They’re really cranking up the language out there. Jerry Brown, the California Attorney General, was on Michael Savage’s talk show last week pushing the idea. Governor Moonbeam (or whatever they call him this week) actually said “A little state control never hurt anybody.” Now that’s a nice little Democrat. Democrats love state control. Only government is bright enough to do these things … not the private sector, and certainly not the people. No Democrat in his right mind would ever let the public decide what they wanted to listen to on radio.

Let me clue you in on something. If any leftist or Democrat ever tells you that the Fairness Doctrine is about restoring some sort of balance .. that person is lying in your face. The Fairness Doctrine is about destroying syndicated talk radio .. nothing less.

Try this: I want you to pay a visit to the Media Matters website. Media Matters is an organization that has dedicated itself to the destruction of conservative talk radio. In fact, the Clinton/Soros myrmidons at Media Matters are setting up the infrastructure they need to launch a full-scale attack on talk radio as soon as the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated. Now if you were to ask these folks what they’re up to, they would tell you that they’re just about fairness and balance. Again .. they’re liars. They’re lying straight to your face.

Click this link. You’re going to see the Media Matters website in the background with a dialogue box in the center. “Join our Team Today!” it says. “Help us hold the media accountable.” The box reads “Send me Media Matters newsletters and action alerts.” Then come the sign-up spaces. Action alerts? Well, they ask for your first and last name – but that’s voluntary. They then require your email address and zip code. Now just why would they want your zip code? Well … let me tell you.

On their main page Media Matters says “Over the next few months, we’ll be developing new tools to help you take action on both the national and local levels.” What kind of action? Complaining to individual radio stations and making equal-time demands, that’s what kind of action.

Media Matters is building a database of radio stations around the country that carry their two main enemies, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I’m probably not important enough for them to waste the time building a database for me. Perhaps that’s a good thing. But I’ll guarantee that they have a list of Hannity radio stations .. and that list includes all of the zip codes in the signal coverage area for each radio station. Here’s how they will use that information:

After implementation of the Fairness Doctrine Media Matters staffers and volunteers will monitor what’s being said by Hannity. (We’ll stick with Sean for this example). As soon as Hannity voices an opinion on a controversial issue – like socialized medicine – Media Matters will get into their database and send emails to members of their “action network” in virtually every Hannity zip code. These “action network” members will be encouraged to call their local Hannity radio station and demand, pursuant to the Fairness Doctrine, time to express an opposing viewpoint. The radio stations will be forced to interrupt programming to present a constant stream of these “opposing” sound bites or risk losing their licenses to operate. In just a matter of days these radio stations will be completely fed up with the constant stream of Media Matters (and other organizations, to be sure) generated demands for equal time. They’ll start dropping these syndicated shows like hot coals. This may turn out to be good for local talk talent … but it will kill syndicated talk radio. That, after all, is the ultimate Democrat goal. They know they can’t succeed in the genre, so destroy those who can.

Those who think the Fairness Doctrine is a wonderfully equitable thing, don’t have memory of its last installation, when it was used to strongarm broadcasters for political gain.

If liberals had anything worth listening to, they would be able to compete in the talk radio market. Unfortunately no one, not even liberals themselves, are willing to listen to it. This is why it will shut down conservative talk.

Rather than take the hits in the ratings by being forced to present liberal talk, the stations will simply change formats to financial talk, or merely play music to avoid lawsuits from wacko activist organizations who will march and chant at their studios.

Additionally, liberals are not talking about applying it to NPR, public television, network television, cable television, newspapers, magazines, book publishers, movie studios, etc. The only media that Fairness Doctrine supporters are concerned with, is the one media where Conservative thought thrives. Why?

It’s unfortunate that liberals do not support free speech.

Team Obama is showing signs of going for a complete power grab. AprilInOrbit is going for the big lie “nothing to see here, move along”.

