or use our
Do-it-yourself Guest Booking Form
MEDIA MATTERS
Democrats hope to hush Rush
Feinstein looking at Fairness Doctrine, says talk radio 'overwhelmingly 1 way'
 Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. |
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is "looking at" bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, a controversial policy designed to ensure equal time for all political viewpoints on radio, but criticized by many as resulting in the opposite result.
When asked by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" if she would revive the measure, said, "Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way."
Wallace pointed out, "But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market."
Feinstein responded: "Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people."
The Democrat said talk radio tends to be one-sided.
"It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information."
Among the targets of leftist Democrats is conservative champion Rush Limbaugh, the most-listened to host in the history of talk radio, who has railed against in the Fairness Doctrine for years.
On one
of his programs in January, Limbaugh said the push for the measure
was solely because liberals were unsuccessful in getting Americans to
agree with them. The
application of the Fairness Doctrine worked this way. It basically made
it so difficult for local radio stations to put on controversial
programming that they put none on. So what you're going to get if they
do reinstate this is highlighted programming such as the favorite
holiday recipes for Christmastime, sewage problems for the next decade
in your local community, and other such things. The application of the
Fairness Doctrine would be very, very tough to police. The
point of it was to balance opinions and to be fair, and if one point of
view was expressed, the other had to be expressed well, otherwise no
opinion could be expressed. There was also a provision that personal
attacks, people victimized by those would have a chance to reply and
respond and so forth. Also
appearing with Wallace was Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who heated up the
airwaves last week by stating, "Talk radio is running America. We have
to deal with that problem." On
today's program, Lott said, "I've been defended by talk radio many
times and I will support their right to tell their side of the story,
right, left or the middle, forever. I
don't think this Fairness Doctrine that would try to require that there
be X amount on both sides is fair. So you know, it's caused quite a
stir, but, you know, it goes with the territory." WND
reported Friday
that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.,
and Senate colleague Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., want to "fix" talk radio
because of its conservative influence on America, according to Sen.
James Inhofe. They
can't get coverage, they can't draw an audience; they can't draw an
audience in the commercial field, at any rate. So what do they do? They
attempt to silence the opposition, and this is an assault on the First
Amendment, disguised under that word "fairness."
May Silence Conservative Radio Hosts, Critics Say
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
January 17, 2007
The Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation requiring broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue, was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987, when it was dropped during the Reagan administration.
Many in the broadcast industry credit the dropping of the rule to the rise of conservative talk radio that became a booming industry, featuring personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.
Bringing back the regulation will ensure more even-handed coverage of political issues, said Jeff Lieberson, spokesman for Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who has proposed the "Media Ownership Reform Act."
"The political interests of media owners can have a direct and indirect effect on the way news is presented to the public, so it's important that all sides are heard," Lieberson told Cybercast News Service Tuesday.
The Fairness Doctrine is a key component of Hinchey's bill, which also sets tighter limits on media ownership. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has proposed a companion bill in the Senate.
"This is not an attempt to muzzle them at all," Lieberson said of conservative talk show hosts who are opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. "They will still be heard. This will ensure that different views that are not theirs will also be heard."
But muzzling is exactly what such a law would do, charged Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in the Media, a conservative media watchdog group.
"Make no bones about it, they want to force the conservative media to hand over air time to liberals," Kincaid said in an interview. "When federal bureaucrats dictate the content of radio and TV shows, it's muzzling to tell them what to say and how to say it."
Many conservatives have long argued that the bulk of major newspapers, news magazines and network news programs tilt left and regard talk radio as an antidote.
"Liberals used to dominate the media, and they are irritated there are competing voices, so now they want to reign in the conservative media using the federal government," Kincaid continued. "There is no prohibition against liberal talk radio. Liberals tried talk radio and it was not successful in the market place."
Kincaid pointed to Air America, the liberal talk radio network started in 2004 that is now in bankruptcy but still operating with a limited audience.
The Fairness Doctrine was adopted by the FCC in 1949 as a regulation, never a law enacted by Congress. The effort now by Democrats in Congress is to codify the doctrine into law.
When the rule was in place, radio and TV stations could face hefty fines if their stations aired controversial statements on public affairs without providing equal time to opposing viewpoints. Critics said the result was self-censorship by timid broadcasters who avoided politics to escape any potential government retaliation.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that the doctrine did not violate the First Amendment, because the airwaves belonged to the public and thus could face government regulation to which print media were not subjected.
After the FCC ditched the rule in 1987, Democratic lawmakers made several attempts to bring it back in statute. Those attempts were unsuccessful even when Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress in 1993 and 1994.
Despite the 1969 court ruling, Dennis Wharton, spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, told Cybercast News Service Tuesday it was fundamentally a First Amendment question.
"It was not appropriately named," Wharton said of the doctrine. "It was unfair in inhibiting broadcasters' free speech rights.
"There has been an explosion of viewpoints and coverage of issues since the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine," Wharton said. "It's been a boon for free expression."
Hinchey, chairman of the "Future of Media Caucus" in the House, is among several
Democratic lawmakers who spoke at the National Conference on Media Reform in Memphis, Tenn., this past weekend.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), chairman of the House subcommittee on domestic policy, announced he would hold hearings on the media, which would include looking at restoring the Fairness Doctrine.
"We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda," Kucinich, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, reportedly told the Memphis event.
"We are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible," he said.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
About William Greene
William
Greene is the founder of RightMarch.com
below
is an excerpt taken from RightMarch.com
We are the "Rapid Response Force" against the ongoing liberal onslaught.
RightMarch.com was born out of the frustration of thousands of decent, hard-working Americans when they saw the attacks from the left on President Bush and his conservative policies. We came together initially with a full-page nationwide ad in USA Today, in support of the President and our troops in Iraq, and in opposition to the liberal Hollywood elite. Thousands upon thousands of average citizens seized upon the opportunity to add their name to the "Virtual March from the Right" petition... and a bold new grassroots movement was born.
RightMarch.com is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit political
organization,
the RightMarch.com PAC is a federal political action committee, and
both are led by long-time conservative activist Dr. William Greene;
working with other "movement conservatives," he's applied his years of
expertise in online and offline political activism and fundraising to
birth the most dynamic conservative grassroots movement ever seen
online.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
or use our
Do-it-yourself Guest Booking Form