the news organizations out there that report nothing but leftist sludge all-day everyday? Conservative talk shows are the underdogs that attempt to balance it. News media that is far left outnumbers the couple of conservative talk shows on the radio by a LOT. I like how they say “…talk shows…” Instead why don’t they say what we all know they want to say: Rush Limbaugh?
Dec 19, 2008 - 12:28 am 2. Doug:I was just a tad more upset than you when I wrote up a post on Eshoo (D-Gesundheit) and her diabolical plans to eradicate the First Amendment.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/12/congresswoman-anna-eshoo-d-ca-demands.html
Dec 19, 2008 - 3:05 am 3. eon:This should not surprise anyone. Historically, “progressives” have always believed that only they should have a voice in the public square, on the grounds that anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong but evil into the bargain. And there has never been an authoritarian government, of any kind, that did not seek to stifle dissent.
That includes those who are authoritarian on the grounds that they are the ones who do it for The Greater Good Of All. (With themselves defining the “greater good”, of course.)
As Alan Dershowitz once defined it, progressives believe in the “principle” of “Free speech for me, but not for thee.”
clear ether
eon
Dec 19, 2008 - 3:52 am 4. David Thomson:Barack Obama may be pretending to be moderate on a number of issues merely to get our guard down. This is perhaps the number one issue a follower of Saul Alinsky truly desires to place on their agenda. We must fight back here and now. Don’t allow Obama—and the Republican back stabber John McCain to take away anymore of your precious rights.
Dec 19, 2008 - 4:34 am 5. SteveInNJ:It’s comforting to know that Congress is focusing its efforts on such worthwhile endeavors.
Dec 19, 2008 - 5:30 am 6. Roscoe Vincent:@patterson
“Instead why don’t they say what we all know they want to say: Rush Limbaugh?”
Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, and others?
Dec 19, 2008 - 5:44 am 7. David Thomson:We must watch John McCain like a hawk. Barack Obama will not dare push this vile legislation unless he gets the Arizona Republican U.S. senator behind him. But that is likely to happen! McCain is going to do everything possible in the next few years to prove that he is a “maverick.” We should not trust him for a second. McCain is so hostile toward Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio talk show hosts—that his presidential campaign did not even give popular Mark Levin the courtesy of a response to his gracious invitation.
Dec 19, 2008 - 5:45 am 8. Bill N:The ACLU has a long history of legal challenges to attempts to limit the right of free speech, so we should expect them to fight this one tooth and nail, right? Never fear, Obama’s here.
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:00 am 9. seven:I am so excited. Rush Limbaugh will get 15 minutes of the hour when The View is on. All the conservatives will be invited into the liberal networks. We do have the fairness doctrine, we have thousands of outlets. Hot air and M Malkin has more hits than the LA times Or the chicago Tribune. Can you imagine Olbertman followed by a show with Gov Huckabee?
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:01 am 10. Increase Mather:They are going to try it…there will be a huge battle in the courts…we’ll see.
The liberals blame Limbaugh for losing congress in the nineties…they are determined to find a way to shut Talk Radio up.
Such niceities as the First Amendment mean nothing to them.
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:02 am 11. Chris in Toronto:“Fair” is such a subjective word.
But then again, we’re living in an era of moral equivalency the hallmark of which is subjectivity, the notion that there is nothing that is objectively right or wrong, that one ethos is just as good as any other. The aim of moral equivalency is the destruction of morality; and as ethics derive from morality, moral equivalency destroys ethics. Moral equivalence leads to the abominable place where one believes that “the tenets of my faith say this while your faith says that and each is equally valid”. An example would be one faith declaring that it’s not okay to beat your wife while another purportedly equally valid faith says it IS okay to beat your wife.
Moral equivalence degenerates any notion of rational discourse of right and wrong into a matter of opinion. It is cowardice, rank cowardice of the worst kind, the lack of fortitude to defend the contents of your own mind. The crowning glory of moral equivalency is the show-stopper line: “that’s your opinion and I have mine so who’s to say who’s right”.
This fairness doctrine is the enabler of sloppy thinking. What’s needed is the jettisoning of the doctrine of moral equivalency and a return to a recognition of objective reality where “A is A”, where one thing IS right and the everything else is wrong. Where right and wrong are not just matters of opinion. Where truth is not dependent on spin. In matters of morality there are no nuances, no shades of gray, no wiggle room for sloppy thinking.
Any movement to install the fairness doctrine must be opposed as though our minds depend on it. Because they do.
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:12 am 12. Thinking Person:If this doesn’t get the GOP to mobilize, nothing will. Passively sitting by and allowing this to be forced on us will truly sound the death knell for the freedoms we now hold dear. I’m waiting to see how liberal posters on this website (ie, vivo, Steve P., Lynn, Jack, Pat, Robert Hurley and others will defend this). I’m interested to see how they spin it so it seems like the democrats are doing this for the “greater good”.
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:16 am 13. R a Z o R:Der Fuehrer having moved on from the House of
Lords , where one most pay to play or be born
into it by name [Kennedy-dumber] , applies the
” DOCTRINE OF FAIRNESS ” .
North Carolina has the ” CASTLE DOCTRINE “.
No retreat because an Englishman’s home is his
castle . We have the RIGHT TO STAND OUR GROUND .
We also have freedom of speech and the right to
keep and bear arms .
________________________________________________
Hey Obama , leave our rights alone .
________________________________________________
………. MITT ROMNEY * BOBBY JINDAL ……….
________________________________________________
That sounds fair to me .
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:31 am 14. Will Becker:Without conservative talk radio,we would all be numb minded liberals,and the left knows that.
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:34 am 15. Skip:Is that a whiff of “fascism” I smell in the air?
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:37 am 16. None:I agree the Fairness Doctrine is anything but; that said, however, doesn’t it cut both ways? Could it not also be used as foundation for, first, shifting the liberal bias of the MSM, and second, high dollar lawsuits when they didn’t comply?
Although, at second thought, shifting the MSM to the right through bias elimination might attract more viewers/listeners and allow them to stay alive longer.
