GOP preps for talk radio confrontation

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Stephanie, Jun 28, 2007.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    It's time to make our voices heard AGAIN....WE cannot let theses pukes try and silence us..

    By Alexander Bolton
    June 27, 2007
    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.

    Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she planned to “look at the legal and constitutional aspects of” reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

    “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit,” she said. “But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

    Feinstein said she is not yet ready to submit a formal proposal.

    Democrats on the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee have also begun to focus on what they regard as a lack of diversity in talk radio, and may hold hearings later this year.

    To halt the growing momentum in Congress to balance conservative radio programming, House lawmakers are preparing to introduce legislation this week that would codify the FCC’s 1985 decision to abandon the Fairness Doctrine.

    Rep. Mike Pence (R), who worked as a syndicated talk radio host in Indiana before winning election to the House, is the main sponsor of the legislation. He is working with Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), a radio station owner, on the bill.

    “A liberal think tank recently condemned what they called a massive imbalance on the airwaves,” said Pence. “I think a case is being made for government control of the use of the airwaves. The legislation we’re preparing is aimed at preventing that
    from happening.”

    The House Republican leadership and officials at the White House have reviewed the draft legislation.

    If passed, the bill would require Congress to change the law before the FCC could mandate that television and radio hosts present conservative and liberal programming side by side. But the chances of passage are slim, given Democratic control of the Senate and House.

    Still, Pence said the legislation could draw enough public attention to the issue to make it difficult for a future Democratic president or the Democratic-controlled Congress to pressure the FCC to increase regulation of radio content.

    Conservatives have grown more apprehensive about a change to FCC policy under a Democratic administration in the wake of recent reports that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the Democratic presidential primary front-runner, would support rules requiring more political balance on talk radio.

    Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told a Los Angeles radio host last week that he had once overheard Clinton and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on a Capitol elevator complain about the prevalence of “right-wing extremists” on talk radio. He said that Clinton and Boxer discussed their desire for a “legislative fix.”


    Clinton and Boxer have denied the conversation ever took place.

    But Inhofe believes that Bill and Hillary Clinton and their allies are setting the stage for greater government regulation of conservative talk radio.

    “This is the Clinton White House,” said Inhofe. “They are trying to regulate the content of talk radio from the ownership perspective, hoping to circumvent freedom of speech arguments.”

    Inhofe cited a recent report by the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank headed by John Podesta, who served as Clinton’s White House chief of staff. A June 20 report by the think tank described a “massive imbalance” on the radio airwaves.

    The report suggested several steps to “encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming” and “diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs.”

    It recommended restoring ownership caps on radio stations; “greater accountability” over radio licensing; and that commercial owners who fail to abide by “public interest obligations” pay to support public broadcasting.

    Pence hopes to rally colleagues around the issue with a speech that he plans to deliver on the House floor today.

    “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio has emerged as a dynamic forum for public debate and an asset to the nation,” Pence wrote in his prepared remarks. “Unfortunately, in the name of fairness, there has been much talk in recent days about the need to level the playing field of radio broadcasting by restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

    “Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves,” he wrote.
    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-preps-for-talk-radio-confrontation-2007-06-27.html

    Call, write, email, fax..
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. actsnoblemartin
    Offline

    actsnoblemartin I love Andrea & April

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,039
    Thanks Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    La Mesa, CA
    Ratings:
    +407
    you cannot impose fairness or diversity. The marketplace with determine what they like and dont like, period.

     
  3. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Oh please. Conservative talkers have some 90% of the airtime, leaving the rest for liberal talkers, level the playing field then let the market sort it out.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Do you really doubt that a successful liberal talk show host would not get the advertisements and airtime?
     
  5. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,783
    Thanks Received:
    6,623
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,103
    The premise that the Fairness Doctrine makes a radio station split their airtime among two different hosts of opposite sides is utterly FALSE.

    The Fairness Doctrine, only requires the radio station THAT USES THE TAX PAYER'S LIMITED AIRWAVES, to allow time for an opposing view on topics of public interest. That's it. And quite frankly, this is fair and just, since our radio waves are limited to just a few Americans owning licenced by the gvt stations, verses the incredible amount of Americans that wanted these licences to broadcast.

    Public Interest could be an opposing view given on a new stadium in their town verses the ones hyping a new one could be a "public interest" where it is important that the citizens get information on both views, and not just the view of the station owner or editor.

    Have any of you even read the "Fairness Doctrine"? And the supreme Court's decision regarding it?

    It's a good read.

    Care
     
  6. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    So...we need the government to force the liberal talkers on us??

    We're not so stupid, to not see what the Democrats are trying to pull here..

    I can't believe you would stand behind this...

    Always talking about how Bush and Republicans are taking away all your rights...
     
  7. Ninja
    Offline

    Ninja Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Thanks Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Glorious People's Republic of California
    Ratings:
    +377
    The market has already sorted it out.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    If they were so 'limited' how did Air America get on? They are not limited, just market driven. If the liberal point of view cannot sell advertisement, the Fairness Doctrine would require the management to run the programs without. We all know that wouldn't happen, so then successful programs would be cut, in favor of programming-music/sports that can sell.

    Why isn't there badmiton on radio sports programs?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    If libs can't attract listeners on their own - why should people be forced to listen to them?
     
  10. Ninja
    Offline

    Ninja Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Thanks Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Glorious People's Republic of California
    Ratings:
    +377
    "Oh, ummmm, but, uh, uh, Randi Rhodes used to beat Rush Limbaugh in an ultra-liberal part of Florida! Uh, yeah, that's it! See? Liberal talk radio is a hit!"

    - Bullypulpit
     

Share This Page