Obama and the Fairness Doctrine
Will Obama flip-flop on equal time requirements in broadcasting?
On August 27, respected radio talker Milt Rosenberg invited National Review journalist and Ethics and Public Policy Center Senior Fellow, Stanley Kurtz, on to his nightly program in Chicago. For months, Kurtz had been conducting thorough research into Barack Obama’s extensive ties to the radical Left, including the fraudulent get-out-the-vote group, ACORN. Kurtz’s latest project involved investigating Obama’s connection with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers; specifically, their collaboration on a left-wing education “reform” organization called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Hours before the show aired, Rosenberg’s producer, Zack Christenson, called Obama’s Windy City headquarters to offer airtime to challenge Kurtz’s claims. The Obama campaign declined, opting instead to fire off a hysterical Obama Action Wire email to supporters, encouraging them to inundate Rosenberg’s station with complaints and demands that the Kurtz interview be axed. The email branded the mild-mannered, Harvard-educated Kurtz a “right wing hatchet man,” and a “slimy character assassin.” Almost immediately, enraged callers began bombarding the radio station’s switchboard. Their prevailing message was summed up by one woman, who angrily stammered, “We just want this to stop!”
A few weeks later, author David Freddoso was a featured guest on the same Chicago radio show. This time, the offending guest was actually paired with a liberal sparring partner, yet the Obama campaign nonetheless saw to it that its army of cyber-goons disrupted the interview. This time, the Obama Action Wire email dug deeper into its barrel of melodramatic verbiage: Freddoso, author of the meticulously-researched book The Case Against Barack Obama, was nothing more than a “vicious” partisan hack who peddled in “baseless lies” and “hate-mongering.” Obamabots were urged to “confront” Freddoso before “this goes any further.” Yes, enough with the scrutiny and research! Once again, the phones lit up.
In both cases, Obama’s followers were instructed to report their guerrilla tactics back to the campaign through a special dedicated page on the campaign’s official website. (By all means, inform us of your thuggish behavior perpetrated on Barack’s behalf! We’ll add you to our “nice” list.)
When it’s not busy mobilizing the virtual masses to interfere with legitimate political discourse, the Obama campaign is dispatching attorneys to stifle dissent. Last month, the Obama camp asked the Justice Department to go after a political group that created an advertisement highlighting Obama’s longtime friendship and working relationship with Bill Ayers. They argued the ad — the contents of which are undeniably true — violated federal election law. The group behind the spot is fighting back, decrying Obama’s litigious reaction as “threats” and “intimidation.”
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Virginia has blocked an anti-Obama issue advertisement from airing. Although the Obama campaign isn’t directly involved with, and won’t comment on, the legal battle, the New York Times is delighted. The independent organization “trashes” the Democratic candidate, the paper editorialized, by daring to employ “an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions.”
Of course, this is precisely what Obama himself promised to do when he told a Planned Parenthood gathering that signing the hard-left Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase almost all restrictions on abortion, would be his very first act as president. But who cares about the facts? Just shut up! As Ramesh Ponnuru points out, “There’s a reason the Times doesn’t try to back up its claim that this organization is lying; it can’t. No wonder it would rather the group be silenced.” The pro-life organization is appealing the decision.
But rest assured, Obama “does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine.” Don’t trust your lying eyes. Trust The One.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Guy Benson is a radio talk show host on Chicago's AM 560 WIND. He is a regular columnist for Townhall, and contributes to National Review Online's Media Blog.
 |
 |
 |
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.
62 Comments
1. misanthropicus:Goebbels, Komintern, liberals, they are all the same. Obama would surely support the “fairness” doctrine – the liberals are furious that their monopoly on truth has been broken by the AM radio, Fox and Internet and are mighty desirous to restore their Stalinistic grip on reality. NO! on fairness doctrine must be a rallying cry for the conservatives and the other decent people in this country.
Sep 25, 2008 - 9:09 am 2. RE:Of course Dems want to restrict free speech. They’re also telling us they respect the 2nd Amendment.