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:39 am 17. JohnR(DC):Nothing new here. Teddy Roosevelt tried to silence Ida Tarbell (?) or some other muckracker when he was President by threatening the magazine that published her stuff. Woodrow Wilson had critics locked up. FDR tried to “pack” the Supreme Court.
People in power hate being criticized, particularly (as has been noted here) the ones who believe they have all the answers. People like George Bush, who grew up playing sports amid normal people know that being criticized is part of life. Therefore, he shrugs off criticism. On the other hand, the true believers are raised in self-congratulatory cocoons and have no real-life experiences to fall back on when the going gets tough. Hence they lash out at their critics.
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:44 am 18. deguello:Any attempt to impose censor ship must be regarded as the beginning of the end of freedom and must be resisted BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:49 am 19. Bilgeman:Are you surprised?
It has been, and continues to be a national disgrace that McCain-Feingold has not been overturned in the Supreme Court as the unConstitutional muzzling of Free Speech that it is.
Since the Statists have so far gotten away with that POS M-F legislation, why should they NOT “pile it on”?
The only consolation is that this would only amount to a “squeezing of the balloon” and something like samizdat would take the place of the newly-muzzled “unfair” media outlets.
McCain’s role in McCain-Feingold was one of three of his betrayals of our Constitutionally protected rights that cost him my vote. (The others being his willingness to “compromise” on the Citizens’ RTKBA and his stance on illegal immigration.).
And speaking to the supposed issue of “Fairness” that is being bandied about as the label for a tool of tyranny, does it strike anyone as odd that Sarah Palin’s church is torched, with parishioners,(including children), were inside, and it gets hardly any “legs” in the MSM?
Can you imagine what the MSM coverage would be like if, say, Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church were to be burned while the building was occupied?
It would be “Birmingham II”.
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:54 am 20. Joe:We found this old Britanica film… did a little editing to make it watchable mostly… and also, ironic as we could. Depotism or Democracy? It is still a relevent question.
http://tesla.liketelevision.com/liketelevision/tuner.php?channel=1020&format=tv&theme=guide
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:03 am 21. rvastar:I say bring it on.
If the Dumocrats re-instate it, it will just end up in front of the Supreme Court again, the last time being in ‘87. And with the explosions in information access that have occurred since ‘87 – Internet, cable television, satellite radio, etc. – the Dumocrats will be laughed out of court.
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:04 am 22. Off A Cough:Here is the fact that must never be forgotten:
Rush Limbaugh lives in Nancy Pelosi’s empty skull. Rent free, baby.
Civil disobedience dictates that the “counter points” forced on your local radio should be countered by home transmitters throughout the city of your choice. Thomas Paine rolls over in his grave.
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:08 am 23. drjohn:Provide information?
I thought that was called “news.” I have not listened to a single station without it.
This is pathetic and it cannot be seen as anything other than a violation of the First Amendment.
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:15 am 24. JLawson:So “Air America” didn’t win the hearts and minds of people with the garbage and hatred they spewed… Now they’re going to try to mandate the stuff in the interests of ‘fairness’.
Okay.
And radio stations will watch their ratings drop, and with that the ad revenues – to a point where it’ll be cheaper to pay the fines for NOT being ‘fair’ than to take the hit for broadcasting garbage people refuse to listen to!
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:19 am 25. Ursa Major:I say: Bring it on! The looney left will be laughed off the air. This will be a defining moment for conservatism.
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:24 am 26. Bill in NC:It’s too late. The information revolution Genie cannot be put back in the bottle. The democrats are fighting a 1987 fight. If they try this, just buy stock in satellite radio. Rush et. al. will be heard.
What they might succeed in doing will be to kill am radio.
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:32 am 27. Corky Boyd:While everone is bracing for a congressional fight on the Fairness Doctrine, it will probably come about through the rule making authority of the FCC, which will have a Democrat majority under Obama. The reason: they can simply reinstitute the old rule which was for radio only, not TV, and avoid the tremendous grass roots reaction to it. Congressmen and Senators must stand for reelection, FCC commissioners are appointed.
Rest assured it will apply to radio only, no matter who does the dirty work. The politically powerful networks are by and large out of the radio business (CBS still owns a few). The fight will have to be fought by Clear Channel and a hanndfull of syndicators. If an effort is made to include TV the political pressures will be overwhelming, unlike anything we have seen. But it will be difficult for Democrats to rationalize “radio only” when a TV station takes 600 times the “valuable” spectrum of an AM station.
Rush will still be heard, whether on satellite radio, internet streaming or on your iPhone.
No matter what, it will come to the Supreme Court to determine whether “Fairness” is an infringement on our most sacred Constitutional right, that of political free speech.
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:32 am 28. BostonRon:Let’s not stop here, let’s ask for a fairness doctrine for higher education. Profs must fairly and accurately present and advocate for both sides of all issues.
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:32 am 29. DeliLama:What’s the chance of that happening.
Why is no one stating the obvious??
We’ll accept a fairness doctrine for radio if we can have one for television.
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:36 am 30. RedErick:This is a copy of a letter I sent to the local public radio in response to their fund raising request:
To whom it may concern:
I will be glad to contribute to your station and NPR when you provide equal time for conservative viewpoints to offset each and every non-conservative opinion or report to which you give airtime. The “Fairness Doctrine” begins with you.
For instance, to be fair, Bill Moyers’ rabid liberalism must be offset by Rush Limbaugh’s staunch conservatism. Prairie Home Companion must be offset by The Blue Collar Tour. NPR must be offset by Fox News and CNS since they don’t have NPR’s access to my wallet through taxes. FreshAire could use a host who is more congenial to non-liberal points of view, and have more guests who express conservative values. And so on.
However, since these proposals don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of receiving an audience with your management and your god-parent NPR, i will continue to get my entertainment and news off of the Internet.
Good luck with your fundraising, and remember, The “Fairness Doctrine” Begins With You!
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:37 am 31. Ken Hahn:How about we do a test before imposing the fairness doctrine? Let’s give it a trial for a year or two on PBS and NPR. After that we can do the necessary studies, environmental impact reports etc. before actually putting it to effect. We should be ready about 2025 or so.
