In case you"ve missed it, there is a move underway by Democrats in Congress to pass legislation that would basically resurrect an old FCC regulation, knock the crypt dust off of it, and enshrine it into law.
In 1949, the FCC (then the Federal Radio Commission) inacted a regulation entitled the Fairness Doctrine. It was actually intended to force the discussion of more controversial issues. To accomplish that, it forced broadcasters to give air time to all sides of the issues at hand. Theoretically, at least. Realistically, it never happened.
But that hasn"t stopped Dennis Kucinich, the presidential hopeful and member of Congress who is so far out in left field that he has to shout to make Ted Kennedy hear him, from spearheading an effort to bring it back. This is just the latest attempt by Democrats to see the Fairness Doctrine become law. In 1987, the FCC abandoned the old regulation, in part because it didn"t work and in part because the Supreme Court of the United States was taking an increasingly conservative stance in its rulings on the regulation. Actually, that"s probably misstated. The SCOTUS was taking an increasingly "constitutional" stance in its rulings on the regulation. I am one of those people who believes there is nothing conservative or liberal about constitutional matters; the constitution should be taken at face value. No more, no less. Perhaps that"s why I find myself aligning with the political viewpoints of the Constitution Party more every day.
Regardless, the FCC abandoned the regulation in 1987. Before the year was out, Democrats in Congress had pushed through a regulation that would make it law. President Reagan vetoed it. By 1991, Democrats were once again mounting legislation to make the Fairness Doctrine become law, but dropped the measure after Bush the Senior promised to veto it.
It didn"t take long after the Democrats regained control of Congress in January for the sparks of the old Fairness Doctrine debate fires to be fanned into flame once more, with Kucinich first pushing the old bandwagon out of the barn and Sen. Bernie Sanders and Reps. Maurice Hinchley and Louise Slaughter, Democrats all with the exception of the liberal Sanders who is an independent, quickly jumping on board.
This proposed legislation"s obvious assault on the 1st Amendment is obvious. Whether it"s the subtle efforts of CNN to deny positive coverage to conservative initiatives or the not-so-subtle efforts of conservative talk radio to deny positive coverage to liberal initiatives, I can control what I watch or listen to and I don"t need the federal government to regulate it for me. The Democrats" efforts to pass a law such as this is an insult to my ability to operate my thumb on a remote control. Also, the possible precedents of this bill should not be lost on anyone. Remember that the Fairness Doctrine of 1949 replaced the Mayflower Doctrine, which had been put into effect in the early "40s, that actually prohibited broadcasters from editorializing at all. Don"t think for a moment that anti-freedom of speech guys like Kucinich wouldn"t love to get back to the days of the Mayflower Doctrine! That would be the only way they can muzzle the thorns in their side named Limbaugh and Hannity and O"Reilly. One of the most important steps in a dictatorship is controlling what information is broadcast to the masses, which inhibits anything negative being said about the governship. Is that the intent of folks like Kucinich? Does he really want us to have the equivalent of a state-run news media? Does he value control over freedom? Because that"s what it all boils down to.
In the meantime, my question is this: What are these people afraid of? Rep. Slaughter said on Bill Moyer"s program in 2004 that, "at least half the people in the United States have no voice because they"re not allowed in on talk radio." Poppycock. (You like the use of that British word? I used it specifically for those who favor the initiatives of Kucinich and his kind, since all their policies seem to be heavily tainted by European influences). The FCC does not prohibit the liberal point of view. Yes, talk radio is dominated by conservatives. So? Dominance on the airwaves is determined by the listener. If enough people demand liberal programming, the masses will get liberal programming. The number one priority of broadcasters always has been and always will be [$] over [R] or [D]. This was perfectly displayed in 2004, when Sinclair Broadcast Group planned to air a documentary that painted then-presidential candidate John Kerry in a bad light, but pulled it when a boycott was threatened and SBG"s stock dipped.
So why do conservatives dominate the airwaves? Simple. Americans don"t want that liberal (I"m sorry; the new word is "progressive") yip-yap. The American voting populous is divided nearly evenly, 50/50, between Republicans and Democrats. But talk radio isn"t so much about party lines. Sure, conservatives promote the Republican Party and dis the Democratic Party, and vice-versa. But talk radio is more about ideas. Just yesterday evening, I listened to Sean Hannity rip President Bush on his support of the immigration reform bill that is currently being pushed through Congress. Hannity has been a steadfast supporter of Bush, but doesn"t let party lines influence his thinking.