Hey, it’s election season. You don’t expect to hear the truth from them, do you? What they really beleive would be fatal to their election hopes.
Sep 25, 2008 - 9:41 am 3. David Thomson:Does anyone really doubt that Barack Obama would get rid of the Fairness Doctrine? Are they unaware that his goons are at this very moment are attempting to deny people their First amendment rights in the Chicago area? Does the name Stanley Kurtz ring a bell? Obama is perhaps the most left-wing major presidential candidate in American history. He is existentially committed to a postmodernist approach to truth. Such individuals inevitably believe in the censorship of “evil” ideas.
Sep 25, 2008 - 9:51 am 4. WinkyDog :: Will Obama bring back the Fairness Doctrine?:[...] Pajamas Media » Obama and the Fairness Doctrine. [...]
Sep 25, 2008 - 10:05 am 5. CALIndie:I’m inclined to believe that Obama as POTUS, with a Democrat majority in Congress, would be in position to fund his grand social plan of re-education of America.
Obama’s current position on the Fairness Doctrine: He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.
This means using BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to establish inner-city community organizer initiatives. Creating job training programs in broadcast media, print media and web media “journalism.” Establishing a clear and well funded growth path for “…as many diverse viewpoints as possible” (read: that aren’t conservative) called the Journalism Inner-city Promotion Corp or JIP Corp for short.
As Michelle “my belle” Obama has stated, Barack won’t let you sit around and do nothin’. Barack is gonna make you get involved. What better way to get American inner-cities involved in the politics of “change” than to establish and cultivate an entirely new and comprehensive “main stream media” the JIP Corp.
Barack knows how powerfully effective the MSM is in promoting the left wing radical agenda. Just look at this election. If a little is good, thousands more left wing talkers are better! It will be a media flood of biblical proportions! Socialism can finally say anything it wants and bury what it despises in the cacophony of “diverse” viewpoints.
Barack isn’t going to take the Fairness Doctrine head on. He is going to flank it and flood it with billions of dollars in job creation and education opportunities. This a plan Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will gladly trumpet from the roof tops.
Remember, the reason Barack stutters and stammers isn’t because he has a speech impediment, it’s because his brain is in constant conflict with the half-truths that are coming out of his mouth. When Barack is POTUS we are going to see the America we know and love (warts and all) get flushed swiftly down the drain of liberal socialism on a scale that will truly be… shock and awe! God help us!
Sep 25, 2008 - 10:27 am 6. TexEd:Why should Hussein bother about the “fairness doctrine?” If he is elected, we will be attacked again by Muslim terrorists, the first time, to get him to the bargaining table and, the second time, to allow him to pass emergency legislation. Included in that legislation will be prohibitions against hate crimes, including, hate speech. There will be no question of “fairness,” some Ayers buddy, ultra-leftist will simply decide what is or is not hate speech and silence/jail/reeducate the hate speaker.
Sep 25, 2008 - 11:33 am 7. tomw:Guy Benson doesn’t understand what the fairness doctrine is. Telling media organizations that they must air opposing views violates the 1st amendment the same way requiring them not to would. In the day and age where news media is everywhere: TV, radio and internet, getting opposing views out isn’t a problem and doesn’t need to be legislated. Guy’s examples are proof that there isn’t a problem getting opposing views out. A radio station wants to talk from one perspective, and emails go out wtih the other. Everyone’s voice is heard.
Oh, and who ended it?
Sep 25, 2008 - 12:09 pm 8. always right:“Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#End_of_Fairness_Doctrine
Obama himself maybe “does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine.”
But his goons make sure they employ the Chicago style politicking. Nothing could be attached to the Daley machine, but rest assured the country will be run just as smoothly.
Sep 25, 2008 - 12:37 pm 9. David Astroturf:If we get an Obama White House combined with a Pelosi Congress (not to mention VP Biden with his pledge to prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al) you can bet we’re going to see a “fairness doctrine” along with show trials of political enemies and a host of other horrors that no one thought possible in America.