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:41 am 32. cfbleachers:Let me tell leftists what is fair and what is not fair:
What is not fair, is having the entrenched media become an arm of one party.
What is not fair, is having the wire services advocate on behalf of one point of view.
What is not fair is having some imbecile intentionally abuse the cover of a magazine to make one Presidential candidate look evil.
What is not fair is having leftist propaganda fed to our citizenry through forged documents and then call it “false but accurate”.
What is not fair is having the wire services overseas staging events and calling it “factual news”
What is not fair is having photoshopped pictures sent to us as factual news.
What is not fair is lying about the Tet Offensive and calling it a military loss.
What is not fair is failure to cover successes and only covering “grim milestones”.
What is not fair is the coverup of flaws, frailties and blemishes of the Democratic Party and their candidates, while inventing stories about Republican Party or independents in order to damage their chances of a fair election.
What is not fair is stealing the information stream and then whining like a schoolgirl when the public finds a release valve to escape the buildup of the stench of propaganda.
What is fair, is that anyone…anyone…who tries to impose this legislation be marched on by people from every state in the union and any state they represent…and move to impeach them for treason, boycott anything and everything their district represents. It is bad enough that they corrupt the facts we need to self-govern this land of ours. It is bad enough that they steal our information for their own purposes. If they put forward this legislation, I swear by everything near and dear to me, I will quit my job and build an organization designed to have them tried for treason.
There is no more important issue, none. Because every other issue depends upon our ability to get the truth in order to self-govern this land of ours. EVERY other issue. It is bad enought that we no longer can trust our ink-stained deadwood media, and we certainly can not trust the alphabet news rooms. We can’t trust the wire services and we can’t trust the magazines. But, we have been able to dig a bit of truth out of the dirt through blogs, talk radio and Fox News.
I’m not saying THEY should be the only voices heard, but in a battle to be heard, it is important NOT to have essentially a state run media. For everyone’s benefit. Because I would be arguing just as vociferously if the shoe were on the other foot. I will spend every minute of my time and every penny of my wealth to defeat this evil notion of “malignant fairness”.
And I am not even a strong partisan, I’m a centrist. It’s more evil to me, than to some more partisan friends. They see it as a weapon that THEY could use when THEIR time comes. And I would have to oppose them. The fact that Shumer, Pelosi and that other imbecile from California see this as even viable to talk about, says volumes about their inability to be in a position to lead this country. They are a national disgrace.
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:45 am 33. Dave Hardy:I researched the fairness doctrine back in the 80s. The big problem with it is that it exempted the broadcasters themselves, their news, and editorializing. So ABC, NBC, etc. could slant the news as they wanted, or editorialize at will, but Sean Hannity could not. (To be precise, he could, but if he spent 30 minutes criticizing something, the station had to give 30 minutes or a time sufficient to reply, for free, to someone who supported the idea. Which made such commentary nonviable commercially).
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:55 am 34. PD Quig:Call out the instigator
‘Cause there’s something in the air
We’ve got to get it together sooner or later
‘Cause the revolution’s here
And you know it’s right
And you know that it’s right
We have got to get together
We have got to get it together
Lock up the streets and houses
‘Cause there’s something in the air
We’ve got to get it together sooner or later
‘Cause the revolution’s here
And you know it’s right
And you know that it’s right
We have got to get together
We have got to get it together
Hand out the arms and ammo
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:58 am 35. Rockmelon:We’re gonna blast our way through here
We’ve got to get it together sooner or later
‘Cause the revolution’s here
And you know it’s right
And you know that it’s right
We have got to get together
We have got to get it together
Exactly what I was thinking when I began reading this article: Revolution is in the air!
Unfortunately, I don’t have too many years left on this planet; but I will fight the left up to my last breath even if it means a civil war.
I hope that everyone can see why it is so important that they not squash the Second Amendment – the right to keep and bear arms. The day that we lose arms we become totally subservient to the left’s whims; little cloned Nancy Pelosi’s and Barack Obama’s. Throw Islam in and you have a perfect example of sheer insanity.
Dec 19, 2008 - 8:13 am 36. scory:I expect this effort to be coupled with “hate crime” and campaign finance laws. Leftists have been labeling talk radio hosts as “haters” for years now and thus laying the groundwork for muzzling them via the “hate crime” pretext. And there have been recent actions taken by both the right and the left attempting to portray political opinion in support or opposition of one or the other party’s candidates and intiatives as constituting a de facto $ contribution and therefore subject to federal campaign regulation. I also expect that the GOP senators will not be able to stop it as there are enough liberal Republicans who will side with the leftists and thus render a filibuster DOA. I also expect the leftists to start nominating and confirming judges that will rubber-stamp their initiatives and so remove that pesky Constitution as a roadblock to their agenda.
I hope I am completely wrong about this.
Dec 19, 2008 - 8:23 am 37. Bilgeman:#35 Rockmelon:
“The day that we lose arms we become totally subservient to the left’s whims; little cloned Nancy Pelosi’s and Barack Obama’s. Throw Islam in and you have a perfect example of sheer insanity.”
No…that would be Britain.
Dec 19, 2008 - 8:28 am 38. Grace D.:Oh my..what do you have against this little old lady’s dial radio…do I belong on the scrapbook of history also?..I would really miss Savage and his stories about days gone by.
Dec 19, 2008 - 8:35 am 39. Pat J:There is no movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. This is a myth perpetrated by the right wing hate radio people.
Dec 19, 2008 - 8:36 am 40. Kevin:I take the Fairness Doctrine as a cynical, immoral and major attack on the First Amendment but I don’t see it succeeding even if the Supremes are on crack the day they rule on it and declare they are just protecting interstate commerce from “monopolies” (suuuuuure).
What could also happen here is a rather strange self organization of conservative views should the FD not completely bully conservative talk off the air and make AM station only air the farm report, swap-shop, sports and nationally synd. morning jokes shoes.
