Stop the Hush Rush Doctrine

[SILVERNAME]

When liberals, socialists, and communists take over a government, the first thing they do is silence their opponents -- one way or another.

When Lenin seized power in Russia, he murdered millions -- then established a government newspaper Pravda ("Truth") to spread communist lies.

When Castro took over Cuba -- for days after the fighting ceased -- folks heard firing squads executing the new dictator's enemies.  Then came the lies.

Having seized control of the U.S. Congress, left-wing Democrats are now trying to shut down talk radio so the American people can no longer hear  the truth from Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and a host of other conservatives.



The future of our great nation hangs in the balance.  Please support Senator Coleman's bill, which would prohibit some future liberal-controlled-FCC from reviving the "Fairness Doctrine" and shutting down talk radio.  Let's let the free market determine who stays on the air and who doesn't. 

http://www.grasstopsusa.com/fairnessdoctrineii.html

http://www.grasstopsusa.com

[Jimbob]

The FCC recently announced that it has absolutely no intention whatsoever to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine".

[Jaime]

The FCC recently announced that it has absolutely no intention whatsoever to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine".

It's probably similar to the State of Massachusetts saying a few years ago, "No, this does not mean that gay marriages will ever be sanctioned in our state."

[navyvet]

The FCC recently announced that it has absolutely no intention whatsoever to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine".

It's probably similar to the State of Massachusetts saying a few years ago, "No, this does not mean that gay marriages will ever be sanctioned in our state."

I don't have a problem with the "Fairness Doctrine;" makes for a better marketplace of ideas. Plus folks like Rush, Glenn Beck, etc. aren't real conservatives anyway.

[admin]

It doesn't matter if they're "real conservatives" or raging liberals, what matters is that a radio station has the right to put whomever they want on their air waves regardless of the opinion that he/she holds. The "fairness doctrine" as it is called is simply an attack on free speech.

It'd be like the government stepping in and saying that a radio station who has a Christian preacher on their airwaves also has to have a Buddist, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, etc. It's none of the government's business and it violates free speech. The owner of the station has a right to have a certain message on his/her station just like a church has the right to have a Biblical message, and the nonprofit I work for has the right to have a pro-traditional marriage message. The government doesn't have a right to step in and demand we present every opinion out there in the name of "fairness." That's not fair.

Furthermore, will a radio station have to present a communist message? And a totalitarian government message. And a dictatorship? And so on? There are all kinds of political opinions. You, Navyvet, call Rush a liberal. Others call him an extreme conservative. Who gets to decide and then pick the person who has a "liberal" point of view? If you think Rush is a liberal...just imagine who will be selected as the "liberal" to counter Rush since they see him as a conservative.

The government doesn't have a right to tell a business how to do its job. Next are they going to make Hershey's start making vegetables and vitamins to "counter" their sweets? Would that be fair? Are they going to make Fox air "American Opera Singer" to counter "American Idol?" We are a free market nation (though Democrats fight that every chance they get). That means that the people choose what they want. If you have a product the people want, you can sell it. If the people like it, it will succeed. If it offers a needed service, it will succeed because people will purchase it. If people like this forum, they will use it. If not, then they won't.

Should the government butt in to the Internet too and demands that every blog and website present every opinion on every issue?

The government would be violently overstepping it's bounds to force a radio station (or website) to air certain opinions. Liberal talk radio has had its chance and failed many times. Let liberals get on the radio the same way conservatives do--earning it by popular demand of the people.

[Jimbob]

The FCC recently announced that it has absolutely no intention whatsoever to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine".

It's probably similar to the State of Massachusetts saying a few years ago, "No, this does not mean that gay marriages will ever be sanctioned in our state."

So you think the Bush administration is like Massachusetts?

[admin]

jmg3rd,

Actually, I think he was referring to the FCC saying that it wouldn't institute the "fairness doctrine." I think he was saying that just because the FCC says it won't doesn't mean it won't.

[Jaime]

The FCC recently announced that it has absolutely no intention whatsoever to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine".

It's probably similar to the State of Massachusetts saying a few years ago, "No, this does not mean that gay marriages will ever be sanctioned in our state."

So you think the Bush administration is like Massachusetts?

No, I am saying the issue may look different under a Hillary-ous administration. What good the Bush Administration now has to its credit, will soon fade as the lameness of our presidential duck take hold and the anticipation of a new regime  or regimette sinks in!

[Jaime]

The FCC recently announced that it has absolutely no intention whatsoever to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine".

It's probably similar to the State of Massachusetts saying a few years ago, "No, this does not mean that gay marriages will ever be sanctioned in our state."

I don't have a problem with the "Fairness Doctrine;" makes for a better marketplace of ideas. Plus folks like Rush, Glenn Beck, etc. aren't real conservatives anyway.

The marketplace has shown a disdain for liberal ideas and philosophies as evidenced by the lackluster performance of liberal talk radio.