Sep 25, 2008 - 1:44 pm 10. Darury:You know, they listen to the wrong talk radio shows or watch the wrong TV networks, um, but they’re, they’re basically decent, they’re basically sound. – Barack Hussein Obama
If that doesn’t sound like someone who wants to implement an even more draconian “Fairness Doctrine”, I don’t know what does.
Sep 25, 2008 - 1:53 pm 11. Steynian 255 « Free Mark Steyn!:[...] OBAMA & THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE– Will Obama flip flop on equal time requirements in broadcasting? …. [...]
Sep 25, 2008 - 1:57 pm 12. Ken:Fairness Doctrine is democrat code talk for “shut down talk radio.”
Sep 25, 2008 - 2:23 pm 13. tomw:Ken, Darury, David Astroturf:
The fairness doctrine is legislation requiring news media to offer opposing view points on topics. It ended in 1985.
Obama OPPOSES reinstating it.
The more you now….
Sep 25, 2008 - 2:44 pm 14. Hot Air » Blog Archive » Ho hum: Obama’s lawyer threatens TV stations that run NRA ad:[...] practicable” at a given moment. No wonder Guy Benson’s worried about him bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. What happens when a deep blue Congress make that “politically practicable” [...]
Sep 25, 2008 - 2:51 pm 15. Obama’s Lawyer Threatens Stations Running NRA Ads | The American Pundit:[...] question: Concern justifiable, [...]
Sep 25, 2008 - 3:06 pm 16. J:All you have to know is that we have far more freedom of speech in the USA than Canada and most of Europe. Obama wants to be like the Euros so be ready for the Fairness doctrine.
Will it apply to Hollywood?
Sep 25, 2008 - 3:17 pm 17. Believer:It’s indeed shocking what an enemy to free speech Barack Obama is.
Look at his actions, not his words.
The man will say anything to get your vote. Don’t believe a word of it.
What you don’t want is what he’ll do once he’s been given power.
Sep 25, 2008 - 5:06 pm 18. David Astroturf:tomw – I know what the Fairness Doctrine is and I also know that Hillary, Pelosi and other Dems have talked about using it to shut down people like Rush Limbaugh.
As for Obama, I judge him by his actions, not his words. He drifts with whatever political winds are favorable at a given time and, what’s much more disturbing, he and Axelrod unleash their most fanatical goons against media that dare speak against them.
Obama has sued to get the government to shut down campaign ads opposing him! Are you even aware of that? Read up on his persecution of WGN radio in Chicago and the guests on that station. The Obama fanatics swarm the station with harassing phone calls and emails in attempts to SHUT DOWN free speech. An Obama White House combined with a Pelosi Congress would be a catastrophe for the US and the closest thing to fascism we’ve ever seen.
Sep 25, 2008 - 5:40 pm 19. Obama: Censoring Free Speech « Sooshi Soo:[...] Obama and the Fairness Doctrine [...]
Sep 25, 2008 - 5:46 pm 20. No Wonder Chavez Endorses Him:[...] Obama threatens TV stations that run NRA ads. Beyond the hypothetical, the Obama campaign’s actions betray speech-muzzling impulses. On numerous occasions during his general election campaign, Obama has sought to silence, rather than engage and refute, his critics. [...]
Sep 25, 2008 - 6:14 pm 21. Dan Tana:I’m sure the fairness doctrine will apply to MSNBC, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC?
BWHAHAHAHA!!
Sep 25, 2008 - 6:35 pm 22. zeppenwolf:“That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”
These are all backdoor tactics to arrive at the same result as the “fairness” doctrine, that of extinguishing conservative talkradio.
Er… in layman’s terms, they’re disguised and sugar-coated fascism.