Lets assume that most markets have at 2-3 AM stations that are talk oriented. During the day and evening they now have probably 4 political talk shows each each tops, if you’re a liberal and are lucky that the token lib is Ed Schultz (ha ha a liberal that plays with guns and knows where his free range turkeys really come from! take that Ken Oberman!). Already people most likely swap stations for “one” show (they prefer Neal Boortz to Rush like I do for example, or Tammy Bruce over Schultz)
Now with “Fairness,” stations will have to dilute the yakety-yak lineup by 50% so you are now down to 4-6 conservative shows, the rest being liberal or apolitical (but likely in phase two they will cull those too since everyone has an opinion, don’t they?).
I can see stations arranging their lineups to create not market dominance where you set the dial and mostly forget it, but a talk-jog from Neal on one station, then to Rush, then to Dennis, clean the palate elsewhere with Dave Ramsey and some sports talk, then back to the first station with Tammy, and then finally going to bed (or falling asleep at the wheel) with the strange sounds of Coast-to-Coast-AM. Remember, no one is requiring the LISTENER to tune in to Al Franken or Alan Combes or for that matter Mike Savage or Sean Hannity or Kim Kommando or Ellen Kenner or Laura Schlessinger or the Movie Guys in the Radio.
This would not be an agreement but a natural progression (likely running off the schedule of the station that has Rush since he’s the gold standard) with the others optimizing their schedules to keep conservative views that are listened to on the air while paring up their mandatory counterpoint with liberals against the other station (taking a market and profit hit with each liberal show since only the local all-decaffeinated latte bar is going to pay to listen to Al and their adds are just booooooring).
That would optimize profits (albiet at a lower level than before) AND really honk off the pseudo-liberals who will still find that the new MSNBC lineup with the Ken Oberman show and his flunkies and Air America are gettting dud ratings and low income from the poor market share that they generate.
Imagine that. Stations will be forced to air their crap and *still* Air America will go bankrupt. Take *that* Stuart Smalley!!!
And with that, they will have to make another law! This time, all about “Justice.”
Dec 19, 2008 - 8:37 am 41. alan:If they bring back the ‘fairness’ doctrine does that mean whenever NBC does a story on global warming a skeptic gets equal time?
Dec 19, 2008 - 8:37 am 42. ST333:Liberal Democrats are desperate to reinstate a monarchy. They need to be lead by someone the deem superior. Why else would they want to stifle free speech? Why else would they push for socialism where the chosen one would redistribute wealth as seen fit? They are desperate to dumb down society under the guise of being morally and mentally superior. Go against them and you will be shamed by all the bleeding hearts. They hate sayings like “Give a man a fish he eats for a day but teach a man to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime”….no sir, they want to give you your fish. The demand you rely on them. The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.
Dec 19, 2008 - 8:43 am 43. phd:“fairness” is a kindergarden recess concept that is the product of jealousy inherent in children. The concept and it’s implementation should be discarded at the first grade level. The proper concept for adults is “justice” as in laws that make “unjust discrimination” illegal, not merely “discrimination”.
Dec 19, 2008 - 9:04 am 44. The Historian:ROBERT REDFORD: GOOD ACTOR, FAILED PUNDIT
This guy should let his success speak for itself and keep his mouth shut:
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2008/12/actors-lead-fantasy-lives.html
Dec 19, 2008 - 9:16 am 45. tanstaafl:Nancy Pelosi has been working behind the scenes for a very long time for reinstitution of the (anti) Fairness Doctrine.
Bottom line, she doesn’t appreciate we citizens being free to publically note that many of our Congressional leaders (most notably, Nancy and Harry Reid) aren’t, exactly, rocket scientists.
Chuck You Schumer, Dicky Durbin and Jeff Bingaman and others are on board for Nancy’s (aka “the dominatrix”) agenda.
And when that Angry School Marm gets her teeth around an agenda, she hangs on like a fierce bull dog.
Pathetic what this country is coming to, all the way around. Very sad.
Dec 19, 2008 - 9:20 am 46. den:Commenters Boyd and Hardy touch on the issue constitutionally, but I haven’t seen anyone with a decent knowledge of Con/First Amendment law actually walk us through with how on earth the Congress/FCC could pull the plug on a radio station for inappropriate political commentary without blatantly violating the core of the First A. I believe the “press” in the FA has long long since been held to include media which don’t include typesetting and ink for free speech purposes, and I have yet to see in any discussion of this issue on numerous blogs a devil’s advocate analysis of exactly how the SC could square the FA with Congress’ limiting same. Has anyone actually seen such an analysis, on some lefty site?
Dec 19, 2008 - 9:46 am 47. deguello:PatJ:”There is no movement to reinstate the fairness doctrine this is a myth perpetrated by the right -wing hate radio people”. Sorry Pat, but your big lie only works on Obama voters rabid libs, and other idiots;you’ll have to improve your lying techniques if you want the folks here to believe that repression of talk radio is not on the Democrap agenda.
Dec 19, 2008 - 9:47 am 48. Alan W.:17. JohnR(DC):
“Nothing new here. Teddy Roosevelt tried to silence Ida Tarbell (?) or some other muckracker when he was President by threatening the magazine that published her stuff. Woodrow Wilson had critics locked up. FDR tried to “pack” the Supreme Court.”
Both Roosevelts and Wilson. Is it a coincidence they are all “progressives”?
Dec 19, 2008 - 9:59 am 49. Kevin:“Sorry Pat, but your big lie only works on Obama voters rabid libs, and other idiots”
“And just this week, Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA), a prominent member of the House Subcommittee that may take up the Fairness Doctrine next year, said that she wanted to bring it back. ‘I still believe in it,’ Eshoo told the Daily Post in Palo Alto.”
Who are you gonna believe? Pat, or Pat’s lying congressmen/women?
Dec 19, 2008 - 10:39 am 50. Dr. Binky:I don’t believe that THEY will make a serious attempt to resurrect the F Doctrine. That would be too easy to oppose. Instead, B.O. and his minions will create new rules for radio stations that demand X percentage of broadcasting to be of local origin. That way, syndicated shows such as Rush will be difficult to air and still maintain the percentage of local productions that the new law will demand. It will also open the door for ACORNish organizations to foist their opinions on the public, whether we like it or not. And then THEY will stand back and inform us that the radio stations are finally serving their diverse communities.