There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. If liberalism is a valid perspective and I think it is, then it should be able to standup to Rush, Beck, etc without an artificial propping up. If conservative talk radio is such a bad thing, it should and will die on its own. If liberal talk radio is so badly needed, then it should and will succeed.

   ..............................sorry I couldn't help myself 

[marc]

This question isn't meant to be sarcastic (I'll explain why in a minute), but does anyone buy into the idea of public ownership of the airways?  The corporations that operate radio stations are supposed to have a public trust, because they are using something publically owned to run their business.  This is why they're required to run psa and public service programming (or at least they were when I was in the business).

The reason this question isn't sarcastic is that most of the people I worked in radio with did not buy this idea.  Their concept was that the people who paid for the station should have the right to do whatever they want.  I disagreed, and many here likely do as well.  You see, their main concern was federal decency standards.  They didn't believe they were right, because they believed that the corporation that operated the station had the right to do whatever they want.

This is why HBO and CBS have different standards.  One uses public airwaves; the other does not.   The same goes with satellite radio being able to broadcast Howard Stern, Opie & Anthony, etc. uncensored, while over-the-air stations get fined whenever the idiots open their mouths.  Public airwaves bring public responsibility.

This is the same idea that was the backbone of the fairness doctrine.

In truth, I believe there are far more serious violations of the public airwaves than too much political speech these days.  I'm not in favor of bringing the fairness doctrine back, at least not in its original form (I would like commentators to be held a little more responsible for what they say, however).  The biggest problem is that the concept of localism, which went hand-in-hand with the public ownership idea, has been stabbed in the heart.  Corporations such as ClearChannel dominate the airwaves across the country, often owning many stations in the same market.  Some stations never broadcast a local voice.  This, I think, is the real problem the FCC should address.

[Jimbob]

jmg3rd,

Actually, I think he was referring to the FCC saying that it wouldn't institute the "fairness doctrine." I think he was saying that just because the FCC says it won't doesn't mean it won't.

The FCC which comes under the Bush Administration's purview.  Hillary hasn't won an election to the Presidency.

[normfromga]

In a way, the FCC is like a mini-Supreme Court.  Even though the head is appointed by the President, he can sometimes come out on the opposite side of the political fence, and once in place, policies inacted are not easily overruled.

For example, today they are to announce the ground rules in auctioning off the rights to an important segment of airwaves which will be abandoned in a couple of years as all the tv stations go digital.

One would think a Bush appointee would favor the free market model, and let it go to the highest bidders.  However, at least this morning, there was some talk that they might set aside out some of the spectum to "smaller" (as if Google could be considered "small") companies so that more potential suppliers of wireless Internet services could compete.

In short, these are not exactly cabinet posts, and they often act rather independently of "those that brung them..."

[normfromga]

In truth, I believe there are far more serious violations of the public airwaves than too much political speech these days.  I'm not in favor of bringing the fairness doctrine back, at least not in its original form (I would like commentators to be held a little more responsible for what they say, however).  The biggest problem is that the concept of localism, which went hand-in-hand with the public ownership idea, has been stabbed in the heart.  Corporations such as ClearChannel dominate the airwaves across the country, often owning many stations in the same market.  Some stations never broadcast a local voice.  This, I think, is the real problem the FCC should address.

I suspect you may be familiar with this book.

It has some chilling stories, especially the one about the railway accident that happened in Minot, and they had no way to warn the residents about leaking deadly ammonia gas because the radio stations were all automated.

[Yeah, some of the story might have since been debunked, but it is still a good story... ]

[marc]

Actually, I hadn't seen that book.  It looks like a good read.  I've been out of the loop for the last year (as of Monday, I will have completed 36 graduate hours and 3 undergraduate hours in the last calendar year...not much time for anything else.)

[don has a plan]

This question isn't meant to be sarcastic (I'll explain why in a minute), but does anyone buy into the idea of public ownership of the airways?

Yes.

[Mere Nick]

This question isn't meant to be sarcastic (I'll explain why in a minute), but does anyone buy into the idea of public ownership of the airways?  

In truth, I believe there are far more serious violations of the public airwaves than too much political speech these days.  I'm not in favor of bringing the fairness doctrine back, at least not in its original form (I would like commentators to be held a little more responsible for what they say, however).  The biggest problem is that the concept of localism, which went hand-in-hand with the public ownership idea, has been stabbed in the heart.  Corporations such as ClearChannel dominate the airwaves across the country, often owning many stations in the same market.  Some stations never broadcast a local voice.  This, I think, is the real problem the FCC should address.

I don't buy into it.

Clear Channel owns two different talk radio stations here in town - one liberal, one conservative.  The conservative one has a local show in the morning from 6-9 and a different local show in the afternoon 3-6.  The host of the afternoon program often has local politicians and other news makers on his program.  He has a lot of impact in the Asheville area.  For example, without his program there is no way that local folks could have organized a petition drive to put it to a referendum vote to keep the Asheville City Council from making their elections partisan.