Free Speech?

[Towntalk]

Absolutely not, freedom of speech is too precious, and it would be counterproductive to try to shut people up.

It is left to right wingers like Michael Savage et al to do that.

But lets be honest, Nancy Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency, and Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat, so when she says that she is in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, then it carries weight

When Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC says that he is in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, then again it carries weight.

I'll agree with you that these people do not speak for all Democrats, but they have it in their power to have it reinstated by virtue of their position.

At the snap of the finger Pelosi can instruct the appropriate committee to draft a bill to do it just as she said that an anti-fairness doctrine bill would never see the light of day, hence a bill drafted by Congressman Mike Pence sits in a pile of legislation that will never be acted on.

The argument is put forward that this is an attack on talk radio, but would not apply to television, and we know that aside from Fox News, the preponderance of the TV talk shows are liberal. Shouldn't the rule that applies to radio also apply to television?

I would like to see a breakdown of "Progressive"; "Conservative"; and "Moderate" Democrats. JFK for example was certainly not a "Progressive" as we define the term today, nor was Harry Truman. If anything, they were "Moderates". Did that make them any the less Democratic than say George McGovern?

Hubert Humphrey was by todays standard a moderate. Did that disqualify him?

The truth be told, Jimmy Carter is hardly hard left as opposed to say McGovern.

Even FDR was not "hard left", and I'm sure that he would be considered a "Moderate".

It would be instructive for you to define "Progressive Democrat", "Moderate Democrat" and "Conservative Democrat".

[Towntalk]

If you want to discuss the matter in a grouchy way no holds barred then forget it. I do not name call and won't here.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.
Support
Some Democratic legislators have expressed interest in reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine,[19] although no one has introduced legislation to do so since 2005.
In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," [20] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.[21] However, according to Marin Cogan of The New Republic in late 2008:
"   Senator Durbin's press secretary says that Durbin has 'no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view' — that the American people were served well under the doctrine — 'and it's all been blown out of proportion.'[22]   "
On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding "the interest in my caucus is the reverse." When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'", the Speaker replied "Yes." [23]
On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico) told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico:
"   I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. All I'm saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.[24]   "
On December 15, 2008, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (Democrat of California) told The Daily Post in Palo Alto, California that she thought it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters.
"   I'll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone.[25]   "
On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine:
"   I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else — I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.   "
When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied:
"   I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep.[26]   "
A week later, on February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, "...we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." Later in response to Press's assertion that "...they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another," Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair — that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back." [27]
Former President Bill Clinton has also shown support for the Fairness Doctrine. During a February 13, 2009, appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said:
"   Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.   "
Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it doesn't reflect economic reality.[28]
In August 2009 (after talk radio was alleged to have inspired the abusive disruption of Congress members' town meetings on health-care reform), Bill Mann wrote in The Huffington Post :
"   Now, after what Reichstag Radio ("Sieg Heil on Your Dial") has done, again using its Fairness Doctrine immunity to spread poison and to knowingly promulgate outrageous lies about Obama and health care, it's time for Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration to fight back. It's long past time for the FCC to open hearings on bringing back the Fairness Doctrine -- and to take testimony about exactly how it has been abused since being lifted -- actually, even the idea of fairness has been openly mocked.[29]



Speech to the Media Institute by FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell on January 28, 2009, outlining the likely practical and constitutional challenges of reviving a fairness or neutrality doctrine

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288134A1.pdf

[Towntalk]

You're dead wrong Rusty ... no less than the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that she wanted the Fairness Doctrine reinstituted.

Harry Reed Senate Majority Leader echoed Pelosi.

[Towntalk]

Let's be civil.

The point was that all the countries mentioned pratice censorship, and that was the only point I was making.

As to being a "victim of propaganda", that is pure hog slop, and undeserving of a comment that could be posted here.

By the way the original post on this thread was a question regarding the Fairness Doctrine and NOT AN ATTACK ON ANY PARTICULAR POLITICL PARTY.

Has the time come for the FCC to crack down on stations like WKBN and WGFT and force them to give equal time to Progressives or go off the air?

As to Venezuela, in case you haven't noticed, many dictitorial countries use the term "Republic" in their official name, but that doesn't mean that they are a democracy.

[Towntalk]

A better analogy would be COMMUNISM as in CHINA.

Throughout history the suppression of speech was praticed.

The ban on Bibles in Europe during the early days after the Reformation.

The censorship of the press in NAZI Germany (National Socialism)

The censorship of the press in Russia even today. Reporters speaking out against the government murdered.

The censorship in Venezuela (Communism)

The censorship in Muslim countries.

And don't forget Cuba.

[Towntalk]

Rusty, DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, I didn't use the word FASCIST.

The whole point was that nameless bureaucrats that are not answerable to us want to control what we hear, and cited Mark Lloyd by linking to two of his articles.