Dec 19, 2008 - 11:11 am 51. kevin c:WHAT WAS IT THOMAS JEFFERSON SAID-SOMETHING ABOUT THE TREE OF LIBERTY BEING REFRESHED WITH THE BLOOD OF TYRANTS? THE SO CALLED ‘FAIRNESS” DOCTRINE WILL ONLY BE APPLIED TO THE RUSH LIMBAUGHS AND SEAN HANNITYS OF THE WORLD. THERE WILL NO “FAIRNESS” APPLIED TO KIETH THE UBERCOMMIE OR KATIE COURIC. OR THE NY SLIMES. DONT FORGET-THE FAIRNESS DOCTGRINE ISNT NEW. THE LAST TIME THERE WAS A “FAIRNESS DOCTRINE” YOU HAD 40 STARIGHT YRS OF COMMIERATS IN CHARGE IN CONGRESS. CAN YOU IMAGINE 40 YRS OF NASTY THE PIGLOSI AND CHARLIE RANGEL?
Dec 19, 2008 - 11:35 am 52. Chris in Toronto:Wow, cfbleachers @32!
Dec 19, 2008 - 11:35 am 53. Chris in Toronto:I’m proud of you. And I agree with your principled stand. But more to the point, I’m happy to read such and eloquent and impassioned devotion to a cause.
re: #47
PatJ:”There is no movement to reinstate the fairness doctrine this is a myth perpetrated by the right -wing hate radio people”. Sorry pat, your jedi mind trick won’t work here!
Dec 19, 2008 - 11:48 am 54. Steve P.:Pat J: “There is no movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. This is a myth perpetrated by the right wing hate radio people.”
Correct, this is just another a manufactured issue invented to rile people up. Representative Anna Eshoo is the only member of congress who has even mentioned the Fairness Doctrine, and she doesn’t have much clout.
Dec 19, 2008 - 11:52 am 55. Chris in Toronto:Re: Steve P. @54
Great insight! I’d just like to remind everyone everyone to re-read the Americian Thinker piece on the so-called Cloward-Pivens strategy. This looks situation looks like a tactic in that strategy.
Dec 19, 2008 - 12:18 pm 56. Pat J:I never even heard of Ann Eshoo until the author brought her up. No. The fuss over the Fairness Doctrine is just that. A fuss.
And did you notice no one here except for 33., can define exactly what the Fairness Doctrine, did?
The bottom line is the Fairness Doctrine is irrelevant in this day and age when one is exposed to so many more media outlets than radio.
I do favor something in the spirit of the old doctrine. With certain media outlets, you’re only hearing one side of the story. And if that side of the story borders on propoganda, overt racism and outright lies, then we have a problem.
Dec 19, 2008 - 12:39 pm 57. Pat J:… to add to my previous statement.
It doesn’t matter what side of the fence you’re on either.
Dec 19, 2008 - 12:40 pm 58. tanstaafl:Representative Anna Eshoo is the only member of congress who has even mentioned the Fairness Doctrine, and she doesn’t have much clout.
Quite false. Notable senators who’ve mentioned “it” in recent weeks are cited in the article above. (Schumer, Durbin.) Add on Jeff Bingaman (NM) and (even) the ailing Teddy Kennedy, before he went somewhat silent. There has been all kinds of yapping about the (A) FD from all kinds of congresscritters.
With simple mis and dis-information like the above statement, I think communication and intelligence in this country are already permanently compromised and broken.
Why do you people have to try to get so obscure and convoluted, on, literally, any topic at all ?
Is mindless obfuscation part of what “they” jammed into your minds in the mindless publick screwels ?
Dec 19, 2008 - 12:41 pm 59. lobo45:PatJ: ”There is no movement to reinstate the fairness doctrine this is a myth perpetrated by the right -wing hate radio people”
When you see an underlined word in blue (like in the above article) click it – amazingly you will be transported to another webpage WHERE YOU WILLL SEE THOSE SUPPORTING THE MOVEMENT! How dumb are you, pal?
Dec 19, 2008 - 12:42 pm 60. Mesquite 1:I don’t have time to read all of the above comments. However, my I add that the Fairnees crowd include the cyber data base of Obama’s in their rush to shut down Rush, Sean, and Mark. We should insist that they share that database with us conservatives so that their liberal supporters get a Fair and Balance view.
Dec 19, 2008 - 1:15 pm 61. Pete:Brent,
I must say that though I disagree with most of your political views, I agree that this “fairness doctrine” sounds like garbage (I don’t know much about it other than what you wrote). I believe it sounds like more “regulation” in an already overly regulated industry. People always have the option of listening to what they want so “fairness” in the industry is determined by the ratings. Shows with higher ratings will naturally produce similar shows and vice versa.
None of this will matter in the long run though as terresterial radio will eventually die and satellite radio will take over. Hopefully the government will keep their hands off of that medium.
Pete
Dec 19, 2008 - 1:24 pm 62. Bushmaster:More letter writing and email in store for us I guess
Dec 19, 2008 - 1:42 pm 63. Bushmaster:cfbleachers in post #32 is right on!
Dec 19, 2008 - 1:48 pm 64. Steve P.:If I were a liberal congress, why on earth would I want to get rid of the O’Reillys, Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world? They’re all basically perpetual lefty outrage generating machines. They’re really good at getting lefties mad as heck about nonsense. Angry lefties then go and contribute to, and vote for, lefty candidates. If anything, Limbaugh and company are the best friends a lib congress could have. Why mess up a good thing?
Dec 19, 2008 - 1:59 pm 65. thegre8_1:The Fairness/Censorship Doctrine will not hold up in the current Supreme Court. You can’t star the heat from Conservative talk Congress get your wimpy little @sses out of the kitchen. Can’t take criticism you spineless weasels.
Dec 19, 2008 - 2:11 pm 66. gcblues:The way why is Congress accepting a $5000 pay raise? They want the automaker CEO’s to work for a dollar year. I think paying Congress a dollar a year is overpaying them and a rippoff.
If we lose talk radio there are other means and other countries we can get the truth. The rate we are going we will have no newspapers in five years.
