Dems get set to Muzzle the Right

[Cajuncowboy]

DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT


By BRIAN C. ANDERSON

Last updated: 8:49 am
October 20, 2008
Posted: 4:51 am
October 20, 2008

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."


Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful.

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.

Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage?

[Maikeru-sama]

Hmmmm....


Brian C. Anderson is the editor of City Journal, a quarterly magazine, published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank based out of New York City. He served as senior editor of that magazine for nine years before inheriting the top positing in 2007 from Myron Magnet.[1] He was previously literary editor of Crisis.

Anderson is the author most recently of South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias (Regnery Publishing, 2005). Other books include The Pope in America (Crisis Books, 1996) and Raymond Aron: The Recovery of the Political (Rowman & Littlefield 1998), based on his doctoral thesis in political philosophy from the University of Ottawa. He also edited On Cultivating Liberty (Rowman & Littlefield 1999), a collection of Michael Novak’s social and political writings.[2] He received his BA and MA from Boston College.


link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_C._Anderson)

BTW, you should post links to your articles, so people won't waste time reading them when they come from biased publications and/or authors.

[Cajuncowboy]

Hmmmm....



link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_C._Anderson)

BTW, you should post links to your articles, so people won't waste time reading them when they come from biased publications and/or authors.

It was the NY Post...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dems_get_set_to_muzzle_the_right_134399.htm

Happy?

Plus I like how people want to attack the messenger by seeing the message and going to Wikepidia to find that they are a coservative and automatically say, they should ignore this.

real open minded you are makeysuemama

[numnuts23]

Hmmmm....



link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_C._Anderson)

BTW, you should post links to your articles, so people won't waste time reading them when they come from biased publications and/or authors.

So should I call my cable company and have most the news outlets removed so I don't continue to waste my time trying to find out what is happening in the world?

Just wondering??

[Cajuncowboy]

So should I call my cable company and have most the news outlets removed so I don't continue to waste my time trying to find out what is happening in the world?

Just wondering??

Well if that was the case Mackeysue would have everyone live in a cave except for those so enlightened like himself.

[Rogah]

BTW, you should post links to your articles, so people won't waste time reading them when they come from biased publications and/or authors.Looks to me more like an op-ed piece than a news article and an editorial is pretty much by definition going to be biased in some form or another ;)

[Cajuncowboy]

Looks to me more like an op-ed piece than a news article and an editorial is pretty much by definition going to be biased in some form or another ;)

I didn't post it as a news article. I thought it was obvious that it was an op-ed. What's obvious to most is not obvious to some.

But shooting the messenger is always fun.

[burmafrd]

The Democrats have been talking a bout bringing back the fairness doctrine for over a year and we all know why. talk radio. Only really stupid morons think otherwise.

[Maikeru-sama]

Well if that was the case Mackeysue would have everyone live in a cave except for those so enlightened like himself.

This from the guy that routinely insults posters, claims he is always right and listens to Rush Limbaugh.

I didn't attack you (like you're doing me buy purposely butchering my username), I simply asked you to post a link to your sources, I have done this to very liberal posters as well, when I read their articls and find out it is fromt he Dailykos.

[trickblue]

Hmmmm....



link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_C._Anderson)

BTW, you should post links to your articles, so people won't waste time reading them when they come from biased publications and/or authors.

Actually, Mike, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer said they plan to pursue reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine a few months back. I can't vouch for political persuasions of the author, but the premise of her attempting to bring it back is true...

[Jarv]

I would be all for the fairness doctrine, if it were fair. In its current state they want to only use it on talk radio, which the conservatives do rule the airwaves.

Lets expand that to print and TV and see the left go nuts...Where they rule that end of the media.

How it would be regulated is another big question, since most of the far left (Pelosi, Reid and Obama) think that the NY times is a fair and balanced newspaper and Fox News is a right wing fanatical network they won't even let their parties primary debates on.

This could get real ugly folks....Brain talks about a 2 party system not working, if these guys get their way this country would become a one party socialistic country. Anyone opposed to their views would be outlawed to speak them...Very scary.

[Doomsday101]

I would be all for the fairness doctrine, if it were fair. In its current state they want to only use it on talk radio, which the conservatives do rule the airwaves.

Lets expand that to print and TV and see the left go nuts...Where they rule that end of the media.

How it would be regulated is another big question, since most of the far left (Pelosi, Reid and Obama) think that the NY times is a fair and balanced newspaper and Fox News is a right wing fanatical network they won't even let their parties primary debates on.