I exercise my right to decide what I listen to or read, but I resent anyone trying to tell me what I can or can not listen to.

Personally, I would like to see radio get back to the way it was in the 1940's and 50's when there were many more options in programming, but that will never happen so I had to build up a library of old radio shows to listen to when there's nothing on TV that interests me, and as I said earlier, I don't spend my whole day listening to radio talk shows, and again that is my free choice that I made.

I do not like censorship whether it comes from the left or right, and certainly if the shoe were turned, make no mistake about it, the right would, if given the opportunity, would push their own version of the fairness doctrine to silence their critics. Look at the way the Right Wing talkers bash the media.

Likewise, I do believe that we are intelligent enough to make up our own minds on critical issues on our own without someone telling us what we should think, and do not need bureaucrats with their own agendas controlling the sources of information.

By the way, my personal sources of information are THE NEW YORK TIMES (liberal), WASHINGTON POST (liberal) LOS ANGELES TIMES (liberal) and CNN (liberal).

[Rick Rowlands]

I saw a diagram once showing political ideologies as part of a circle.  At the bottom of the circle was labeled moderate center.  Going counterclockwise next was conservative then libertarian then fascism.  Starting again at the bottom but going clockwise was liberal, socialism and communism.  What struck me was that the ideologies of the ultra left and the ultra right meet at the top of the circle, those two ideologies being practically indistinguishable.  I would hope that most of us inhabit the bottom half of that circle.

If the fairness doctrine was as you say it was, then shows such as Limbaugh would certainly be in compliance. He certainly discusses controversial matters of public interest, and does air contrasting views, as liberal callers do frequent the show.

I disagree that regulatory bodies have authority to restrict speech as much as it pleases.  They still must abide by the Constitution, and Federal District courts and the Supreme Court have struck down regulations that were not in compliance with the Constitution.    But I think you bring up a good point as to why new legislation such as the proposed health care bill are dangerous.  As much as we may debate details of that bill now, those debates are largely irrelevant as it is left to the bureaucrats to actually create the specific rules, and those bureaucrats are largely out of the reach of public sentiment. 

[Towntalk]

In another thread there was reference to George Orwell's 1984, and in that work Winston Smith the lead charactor worked for the bureau that controlled information rewriting history to conform to party dictates. Anything that defeated from the party line was punishable by death. The Thought Police and the two way telescreens saw to it that absolute conformity to party dictates was observed.

The "Progressives" would love nothing more than to silence their critics even if it flew in the face of the Constitutional provisions of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly, and make no mistake about it, there are those who would abolish the Bill of Rights if they thought they could get away with it.

Personally, I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, or for that matter Billy Cunningham (WKBN) or any of the talk shows on WGFT (WGFT airs conservative talk shows exclusively. Dave Ramsey, Don Imus, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity), nor do I frequent web sites like WorldNet Daily. I don't need to since I can gather the news for myself, thank you ever so much, and have sufficient sensability to disurn fact from fiction, but by the same token, I do not want some faceless bureaucrat telling me what I can and can not read or listen to.

[Dan Moadus]

Unfortunately, when it comes to radio time, "Free Speech" is not free. It has to be supported by advertising, and businesses who advertise want to reach a large audience. If there existed a big audience for "Progressive" talk radio, you can be sure that there would be plenty of stations seeking out progressive talk show hosts. Fortunately, the bulk of the American public are not buying it; literally!

You can kid each other all you want about how the progressive message isn't being represented because the stations are owned and controlled by rich conservatives, but in your heart you know better.

[Rick Rowlands]

Hell no!  What we currently have IS free speech.  Should the FCC start meddling it will then become censored speech. 

WKBN is balanced.  Mangino and Verb is left leaning, while Rivers and Rush are right leaning.  Savage is pre-empted every time someone in Cleveland throws a ball into the air and is rarely on. 

[Towntalk]

Progressives will all agree that the federal government should step in and strictly control what is broadcast both on radio and television shutting down those stations or networks that refuse to conform to censorship rules that would be set down by the FCC.

The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

Forget the Fairness Doctrine
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/lloyd_fairness.html

Mark Lloyd, the FCC's new chief diversity officer. Prior to joining the FCC, Lloyd most recently served as vice president for strategic initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/Education Fund, where he specialized in media and telecommunications. Lloyd has also served as an adjunct professor of public policy at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute and taught communications policy as a visiting professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Lloyd, who worked at NBC and CNN as a broadcast journalist prior to becoming a communications attorney, has also worked as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and as general counsel at the Benton Foundation, a nonprofit organization aiming to ensure that media serve the public interest and enhance democracy.


Has the time come for the FCC to crack down on stations like WKBN and WGFT and force them to give equal time to Progressives or go off the air?