And you doped in Congress your Ponzi scheme in Congress makes Madoff look like a petty criminal. Why do they have no accountability, they piss and defecate the same way the rest of us do.
no surprise, communists always go for the media first. ask hugo, ask fidel. i live in nicaragua, a country where every turn holds a new billboard of daniel, all the media that play along get access, those that do not are shunned and their ad revenue assaulted until it is gone.
you know when he lies, when his lips move, and he says, “we want a politics that transcends left and right.” oh si, yo tengo un puente en nicaragua por vender , hay muy bueno y baratisimo!!
i see now, eliminate the opposition. good luck usa. nicas in the states are returning, the usa is too far left for them. the usa is kaput. no mas. buena suerte chumps.
Dec 19, 2008 - 2:14 pm 67. fred:The truth is obvious to anyone who hears it. But don’t expect the Left to be honest about its intentions. I am so glad I washed my hands of it when I stopped being a Marxist in 1987. I walked away from these people because, believe me when I tell you this, the things they say about conservatives will curl your hair. They want to shut you up and none of them will lose any sleep over circumscribing the First Amendment. For these people, the First Amendment is an opening to be exploited for advancing, by stealth, the strategy of Antonio Gramsci. You must allow them to spread their ideology, but if you fight back they will bring all of their resources to bear to shut you up.
They get away with it because they’ve repackaged the descriptive names for their movements, ideas, and groups. They wrap themselves in the flag and the Constitution, but it’s all a sham in order to fool you into thinking that Marxism and Communism are dead. Believe me, they’re not. They’ve just burrowed deeper into our institutions and our politics.
In the years ahead all of you are going to see just how successful this strategy has been. As they gain more and more political power, they will completely change this society. You won’t recognize the America we all grew up in.
Before she became the House Minority Leader in the late Nineties, Nancy Pelosi was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. In the early Nineties another group, The New Party, spun off from the Democratic Socialists of America. Guess who was one of the founding members of that party? None other than Barack Obama. All of the major leaders of the Democratic Party now are in one way or another beholden to or actually loosely affiliated with The Democratic Socialists of America. These senators and congressmen typically are long serving members from urban districts where there is a heavy concentration of the Left and those who bank on its largesse.
Chuckie Schumer is one shrewd politician. You can be sure that he knows which judges and courts can be relied on to uphold the latest incarnation of The Fairness Doctrine. The nation is in serious danger. People like me may sound like wild, shrieking Cassandras but in the years ahead you will come to know that we were right.
Dec 19, 2008 - 2:27 pm 68. Rachel Peepers:It’s not The Fairness, but rather dem cretins “Bias Doctrine”.
Dec 19, 2008 - 2:36 pm 69. David Rittgers:I wrote a post-mortem for the Fairness Doctrine a few weeks ago:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/12/01/fairness-doctrine-post-mortem/
I am dismayed to see it rear its ugly head again.
Dec 19, 2008 - 2:41 pm 70. sanya:Fairness doctrine would mean the responsbile american public will not learn about the story posted below because the communist liberal left will cover them up! Check this out>>> A 31-year old rapes a 13-year old and PLANNED PARENTHOOD COVERS IT UP!?! this is filthy and entirely true I think..***http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTxsWZz9whg ***
Dec 19, 2008 - 3:03 pm 71. Thinking Person:Can we really blame the left liberals for wanting to censor all media using the Fairness Doctrine? After all the Republicans have O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Colter, Malkin, 2 kick butt channels on Sirius (I’m sure there are some on XM too) and loads of good listening on AM and FM (plus too much more to list here). All they’ve got is The View and Letterman when he’s in a bad mood.
Dec 19, 2008 - 3:26 pm 72. zendude:With the current state of the MSM and higher education, Fairness is something the Conservatives should be addressing.
Why is the GOP always on the defense?
Dec 19, 2008 - 3:33 pm 73. Dr Bob:Point here is that they really don’t want to censor all media via the Fairness Doctrine. They want to go after talk radio (only) because that’s the one media format where conservatives and libertarians excel and dominate. The old ’shush Rush’ game.
If they really want the Fairness Doctrine, then it MUST also cover broadcast TV networks like NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, cable channels like CNN, MSNBC, HNN, CNBC and FNC and satellite media such as Sirius.
Somehow, I think that will be the deal-breaker – no way will the Liberals give up their favorable coverage on the broadcast TV networks, CNN and MSNBC.
Wait until the Libs will propose giving bailout money to the failing liberal print media.
Dec 19, 2008 - 5:40 pm 74. Lasso:I have not read all of the comments above so my thought may already have been raised (and perhaps shot down). But, I understand there are a number of Spanish-language stations in the Southwest (most notably Los Angeles) from which some very strident views are broadcast on issues such as immigration, the future of former Mexican possessions now in the U.S., etc. I’m thinking an unintended consequence of the Fairness Doctrine might be a confrontation with these broadcasters (and their spirited audiences) and a potential alienation of the Hispanic immigrants the left has been so successful in courting so far.
Dec 19, 2008 - 5:55 pm 75. Cybergeezer:So, I can play this game too; I will now classify myself a Liberal who hates Democrats, rather than a Conservative. Or maybe an Independent who can take any side I wish just to be argumentative. The Socialist Media does not have any unique interpretation of the english language nor any exclusive rights to anyones compassion.
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:05 pm 76. BZ:Go ahead; Pigeon hole THIS!
A couple of points:
Who says there are “two sides” to everything; there are many sides. Who gets to dictate what constitutes the dialetic? There could be an infinite number of responses: libertarian, socialist, communist, Baathist, Muslim, etc. To think all issues are contained within the Rush Limbaugh vs. Democrats paradigm is pretty limiting (no offense meant to Rush). Within the current scheme, freedom, all must compete for the hearts and minds against all challengers. You lose, Air America!
Also, the effect of the Fairness Doctrine in the past was to neuter political debate. Stations would rather not have any political content, rather than have to give up airtime for the possible responses that no one wanted to listen to.
Maybe the solution is to make conservative commentators have a handicap so the sissy-boys will have a chance.
