GOP preps for talk radio confrontation

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
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..
 

actsnoblemartin

I love Andrea & April
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
4,039
Reaction score
412
Points
98
Location
La Mesa, CA
you cannot impose fairness or diversity. The marketplace with determine what they like and dont like, period.

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..
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
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.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
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.
Do you really doubt that a successful liberal talk show host would not get the advertisements and airtime?
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,771
Reaction score
15,165
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
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
 
OP
Stephanie

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
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.
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...
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
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
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?
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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.
If libs can't attract listeners on their own - why should people be forced to listen to them?
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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

Care, libs have the same chances to succeed in talk radio as conservatives. The problem is libs will not do what is needed.

First, all the broadcast is hate and rage. People do not want to listen tp that.

That is why they do not have the listener base needed to attract sponsors

Without sponsors there is no money coming in to the stations that carry the program

Without money, stations have no incentive to carry the show

It is all about money and ratings. Liberal talk shows bring in neither
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,771
Reaction score
15,165
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
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...
stephanie, the fairness doctrine DOES NOT force any talk show host on to you?



here's a little info:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.

-Val E. Limburg
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Care, why can't libs do the hard work needed to build up a radio network? For some reason, libs think all they have to do is start sprewing their crap and people will flock to the radio to hear them
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,771
Reaction score
15,165
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
Care, libs have the same chances to succeed in talk radio as conservatives. The problem is libs will not do what is needed.

First, all the broadcast is hate and rage. People do not want to listen tp that.

That is why they do not have the listener base needed to attract sponsors

Without sponsors there is no money coming in to the stations that carry the program

Without money, stations have no incentive to carry the show

It is all about money and ratings. Liberal talk shows bring in neither
WHERE do you get this from rsr? the fairness doctrine has NOTHING to do with talk radio hosts?

okay?
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
WHERE do you get this from rsr? the fairness doctrine has NOTHING to do with talk radio hosts?

okay?
Care, you can spin it anyway you want. Libs can't compete with conservatives so they now want to silence them

That is what they want - along with some screwed up Republicans
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,771
Reaction score
15,165
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
Care, why can't libs do the hard work needed to build up a radio network? For some reason, libs think all they have to do is start sprewing their crap and people will flock to the radio to hear them

RSR, the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE has NOTHING to do with talk radio?

nothing!

care
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top