The truth is that this is the beginning of a deliberate attempt to silence dissent. The issues are

- the am band was pretty much dead after the onset of FM.
- Some heavyset cigar smoking guy named rush somebody started going with a talk format and it took off.
- Conservative talk radio flourishes. Liberal talk radio falls on it’s face – look at err america and the station in DC.
- If the fairness doctrine is implemented, it will mean tha t broadcasters will have to split their time. Since half of that time will fail to generate listeners and revenue, the stations will be forced to abandon the format entirely.
- The so called mainstream media will not be affected by this. AprilInOrbit keeps mentioning the straw man arguement of P*nishead Oblieman. He would NOT be affected by the fairness doctrine.

This is the beginning folks. It’s only gonna get worse.

The idea of fairness for the mainstream media will be that someone gets to have a tingle somewhere besides their legs to offset chrissy matthews.

She’s a public figure – would have a hard time proving she was libeled and slandered.

Yes, she would have to prove “actual malice” or “reckless disregard for the truth” to make a slander/libel charge stick, which a non-public figure wouldn’t have to do. But I already covered that – either Olbermann knew he was lying, or he didn’t care enough to find out. Do you think she would have an easier time charging that his misquotation was “unbalanced”? Gimme a break. Oh, and…in case you didn’t notice, Olbermann doesn’t run a radio program, so the Fairness doctrine wouldn’t apply to him. It’s utterly meaningless to discuss whether a “fair” opposition to Olbermann would have solved anything, because no such opposition is in the offing.

The historical background on this whole thing is that it won’t be applied to places where liberal speech already dominates, and/or any “opposing voices” won’t actually be all that opposing.

I disagree – it you were right Air America would not be concerned and they are.

AprilOrit on February 16, 2009 at 9:49 PM

Did you read the part of the bill I quoted talking about how 90% of broadcast hours and more than 90% of broadcasted programs are conservative? That’s the part of the media that will be affected by the Fairness doctrine. The areas of the media dominated by liberal thought, e.g. televised programs like Keith Olbermann’s, will be unaffected. Putting up Air America as a single anecdote is disingenuous.

darwinatridge on February 16, 2009 at 9:59 PM

Article from News Busters.

AprilOrit on February 16, 2009 at 9:49 PM

Air America is concerned because the only ones that listened to their trash are those on the far left. Does anyone know if they are recipients of any bailout money? Because they where going broke because they could not get the advertising dollars for that exact reason. They did not have much of an audience.

The Fairness Doctrine or any such plan isn’t going to do anything to protect Sarah Palin, but it will prevent us from hearing about Sarah Palin. We have libel and slander laws already that people can avail themselves of when they want, including Sarah Palin.

She’s a public figure – would have a hard time proving she was libeled and slandered.

The historical background on this whole thing is that it won’t be applied to places where liberal speech already dominates, and/or any “opposing voices” won’t actually be all that opposing.

I disagree – it you were right Air America would not be concerned and they are.

Math_Mage on February 16, 2009 at 9:22 PM

Yes we are.

Get ready for the oppressive left in this country. The increase in taxes is just the beginning. They have more power as a result of Obama’s election and they will attempt to squelch freedom of speech in the USA by imposing the “Fairness Doctrine”. They can’t stop themselves. The left as a group is intolerant of anything, or anyone, who doesn’t agree with them.

This is only the beginning, folks.

EyeOnTheSky on February 16, 2009 at 8:36 PM

I’m afraid you’re right. Totalitarians-in-waiting.

Math_Mage on February 16, 2009 at 8:38 PM

You have my hand up on that one. there is a saying, ” Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat history”. The Nazi’s followed Hitler down that path to destruction. Thank God that there where those that chose to stand up against this immorality. Making that choice is not an easy one. But either way there where choices made. Right choices to stop an evil man and his followers and evil choices to destroy those that disagreed with them. That sounds like Socialism to me. The Fairness Doctrine is designed to do the same thing that Hitler did. Shut up his critics. Not to level the playing for evil purposes. Because the playing field is already unbalanced towards evil. You talk about freedom of choice, Yet these socialist want to restrict the freedom of everyone who disagrees with them. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are only document that will stand as long as our leaders care about them. Let’s take this a little further. This, as I said will not be a religious debate but I have one question. If their is a God and if the Bible is His word, do you think that one word of any law that is passed, including this Fairness Doctrine will change one single word from His word? We are not robots, but we are responsible for the choices we make. Like it or not. And those politicians that think they can change that will also be held responsible for the choices they make.