Dec 19, 2008 - 8:12 pm 77. jvon:I think the “Fairness Doctrine” will last until someone files a gazillion lawsuits alleging bias by ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS … should I keep going?
I’d love to see NPR be legally required to air O’Reilly. Much hilarity would ensue. Cmon, it’s not all bad.
Dec 20, 2008 - 12:40 am 78. FD186:The Fairness Doctrine smells of Fascism. Isn’t that what Musolini, Hitler, Stalin, and others did to secure thier power?
Dec 20, 2008 - 5:20 am 79. steeple:if it were done with equity, i would take the trade between AM radio in exchange for network and cable news and the major local newspapers. if we see a lot of conditions attached to it, then here we go again.
Dec 20, 2008 - 9:36 am 80. Alana:“There is no more important issue, none. Because every other issue depends upon our ability to get the truth in order to self-govern this land of ours. EVERY other issue.”
Agree, cfbleachers. Freedom of speech is the number one priority.
Without it, we have nothing.
(Second comes right to bear arms.)
Dec 20, 2008 - 11:16 pm 81. Alana:“I don’t believe that THEY will make a serious attempt to resurrect the F Doctrine. That would be too easy to oppose. Instead, B.O. and his minions will create new rules for radio stations that demand X percentage of broadcasting to be of local origin. That way, syndicated shows such as Rush will be difficult to air and still maintain the percentage of local productions that the new law will demand. It will also open the door for ACORNish organizations to foist their opinions on the public, whether we like it or not. And then THEY will stand back and inform us that the radio stations are finally serving their diverse communities.”
Exactly.
As Dr. Binky points out here, there are back door ways to accomplish the same thing. I have read about these ways before, and I think they will sneak in all these while the fuss is being raged over the Fairness Doctrine.
Dec 20, 2008 - 11:25 pm 82. greenmtnpunter:This one will require all out resistance. Liberals are going to find out that Conservatives are going to draw the line here and fight with everything they have, by whatever means necessary. Liberals are going to wish they never started down this road. And this time the tables are turned as we have the moral high ground and they are finally exposed as the fascists they have always been. I predict the liberals will cut and run- as they always do when it looks like they could get bloody noses- when they see the depth and breadth of opposition to the totalitarian-state inspired Fairness Doctrine.
Dec 21, 2008 - 7:26 am 83. comatus:#20 Joe, Britannica film–Wow, just…wow. Lots of commie propaganda sliding in there. I recommend it for a good look at Alinsky doctrine: how that sweet, boring (did that guy have a little polio?) Voice-of-Reason can introduce confoosing concepts like “rule by appointed community committee” and “economic leveling to avoid revolutionary fervor.” Was that the irony you had in mind?
This is the sort of docuganda we had to watch by the hour back in the Fairness days. If you wonder why progs think you are nuts, here’s a look at their program history.
Dec 21, 2008 - 1:23 pm 84. ate mely:Non Rush listeners in Congress will really know the power of his audience if Fairness Doctrine is reinstated in any way. Rush probably has plans if Congress or Obama does try. It would be a shoot out like recent Limbaugh letter, Operation Chaos and many others like it before in the past.
Dec 21, 2008 - 9:04 pm 85. CRT:I like this idea of a Fairness Doctrine for college professors. Campuses which provide a forum for ideologues in the classroom could be required to provide lecture rooms, time and publicity for responsible advocates of other points of view to speak to students unopposed – including experts from outside academia.
#74: Lots of people are unaware of the “interesting” political discussions on Spanish-language radio and English-language stations targeting Hispanic audiences. I once heard an actual exhortation to kill border agents (in English).
Maybe we can placate the “fairness doctrine” folks by making sure that there are alternative viewpoints available in major radio and broadcast television markets: In terms of radio, wide availability of channels like Pacifica Radio and NPR should do it for the Left. Conservative talk radio stations could be required to e-mail a list of topics discussed to their counterparts on the Left, or send them podcasts, so that the lefty outlets could provide “balance”, That way, Conservative Talk Radio couldn’t secretly propagandize America without anyone noticing. The Lefty sites would reciprocate with podcasts of their own programming.
We would also need alternative, conservative Spanish-language stations for the Right. And some conservative broadcast television stations to balance the Big 3. Digital broadcasting presents new opportunities.
But what do we do with the Portuguese, Japanese, Arabic, Korean, etc. stations? How would the government impose fairness on them, or “balance” them?
Dec 22, 2008 - 9:07 am 86. Pat J:The Fairness Doctrine isn’t even the problem. Consolidation of ownership is a much more pressing matter.
And even if it was passed, it would not affect Rush Limbaugh for instance. Limbaugh’s program is entertainment, not a bonafide news program.
Dec 22, 2008 - 9:43 am 87. Thinking Person:Pat J….You’re right, Limbaugh is pretty darned fine entertainment. Now, if only the same could be said for MSDNC? That could be classified as neither news or entertainment. Of course if the Fairness Doctrine was put in place, imagine having Rachel Maddow having to share her hour of left wing vitriol with the likes of Sean Hannity? That would be worth the price of admission!
Dec 22, 2008 - 12:32 pm 88. Pat J:TP, you have to remember the Fairness Doctrine did not apply to cable. Basically the difference is you have to pay a monthly fee for cable or satellite. The FD only applied toward radio and network TV. Basically “free” services which back in the day were the main sources of information for most Americans.
Dec 22, 2008 - 2:24 pm 89. Pat J:Rachel Maddow versus Sean Hannity? I’d buy tickets to something like that. Hell. I’d sell tickets tosomething like that.
Dec 22, 2008 - 2:25 pm 90. Thinking Person:Pat J…(Just in reference to the FD only applying to radio and network TV, which is true for NOW. Rep. Eshoo apparently feels differently….)
From CNSNews.com….
“”In a newspaper interview on Monday, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said she would work on bringing back the federal regulation that requires equal time for the expression of different political views on the public airwaves.
