Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Democrats push for Censorship of political speech

It's the usual suspects, who also happen to be two of the biggest gun grabbers in the Senate. Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein. Those two fascists haven't met a freedom that they haven't tried to grab.

The Hill had a report about the latest efforts from the democrats to push the so called "Fairness Doctrine". In actuality, it's an effort to tell talk radio to sit down and shut up since they have the gall to disagree with the political leftist establishment.

From the Hill
House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

They say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October.

But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

Here's the problem. Talk radio is needed to balance the "so called" balance in the so called mainstream media. The New York Times is viewed as the gold standard and the model to follow, and it also happens to be one of the most leftist papers in the country. The worst kind of leftist too. Rich corporate chattering class leftist.

The only solution is for the senate jokers to leave free speech alone and let the market decide. If people want to listen to Air America, let them win or lose on their merits. This politicial censorship from Durbin and company belongs in Stalinist Russia. It's unAmerican.

I'll go even further. Not only to I oppose the so called Fairness Doctrine, I oppose the FCC regulating any sort of content whatsoever. I support freedom and free speech.

1 comment:

keithr said...

The "Fairness" doctrine was created in the 1930's when AM radio was king. At the time broadcast TV was a new toy that only rich people could afford. There was no satellite radio. No cable TV. No satellite TV. No internet or internet radio.

The creators of the "fairness doctrine" assume that modern radio only presents one viewpoint and that listeners have no other choices available for news and information.

This is wrong on both counts.

There have been many attempts to create radio programs which present liberal viewpoints. The problem is that nobody wants to listen to them. Is this the fault of radio stations? Should radio stations be forced to broadcast shows which have no audience and can't pay for themselves via advertisements?

So why don't liberals listen to liberal AM radio shows?

Probably because they are too busy listening to FM radio, watching network TV, watching cable TV, listening to satellite radio, reading a newspaper or magazine, listening to an mp3 player, listening to an internet radio station, reading/writing to a blog on the internet, or reading news on an internet website.

To say that radio is a monopoly that needs to be regulated in order to assure fairness is a weak argument. This is nothing more than an effort to put talk radio out of business because liberals can't figure out how to create a successful liberal radio talk show, and they don't like having AM radio compete with all the other liberal dominated choices available to people.

If the "Fairness Doctrine" is such a good idea, why is radio being singled out? Why not include network TV, cable TV, the internet, etc . . .? Should not programming be "fair" everywhere? The fact that this bill is aimed only at radio proves that this is not about fairness, but about muzzling opposition political speech.

This bill is an unnecessary restriction on freedom of speech and needs to be stopped. And the first thing we need to do is change the name to accurately describe the purpose of the bill, to the "Muzzle free speech on talk radio" bill.