“network neutrality”: Notice what perfectly Orwellian newspeak that is! Yum! Nothing I like better than having the government decide what “neutrality” is. Eg, “MediaMatters” is officially a “nonpartisan” organization, at least that’s what the IRS thinks, right? So who am I to complain? No doubt networks will be neutral… in the same way that the ACLU is, and ACORN, and…
“Public broadcasting”: Listened to NPR lately? And remind me why I’m paying for it? (And ACORN, and ACLU…) If there ever WERE a legitimate place for the fairness doctrine, it would be when my money is funding the filth on NPR and PBS. But I guess that’s not on the table, right? Well shucks!
“increasing minority ownership”: Gosh, would that mean more ownership by Thomas Sowell types? Or Jeremiah Wright types? It’s so hard to predict, isn’t it?
“media-ownership caps”: This one is a scam too, but I can’t remember how it works now. Google on it if you care; I guess I don’t. I know who to vote for. Thanks, though.
Sep 25, 2008 - 6:50 pm 23. Mark M.:We need to adopt the left’s favorite tactics and rebrand this thing.
I suggest we call it the “fascist doctrine”, because that is what it would achieve.
Sep 25, 2008 - 8:18 pm 24. sunshine484848:IF OBAMA WINS, THE DEMOCRATS WILL HAVE CONTROL OF THE:
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
JUDICIAL BRANCH
COURTS
MAIN STREAM MEDIA
WALL STREET
UNIVERSITIES
THIS IS A NIGHTMARE FOR THE UNITED STATES!
Sep 25, 2008 - 9:07 pm 25. bobby b:There’s a fairly small portion of the electorate that regularly reads the news, reads blogs, discusses politics, knows anything about the finance and tax and redistribution bills in Congress . . .
. . . and then there’s the much bigger mass of people who just don’t have the time or the interest to delve into such things, who catch whatever candidate ads happen to pop up while they’re watching television, and who end up voting based on whatever they remember from the stupid, banal, content-free mottos and screaming-points that both sides put out in huge quantities for just that reason.
Ever wonder why it makes such a difference in an election who spends the most money? Because a substantial portion of the vote comes from people who take their knowledge from those ads, and mottos, and screaming-points.
We despserately needf to find a way to get the important message to those people – the message being, of course, that it really doesn’t matter how good or bad BO really is – what matters is that, if we elect a Dem-controlled House and Senate, AND a Dem president, we might as well crawl into a deep hole and go to sleep, because everything outside of the hole is going to be mailed in to the government and spent on every little pet trillion-dollar project the Dems have wanted for decades.
Because there’s no peace or fairness until EVERY destitute immigrant has their own fur-covered sink, until EVERY worker is dragged into a union, until EVERY city has light rail connecting all of their strip malls together . . .
Sep 25, 2008 - 9:54 pm 26. Roger’s Rules » Obama’s “truth squads” or, Remember the First Amendment?:[...] worrisome series “They told me that if George W. Bush were reeelected . . .” This time it’s “They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected there would be brazen efforts [...]
Sep 26, 2008 - 12:09 am 27. Missouri Citizens: Criticize Obama, Go To Jail | Democrat=Socialist:[...] we had about enough of this? Related item here. They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected there would be brazen efforts to suppress free [...]
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:31 am 28. Matt:Liberals are all for free speech, as long as its theirs.
Sep 26, 2008 - 9:05 am 29. Trochilus:The very phrase “Fairness Doctrine” is an oxymoron.
Sep 26, 2008 - 9:57 am 30. THE MESSIAH’S APOSTLES IN ACTION « Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger:[...] isn’t “politically practicable” at a given moment. No wonder Guy Benson’s worried about him bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. What happens when a deep blue Congress make that “politically practicable” [...]
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:20 pm 31. Ed Wallis:“FREE” speech Zerobama style:
http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem
Sep 27, 2008 - 4:52 pm 32. “Change” for Obama: gut the 1st Amendment | Jason Hayes - Musing:[...] Whether they intend it or not, McCollugh’s and Joyce’s actions are an attack on our free speech rights and this is precisely the sort of abuse of power that Obama should be standing firmly against. He claims he is for change, but he is (and his supporters are) sticking to the politics as usual theme of abusing power to silence dissent. [...]