This could get real ugly folks....Brain talks about a 2 party system not working, if these guys get their way this country would become a one party socialistic country. Anyone opposed to their views would be outlawed to speak them...Very scary.

They can try but they can't succeed

[BrAinPaiNt]

ufiEYgFAtII

[Cajuncowboy]

This from the guy that routinely insults posters, claims he is always right and listens to Rush Limbaugh.

I didn't attack you (like you're doing me buy purposely butchering my username), I simply asked you to post a link to your sources, I have done this to very liberal posters as well, when I read their articls and find out it is fromt he Dailykos.

I don't insult those who don't come after me first. Then all bets are off. Like when they insinuate I'm a racist or something. Also, I don't routinely listen to Rush.

I butcher your name because I don't care enough about some odd name to learn what it is or how to spell something that odd. Would you prefer I refer to your previous name? I figured since you changed it you don't want it used. Though now I see you added to your avatar.

And I posted the link. As you asked. So don't your panties in such a wad.

Man you are one of the most uptight people I have ever seen on a forum.

You need some bran.

[Thanos68]

DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT


By BRIAN C. ANDERSON

Last updated: 8:49 am
October 20, 2008
Posted: 4:51 am
October 20, 2008

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."


Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful.

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.

Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage?

:bow:

[Thanos68]

I don't insult those who don't come after me first. Then all bets are off. Like when they insinuate I'm a racist or something. Also, I don't routinely listen to Rush.

I butcher your name because I don't care enough about some odd name to learn what it is or how to spell something that odd. Would you prefer I refer to your previous name? I figured since you changed it you don't want it used. Though now I see you added to your avatar.

And I posted the link. As you asked. So don't your panties in such a wad.

Man you are one of the most uptight people I have ever seen on a forum.

You need some bran.


http://www.imperialtea.com/AB1002000Store/images/accessories/kettles/blackkettlesolo300.jpg

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree that this is a very scary presidents. Currently, at least so far as I know, there is no check and balance for TV, News, Print or Blogs. I have real issues with the media creating buy lines and doctrin of sorts.

[JBond]

Hmmmm....



link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_C._Anderson)

BTW, you should post links to your articles, so people won't waste time reading them when they come from biased publications and/or authors.

Using your theory we should ignore anything you say.

[arglebargle]

I agree that this is a very scary presidents. Currently, at least so far as I know, there is no check and balance for TV, News, Print or Blogs. I have real issues with the media creating buy lines and doctrin of sorts.

Yeah, this has been bothering me for years....;)

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yeah, this has been bother me for years....;)


As well it should. I don't know if you are serious in your response or not. I will take you at face value and say that you are. It is a very scary thing indeed IMO.

[arglebargle]

As well it should. I don't know if you are serious in your response or not. I will take you at face value and say that you are. It is a very scary thing indeed IMO.

It was meant sarcasticly, but I actually do agree with you.

[Rogah]

I agree that this is a very scary presidents. Currently, at least so far as I know, there is no check and balance for TV, News, Print or Blogs. I have real issues with the media creating buy lines and doctrin of sorts.I agree with this. Personally, I think that if I buy a radio station then I should have the right to air Rush Limbaugh 24/7 if I want or air Janeane Garofalo 24/7 if I want without the government telling me how to run my station.

But there are also some compliated (and frightening) questions of how the Fairness Doctrine would be implemented. Suppose I own a radio station and have to air 1 hour of Garofalo for every hour of Limbaugh, so I put Limbaugh on from 4 to 7 in the afternoon and Garofalo on from 2 to 5 in the morning. Well is the government then going to tell me that I have to give Garofalo equal time during prime time hours...?

And then what happens if they both get aired in prime time, but Limbaugh has 5 times as many listeners..? Now is the government going to tell me I need to air Garofalo 5 times as much as Limbaugh so that an equal number of people are hearing each message...?

Another question: By what logic should this Doctrine be applied to radio broadcasts but not television broadcasts..?

I am no fan or right wing or left wing talk radio (I usually just listen to sports talk), but I see this Doctrine as a very dangerous incursion into free speech and the right of a business owner to run his business however he sees fit. I would hope that both conservative and liberal free speech advocates would agree with me.

[arglebargle]

I agree with you here. There's no way the government should be mandating what shows you have to buy, by 'political' content. The possibility of abuse is staggering. It could rival the Commerce Clause.

[burmafrd]

And its YOUR friends argle that are pushing this.

[Maikeru-sama]

Using your theory we should ignore anything you say.

Feel free to use the ignore button on me, it is your friend.