Boehner and other critics say Democrats want to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine to force an end to conservative talk radio. (While syndicated conservative talk-radio shows have been successful, liberal alternatives have flopped. The Fairness Doctrine would require radio stations to balance the conservative money-makers with liberal duds, something the stations undoubtedly would refuse to do. They would be forced to cancel successful shows touting conservative viewpoints.)
“The so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ would restrict free speech on the public airwaves, stifling dissent at a time when an open national dialogue about our country’s future is essential,” Boehner said in a news release on Tuesday.
“The American people do not believe the federal government should be in the business of dictating or restricting the content of political speech. I’m troubled by Rep. Eshoo’s comments, and my hope is that President-elect Obama will speak out against efforts by members of his party to use their majority power to limit free speech and dissent.”
Rep. Eshoo told the Palo Alto Daily Post on Monday that she believes in the Fairness Doctrine and will “work on bringing it back.”
Eshoo reportedly wants the regulation to apply not only to radio and television, but also to cable and satellite TV. “”
Dec 22, 2008 - 3:08 pm 91. Pat J:Eshoo can support the FD all she wants. I see nothing in her professional background that indicates she has any background in the media, although I do appreciate her ideas for targeting e-mail spam.
I do however have a backgound in the media and I don’t see the Fairness Doctrine happening. Boehner and the other critics are right that it might restrict free speech. As far as conservative talk radio, I see keep ‘em talking. Let the marketplace determine how far they are allowed to go.
Dec 23, 2008 - 7:04 am 92. kd37:The way to get this to go away is to start talking about all the black/urban talk shows and how THEY need to be balanced. Have you ever listened? If black talk radio was the target of the fairness doctrine, congress would be singing a different tune!
Dec 23, 2008 - 8:10 am 93. Michael B:Fairness Doctrine ≡ Selective Censorship Doctrine
Dec 23, 2008 - 9:06 am 94. Cara C:We have to start calling them “the Totalitarian Left.”
Dec 23, 2008 - 5:50 pm 95. tahDeetz:“Localism” will be their cudgel.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obama_declares_war_on_conserva.html
Peruse the following commentary as well, some more, very critical arguments are developed after the article.
The foundational precept on which the “Fairness Doctrine” will thrive is the ridiculous notion of ‘objective journalism.’ This institutionalized astro-turfing notoriously began with Hoover’s Federal Radio Commission in 1927. This autocratic monstrosity has given rise to all supposed truth emanating from AP, Reuters and other so-called news agencies. Soon to include Politico for good measure. The easy fix is in. This is how the MSM et al. are able to dismiss any charges advocacy journalism. They, in lockstep, incestuously claim objectivity for the lot of their apparatchik brethren. Their cover is absolute, however thin and ridiculous. It is nakedly apparent, but still unheeded by vast swaths of the sheeple. It’s strength is found in it’s utter simplicity.
Check out Joe The Plumber on CNN w/ John Roberts. The clip is at HotAir.com.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/23/video-joe-the-plumber-laughs-at-reporters-claim-that-media-wasnt-stumping-for-anyone/
Notice Robert’s instantly visceral reaction to being questioned by the plebeian plumber. That telling moment has given many apoplectic pause. Btw, Joe did not back down. Palin needs him in her circle or Ohio needs to elect Joe to AG.
The right does not maintain this nonsensical standard and prefers the default on which this country was wisely founded upon, unabashed advocacy journalism; to which we must desperately return if we are to continue this, Our Great Republic.
The right debates infinitum, but are unjustly accused as authoritarian. The left (MSM) dictates and then proceeds to cleverly convince enough of the foolish that the exact opposite is true of their methods. True ciphers they are.
The Free Republic thread below elucidates quite vividly the supreme fraud on which today’s so-called free-press is founded.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2015027/posts
The AP has been allowed to subversively lay claim the the monopoly of everyday truth. We can all plainly see the folly in such arrogant conceit.
However, many everyday decision maker’s of import have been duped into foolishly singing from the left’s AP-songbook, thereby blindly creating an alternate “astro-turfed” reality that the ill-informed drones believe as fact. All the while as they witness the continued valiant flailing of the right. This cultural template has proven quite unwieldy and rather detrimental to the proper exposure of fact (I.E. the banking crisis and it’s true genesis).
This is why Talk radio must be destroyed.
Rush and his ilk shatter this foundational template of societal left-speak.
Moreover, Net Neutrality, or some derivation thereof, will be marshaled so as to tamp down the recalcitrant Right Wing blogosphere. . . fyi.
This AP monopoly is a well perped construct and we must recognize it and begrudgingly give credit where it is due, and then begin to wholly destroy it.
If you think the MSM ivory tower types will lend any credence to the notion that they must return the favor of rebuttal vis a vi the Fairness Doctrine, your delusional and have already unwittingly ceded the debate.
They maintain the iron-clad mindset of objectivity and are thus beyond our most valid reproach. For us to have the temerity to think otherwise, is laughable initially and heretical if we persist.
It is this basic construct which must be attacked and must be rendered null and void.
Think “The Matrix,” but without the ridiculous, anti-climatic rapprochement at the trilogy’s end. Damn that pissed me off. In our realm, Neo must destroy the Matrix and free the human Energizers. Nothing less will prove fruitful in the end.
Satan’s greatest trick was to lure man into the belief that he does not exist and is merely figment of the troglodyte’s imagination.
The AP, et al is not far behind his noted success.
I advise all patriots concerned to change your bedtime reading for a while.
Dec 24, 2008 - 8:15 pm 96. Maverick:There may be a little more to bringing back the Fairness Doctrine which the Democrats don’t want to admit to. Liberal radio shows life span are very short. Conservative talk shows do much better. If you were a liberal, wouldn’t you like to ride piggyback on some Conservative talk show knowing that at least you would be heard by both Conservatives and Liberals. It’s a fact a lot of Liberals listen to Conservative talk radio. The reason they give is that they want to know what the enemy is doing, but the attraction is there and the Liberals can’t help but listen. Today, the Fairness Doctrine is not needed so that both sides have equal time, it’s needed because there’s not much of a market for Liberal talk radio.
Jan 5, 2009 - 7:13 pm 97. alan:Great post, really help me a lot. Thanks
Mar 10, 2009 - 5:44 am