Sep 28, 2008 - 3:40 pm 33. James V. Yardley III:“He considers this debate to be a distraction…”
This is a typical comment from Senator Obama’s campaign. Although this is called a campaign, it is actually a job interview. Obama and McCain are applying for the job of POTUS. (And keep in mind that it’s a temp job, too). Now most of us have never run for elective office, but I’d say 99% of us have had to interview for a job. Has anyone ever told the interviewer/boss/hiring authority that we shouldn’t discuss a topic that he/she wants to cover? I know that I’m not quite that professionally suicidal! But we allow Obama to define the terms of his job interview whenever we, the public, allow the media to accept such nonsense. I we think it’s important information that we need to make a reasonable, informed choice, then it is. Period.
So please stop accepting drivel such as this.
Oct 2, 2008 - 9:31 am 34. Netcastyle:You’ve got to be kidding me! After 8 years of the fascist Bush administration, you’re accusing liberals of trying to silence opposing views?! Hah! That’s a hot one! There’s little likelihood (or practical value) in any candidate’s supporting a reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine (issues–or the Equal Time clause for political candidates). It would be impossible to enforce.
Oct 4, 2008 - 11:54 am 35. Nate:The Fairness Doctrine did not violate the First Amendment because it applied only to broadcast media — media that broadcasts their signal over airwaves owned by the people of the United States. Broadcasting on public airwaves is a privilege, not a right, and that’s why the government can make additional rules on such broadcasts that are more restrictive than the standard of the First Amendment. (This is also why the FCC can censor sexual displays and offensive language on the air.) Fox News et. al. would not be affected by the Fairness Doctrine because they are on cable TV.
Oct 8, 2008 - 6:49 am 36. ComSense:The point of legislation like the fainess doctrine is not to equalize the political points of view on talk radio stations, that (surprize) is merely another phalax of conservative cultural warfare. The point people was to prevent media organizations with a clear ideological perspective from buying up multiple media outlets and talk radio networks, effectively removing the opportunity for competing viewpoints. People do some research before you start ranting, pick your 5 favorite talk radio programs and follow the money back to sole owner of them, then five your favorite cabel news network and find who hold corporate ownership. You will be surprized to find out the it’s very likely that they all are connected, this is strategy, demonize difference and cry bias call it the Washington 2 step, John McCain is the poster child of media manipulation.
If I hear him imply more time that, he out of honour refused to leave the Hanoi Hilton before his commrades as if IT ISN’T WRITTEN IN THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY CONDUCT, THAT ANY PRISONER RISKS COURT MARTIAL FOR DOING OTHER WISE I’m going to lose my mine, you sheeple are proposterous, and ridicoulous,
QUESTION: HOW DID THE VIETCONG FIND OUT THAT JOHN MCCAIN WAS THE SON OF A NAVY COMMANDER IN ORDER TO OFFER HIM FREEDOM? TRY ROLLING STONES ARTICLE “MADE UP MAVERICK” AND GET FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS FROM HIS FELLOW CLASSMATES AND COMMRADES SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO TALK MY WORD FOR IT.
IF YOU PEOPLE KEEP LIVING IN POLITICAL IDEALISM LAND WE WILL ALL WAKE UP JOBLESS AND INDIGENT, OVER THE LAST YEARS WEALTH HAS BEEN REDISTRIBUTED TO THE TOP 1% OF AMERICANS 600BIL TO BE EXACT, AND WHAT HAVE YOU GOT FOR IT MARKET BUBBLES< AND A 700BIL BILL, YOU ARE BEEING FLEECED AND ALL YOU ARE LEFT WITH IS EMPTY IDEALISM AND MAUFACTURED CYNICISM, IF YOU ARE CYNICAL OF BAD GOVERNMENT< THEN CHANGE WHO YOU PUT IN OFFICE< OTHERWISE QUIT PRETENDING THAT YOUR INTERESTED IN CHANGING THE COURSE OF THIS COUNTRY AND VOTE YOUR MASCOT MCCAIN.