This is only the beginning, folks.

I’m afraid April, you don’t understand the concept of free speech, and you think there is actually a “truth” that can be determined for everything, when there isn’t.

The historical background on this whole thing is that it won’t be applied to places where liberal speech already dominates, and/or any “opposing voices” won’t actually be all that opposing.

The listeners and watchers don’t NEED someone else to come in and tell them what to listen to and who to heed. They are perfectly capable of flipping the dial and coming to their own conclusions, as they are not actually children need guiding by their betters.

You can’t control who or what people listen to “before they go into the voting booth,” nor should you even try. If they don’t vote the way we would like, well, that is just the way the cookie crumble.

The Fairness Doctrine or any such plan isn’t going to do anything to protect Sarah Palin, but it will prevent us from hearing about Sarah Palin. We have libel and slander laws already that people can avail themselves of when they want, including Sarah Palin.

Speech and opinion is not meant to be “nipped in the bud,” and should never be nipped in the bud.

That is the essence of free speech.

No, as I said true freedom comes with responsibility. You can argue till your blue in the face but bad choices are bad choices. Those bad choices are what tilts a nations to destruction. How balanced do you think that is?

darwinatridge on February 16, 2009 at 8:17 PM

The Bill of Rights is not to be abridged based on allegations of irresponsibility. Furthermore, do you really trust the government to decide what is “immoral,” what is “bad,” what is “responsible” and “balanced”? A child needs to be protected from making “bad choices.” I hope that the US is not yet a nation of children.

So you believe it was Fair and ok for Keith Olbermann to spread the misconception that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house, when in fact it was said by Tina Fey?

AprilOrit on February 16, 2009 at 8:08 PM

1. “Fair” has nothing to do with it.
2. A newscaster lying on TV (surely not an unprecedented occurrence) is insufficient reason to abridge the Constitution.
3. I believe Sarah Palin could sue for defamation:
a. Olbermann’s lie could cause her significant political damage, because her original statement was true and Olbermann’s misquote was false;
b. Olbermann could be reasonably expected to know the difference between what Palin said and what Tina Fey said, given his position.
c. Because of Olbermann’s position, his repeated misstatement is either a knowing lie (actual malice) or reckless disregard for the truth (if he hadn’t bothered to figure out what she actually said).

Certainly Olbermann can’t claim defense on truth, privilege, statement of opinion, fair comment on a matter of public interest, or innocent dissemination.

In any case, this situation is not a case of unbalanced reporting, but of dishonest reporting. There’s a huge difference. Enacting the Fairness Doctrine may not do anything about falsehoods like Olbermann’s, while still having all the negative effects previously described. Therefore, the Olbermann situation can only be described as a straw man, set up so that the real issue of unbalanced reporting can be avoided.

Math_Mage on February 16, 2009 at 8:09 PM

No, as I said true freedom comes with responsibility. You can argue till your blue in the face but bad choices are bad choices. Those bad choices are what tilts a nations to destruction. How balanced do you think that is?

AprilOrit on February 16, 2009 at 7:53 PM

Good for you. You understand what being responsible with your freedoms is all about. Making responsible choices in life goes hand in hand with maintaining those freedoms. When a nation of people start making bad immoral choices then the consequences that follow are something that they do not usually like. But just because they don’t like those consequences does not mean they will not happen. History has shown this to be true. Time and time again.

Maybe not. But politics and morality do.

darwinatridge on February 16, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Wrong. The right to freedom of expression includes the right to express immoral positions just as it includes the right to express unbalanced positions.

Math_Mage on February 16, 2009 at 7:59 PM

So you believe it was Fair and ok for Keith Olbermann to spread the misconception that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house, when in fact it was said by Tina Fey?