It isn"t that liberals aren"t opinionated and ready to share those opinions. Look at the Internet as an example, and those liberal gems the Daily KOS and the Huffington Report. They"re out there, but people just don"t identify with those ideas. Democrats, Republicans, it doesn"t matter. If this was a Democrat vs. Republican issue, there would be just as much airtime for the Michael Moores and James Carvilles of the political landscape as there is for the Ann Coulters and Michael Savages. But it isn"t about Democrat vs. Republican. It"s about conservative vs. liberal, and while most Americans identify themselves as moderates, if they have to choose, they will choose the conservative points of view over the liberal points of view. This country isn"t ready to embrace the liberal ideologies of the European world with open arms as the Kuciniches and Pelosis and Kennedys already have.
Why else, in a nation where Democrats and Republicans are split nearly 50/50, would a Republican/conservative-leaning Fox News Channel receive such an overwhelming share of the nightly viewership over the Democrat/liberal-leaning CNN? When you think about it, FNC and CNN aren"t so much different from the talk radiosphere. One dominates the other. Is the FCC putting a muzzle on CNN? Is the FCC unfairly regulating CNN? Is FNC given free reign while CNN isn"t? Of course not! It"s a simple matter of Americans choosing conservative ideas over liberal ideas.
There are a few out there who embrace the far-left ideology and will frequent the Daily KOS and the Huffington Post and will listen to liberal talk radio on their Sirius satellite radio. But the overwhelming majority will continue to listen to Limbaugh and O"Reilly, and that"s what a free market and capitalism are all about.
So, I guess the liberals have taken a twisted approach to the tested-and-true gameplan of "If you can"t beat "em, join "em." Their approach is, "If you can"t beat "em, use the government to shut "em down."
I"ll say it again: Americans, when forced to choose, favor conservatism over liberalism. Conservatism is an old political movement in America that can be traced back to our days of national infancy. Liberalism is relatively new. It didn"t come about until it was born of FDR"s ideologies in the "30s in the wake of the Great Depression. FDR"s New Deal put this nation on the road to economic recovery, and it was liberal in nature. Some liked it. Some didn"t. We went from Republicans vs. Democrats to conservatives vs. liberals for the first time in our nation"s history, and the liberal ideology was doing quite well. In fact, conservatism appeared dead in the water, especially when Barry Goldwater lost his White House bid in the "60s. Then, liberals decided it was time to stray away from fiscal matters and chase social matters. When liberalism was born in the U.S., Americans had heard of policies that were fiscally liberal. Robin Hood himself could"ve been FDR"s bosom buddy. To some degree at least, Americans liked policies that were fiscally liberal because it was easy to believe that they were for the benefit of all Americans. But when liberalism went social, suddenly Americans found themselves being led down a slippery slope of declining morality that embraced things they had never seen before: Abortion on-demand, marriage for same-sex couples, dove-ish foreign policies. None of these policies benefited all Americans; they benefit a few special-interest Americans. In other words, liberals turned their attention from what was good for the masses and towards what was good for the few.
And now they"re surprised that the masses listen to conservatives and the few listen to liberals?
How we"ve gotten to where we are seems clear-cut to me. The answer for liberals shouldn"t be to assault the constitution but to change their viewpoints so that they don"t alienate the vast majority of Americans. If they insist on idealogy that Americans cannot identify with, then they should prepare themselves to stay in the cellar. In the meantime, if any left-leaning American doesn"t like what they hear on the radio, I doubt there are many among us lacking the intelligence to know that the knob on the left contols the volume and the knob on the right controls the frequency. Turn the knob on the right; I do it everytime Neal Boortz or Rush Limbaugh comes on.
It"s simple.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Cleverly disguised ...Deleted by CalHunter... You be the judge.
Plagiarism because I typed something on a messageboard and referenced Kucinich, the Mayflower Doctrine and the 2004 Sinclair decision, all of which are issues central to the topic, and another writer just happened to reference the same issues?
If you're going to accuse me of plagiarism, you better get your ...Deleted by CalHunter... facts straight!
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
The market has always decided what sells and what doesn't, and should. There's already enough regulation on the airwaves these days, we don't need more laws.
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
I agree 100% Kevin. Airhead America has shown what kind of market there is for extreme left-wing radio. I don't think for one second the Dems would be hollering about the "fairness" doctrine if the situation was reversed. Reeks of socialism to me.
Chad
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
A question is not an accusation, it is what it is, a question.
Are you unfamiliar with the meaning of "is"?
Perhaps you'll revert to name calling again as "proof" of your point.
Careful you don't pop a vein - take a chill pill.
The thing is Ifferd, people have already judged the characters within this forum. And their conclusion--that being angry and writing shoddy quips and insults really doesn't foster much respect among most in the audience here. They all can see that it's exceptionally easy merely to react. But to develop something original, or add an unseen dimension to a discussion? Well, some folks here will be struggling with that until the day they leave HNI for good.
Unless, of course, these people are writing primarily for themselves...
"Fairness" Doctrine?!