Oct 16, 2008 - 2:55 pm 37. Obama Attempts to Keep Acorn’s Voter REG. FRAUD And Intimidation/What About Fairness Doctrine? « The Sassy Tn’T PoLITicallY InCorrect:[...] Read more here:page 2 [...]
Oct 20, 2008 - 12:41 am 38. jennifer:The ONLY way I would be ok with the Fairness Doctrine would be if MSNBC was also forced to offer opposing viewpoints. It’s really sad that ever since Tim Russert died the network has fallen; it doesn’t even seem like the same network anymore and the only anchors on there I still have any real respect for is Chuck Todd. MSNBC used to feel like such a warm blanket, now it’s nothing but a 24-hour Barack Obama advertisement.
Oct 23, 2008 - 9:25 pm 39. E!! The True Conservative Story™ » Blog Archive » Dems and The Unfairness Doctrine:[...] Fairness Doctrine was enacted in 1949 and lasted until the Reagan Administration. In 1985, the FCC issued a report. According to the [...]
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:16 am 40. Obama’s America: No criticism allowed. « One American Voice:[...] Obama and the Fairness Doctrine Will Obama flip-flop on equal time requirements in broadcasting? [...]
Oct 28, 2008 - 3:21 pm 41. THE MIDNIGHT SUN » Blog Archive » AMERICA ON THE BRINK: ELECTION COUNTDOWN 1:[...] new Supreme Court justices. (4) Freedom of Speech. Let’s just look at one example. Here is Obama’s position on the “Fairness Doctrine:” Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness [...]
Oct 29, 2008 - 3:09 am 42. THE MIDNIGHT SUN » Blog Archive » AMERICA ON THE BRINK: ELECTION COUNTDOWN 1:[...] new Supreme Court justices. (4) Freedom of Speech. Let’s just look at one example. Here is Obama’s position on the “Fairness Doctrine:” Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness [...]
Oct 29, 2008 - 3:34 am 43. dick:what is wall street thinking supporting Obama?
Oct 29, 2008 - 9:43 am 44. Chris:One thing nobody is considering is the power of talk radio in its present form. When their microphones are on the line they will pull out all the stops and flood the Capital Hill switchboard with calls, servers with emails and staffs with swarms of letters. Every congressman will be up for reelection in two years, Bush will be out of office and angry constituents will be something they don’t want to deal with. This could be a plus for GOP fundraising and get out the vote efforts. They are also many Democrats who value free speech who won’t care for this either. We must all stand and fight for freedom where ever it is under assault.
Oct 30, 2008 - 5:46 pm 45. ridin’ with the king » i hope they didn’t spend money on this…:[...] the blogs, there’d be almost no place to get any semblance of balanced reporting. Can the Fairness Doctrine be very far behind? Tagged with [...]
Oct 31, 2008 - 7:47 pm 46. Caracas on the Potomac? | Unfair Doctrine:[...] Obama campaign had done the same thing a few weeks earlier when Rosenberg had as a guest another Obama critic, book author David Freddoso, whose book, “The Case Against Barack Obama,” has been [...]
Oct 31, 2008 - 8:59 pm 47. Kevin:Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t this give us an upper hand in the media elite?
Nov 4, 2008 - 3:41 pm 48. Obama wins– Bad for America?? | My Political talk:[...] Filing suit to have ads removed he dislikes [...]
Nov 4, 2008 - 11:05 pm 49. Finding The Silver Lining In Obama’s Victory « Grand Rants:[...] Re-implementation of The Fairness Doctrine (more likely to be the result of “Nazi” Pelosi’s agenda) [...]
Nov 5, 2008 - 2:16 pm 50. comsense is not very bright:“ComSense:
If I hear him imply more time that, he out of honour refused to leave the Hanoi Hilton before his commrades as if IT ISN’T WRITTEN IN THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY CONDUCT, THAT ANY PRISONER RISKS COURT MARTIAL FOR DOING OTHER WISE”
Do you really think he would be worried about a court martial if he’s sitting in the Hanoi Hilton? Would he be worried that he’ll be imprisoned in a worse place? If given the option to leave and he refused it would take a great deal of honor and will power. You’re not very bright if you think the prospect of a court martial is what kept him from leaving that hell hole.
Nov 6, 2008 - 8:28 am 51. guess:Guess we’ll find out. GoBama!
Nov 7, 2008 - 2:24 pm 52. R. Stanley:My God….we need something. How can people listen to the Fox News Channel or listen to Rush Limbaugh and think that nothing needs to be done. Is this what our servicemen and women have died for? Hateful talk, lies and disinformation, intolerance. Write your representitives tell them that we want honesty and integrity restored to the media.
Nov 8, 2008 - 9:31 pm 53. Mo:Who would’ve thought ONE YEAR AGO…
1) That we would’ve elected the most radical marxist in the US Senate.
Nov 11, 2008 - 3:16 pm 54. Call for Action « The Conservative Resistance’s Blog:2) That we’d be staring down the barrel of history, not only repeating other socialist states of the past who elected charismatic leaders (which I thought before last week, the US was immune to…) but WANTING more government intervention after Bush’s failures in this regard?
[...] Democratic President-Elect Barak Obama, June 2008: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-fairness-doctrine/ [...]
Nov 14, 2008 - 8:33 am 55. Wordpress Blogs Support Being Censored By The Government « Needs of the Many:[...] all know that Obama is blatantly opposed to free speech, and has put great effort into censoring news and broadcast elements during the campaign. Even censoring a debate between a critic, and supporter, of his. Obama is [...]
Nov 16, 2008 - 5:32 pm 56. Lady Coburn:Before the election I visited a couple of Obama blog sites. I asked simple questions, wanting to know why the people there supported Obama so strongly. When I would ask a specific question or quote a news source, such as Fox, the ‘locals’ would go ballistic. I was told that I would be sorry after Obama was elected because he would make sure I couldn’t spread my bigotry, that FOX news would be shut down, that all of the people that had radio shows would be choked out. It was truly magnificent in its monstrosity. I pointed out that they, too, would be muffled if Obama restricts free speech and then I made the cardinal mistake of asking why they would condone such a thing. They wouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinions, and if they preferred to live in a country where freedom of speech is bridged, I would prefer that they go to one as opposed to trying to change this one. Oh my. I was told I was anti-American, stupid, and worse. I never did get a reasonable answer about the Fairness Doctrine issue or why they supported Obama. How can anyone in this country support the reinsitution of the Doctrine? There is NO RESTRICTION on who can be on the airways, now. Part of the problem is that the Liberals just scream an hollar, talk over each other and never make rational points. When my husband and I watch Hannity and Colmes, he always leaves when Colmes starts an interrogation. He is strident, over-bearing, and angry. No one, not even liberals themselves, want to listen to them in a talk show format. If Obama chooses to try an end-run on our freedom of speech, he will be in for quite a fight. I for one, will use every avenue at my disposal to keep our freedoms.
Nov 26, 2008 - 3:14 pm 57. Aaron Rodriguez:“Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”
——————————-
I hate to break it to you, but imposing media-ownership caps, enforcing network neutrality, and increasing media minority ownership IS the Fairness Doctrine, but in a different form. Media ownership caps is an attempt to curtail the pervasiveness of conservative talk radio by limiting their success and making it easier for liberal networks to compete. Network neutrality is no different then applying fairness principles to broadcasters. The terminology is no different than the Fairness Doctrine. And minority ownership is a nicer way of saying “more liberal broadcasters” since most minority groups are liberal.
Liberals need to stop using the Federal Government to settle scores they ought to settle in the free market. If they can’t compete, therefore break the legs of conservative radio via legislation is cowardly and pathetic. The Fairness Doctrine will resurface just like it did under the Reagan, Bush senior, and Bush junior administrations. I have a hard time believing that Obama would veto the legislation when it passes both houses.
Supreme Court, here we come.
Dec 3, 2008 - 9:50 am 58. Bill Clinton Backs Fairness Doctrine or Something Similar - Page 5 - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!:[...] Posted by Powerman where the hell did i say he did??? Pajamas Media
Feb 14, 2009 - 7:36 am 59. doug:Here’s something to take into consideration though. Do you remember a month ago when it was reported the Leon Panetta’s daughter was an “anti-American, anti-military, avowed Marxist”? Conservative radio ran with this. Well it was later revealed that the person in question wasn’t his daughter. He doesn’t have one. Did you ever hear a retraction? I didn’t. It’s crappy reporting like this that’s giving the fairness doctrine more of an implied legitimacy.
Feb 15, 2009 - 2:41 pm 60. Expose The Media » Democrats In Congress Want To Control Free Speech: Does Obama?:[...] Media Doesn’t Want You To See Democrats Consider Reviving ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Obama And The Fairness Doctrine Dems Push, Yet Deny Radio Censorship Effort Democrats Launch New Petition Against Rush Limbaugh [...]
Feb 16, 2009 - 8:27 pm 61. Woody Evins:This article is nearly 5 months old, and even then the author saw this was coming. The only way you could even justify this to a 5- year- old is to say that all media forms have to present both sides of the argument, but alas, all the left- wing televised programs will remain uncontested by Conservative views on their channels. It seems to me that this is a direct attack on Conservatives. Now I may be young, but I’m pretty sure I haven’t heard of any conservative political plots to kill liberalism, so why are liberals trying to kill the Conservative line of thought?
Feb 18, 2009 - 2:04 pm 62. GusH:Cable shows are recieved by a CATV (which cable companies want you to think stands for CAble TV but really stands for Community Antenna TV) and they are sent through the air unless they originate in that city, therefore they are broadcast through the public air waves. The point of the Fairness Doctrine was to make the television and radio distributors anylize the truthiness of the shows and advertisements to some degree lest they have to air a conflicting view, making them charge twice the price (in case they were forced to give equal time away to a resonable apposing view) for products like cigarettes or hard liquor. The other benefit would be to make all broadcasters be somewhat responsible for their editorial comments being factual. Is is any wonder that people at right wing and alleged “Christian” radio and television stations are upset and worried? These people don’t want to be tied down to anything like “Truth” or “Fairness” or “Facts”. They are not interested in consistancy either. What is funny is that nothing has changed in 2000 years as the people who ran the churches were hypocrites and pharacies, and those who valued truth and honesty were outsiders who were even hunted and persicuted. The fear was that Jesus might get everyone into trouble by telling the truth, when actually he just said things like “give to Ceasar what is his and give to god what is his” (in essence).
These people just want what ever gets themselves and the RED TEAM ahead. They act like we should all vote on the right math answer? Why shouldn’t the guy you want to have a beer with run the country? Why not make the most popular high school students doctors instead of the smartest? Well math is math and evedence is evedence and some opinions (like most of Rush’s) are not based on facts act all, and should be opposed. If you can go to a court and say “Rush L. says that most small businesses will suffer if taxes are raised on those making over $250,000 and even conservative fact finding organizations say that less than 2% of small business owners make over $250,000, then channels that air his nonsense should have to air someone saying those facts! That is less than equal anyways as the sum of both statements made separatley is that half the people heard an opinion that is opposite of the truth (like Rush cares).
It’s like if I said “all republicans are child molestors and studies show that” and then the RNC got to say “most repulblicans are not child molesters”(which in fairness is more accurate) the damage is still done to some degree isn’t it?
Why would anyone be afraid of the fairness doctrine unless they are HUGE LIARS? I think the answer is evedent and I would be okay with a law that simply made them say on the half hour: “This is the Fox network and we oppose the fairness doctrine which has the goal of making broadcast’s content fair and accurate. We think any donkeys rear end should be entitled to say and dang thing they want regardless of it’s innaccuracies as this is America – Dang It”
I’d like to add “GROW UP”!
Mar 4, 2009 - 1:48 pm