Yip Yap Times

Fairness Doctrine: Trojan

The Democrats have been yip yapping for some time about the dominance of conservative talk shows in the AM band. As explained in “The Fairness or Unfairness Doctrine?”, a few of the proud of the extreme left, comprised of the likes of Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin and Diane Feinstein, have figured out what to do with the likes of Rush Limbaugh—demand the return of the old FCC Fairness Doctrine. This is the same Fairness Doctrine that lapsed in 1987 because it didn’t do what the FCC thought it would do: air both sides of a controversial story on the three available nightly TV news shows.

With the wide variety of media outlets provided by twenty-first century communications technology, debate should theoretically happen among broadcasts and print media. But with the playing field tilted almost vertical in favor of liberal news, we need a Fairness Doctrine to ensure that other viewpoints get a chance to be heard. But conservatives will never demand a fairness doctrine to level the playing field because they believe in the free speech doctrine.

Like dangerous malware buried deep in legitimate web downloads, the Democrats’ dangerous agenda behind their campaign to reactivate the Fairness Doctrine is buried deep beneath high sounding words like “fair” and “balance.” Thanks to conservative radio and the tiny number of right-thinking people sprinkled in the mainstream media, a huge segment of the American people understand the intent of the liberal Democrats’ sudden concern with media fairness. Couple this with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence’s Broadcasters’ Freedom Act and a sure routing of the Democrats’ offense to limit the First Amendment is all but guaranteed.

The party of the left knows it has no real justification to summon the Fairness Doctrine back from the dead. But they will do whatever it takes to be unchallenged, such as whining a lot or using a strategy of lies, bigotry, intolerance and character assassination. Cybercast News Service reported that the Democrats intend to push for the regulation by linking talk radio to hate crimes. They have requested a federal study of how licensed broadcasting facilities have delivered “messages of bigotry or hatred, creating a climate of fear and inciting individuals to commit hate crimes.” If your ideas aren’t acceptable to the ears of your hearers, then ram them in with federal chop sticks.

The predominant success of conservative radio hosts has resulted from the free market mechanism as many news analysts have explained. The failure of Al Franken’s “Air America” had nothing to do with denial of air time—it just sucked. National Public Radio would probably crash and burn too if it wasn’t getting propped up by the American taxpayer. Liberal talk show host Stephanie Mills told Sean Hannity in a recent interview that liberal radio is not failing in the free market. We had only to look at the success of her own show, about which she boasted a rating quadruple that of any other show, to see this.

“Why is radio 90% conservative and only 10% liberal?” she asked, implying the automatic success of any liberal show if it were allowed on the air. Lefties, being far too holy to understand the profit motive behind free markets, refuse to accept that liberal claptrap isn’t popular with the majority of radio listeners, and therefore it isn’t popular with a majority of radio investors. Her big idea to solve the inequity in the AM band is to force investors to air more Al Franken and go bust and be happy about it.

The liberal left is at war with the First Amendment. If liberal radio is so popular, then it is apparent that the Democrats’ proposed study of hate crimes in talk radio will be limited to conservative shows. The goal is to impose Orwellian “hate speech” codes on any media outlet or person that exposes the left’s true agenda. Ronald Reagan said it best:

“The framers of the First Amendment, confident that public debate would be freer and healthier without the kind of interference represented by the ‘fairness doctrine,’ chose to forbid such regulations in the clearest terms: ‘Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’... History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee. [The ‘fairness doctrine’] simply cannot be reconciled with the freedom of speech and the press secured by our Constitution. It is, in my judgment, unconstitutional. Well-intentioned as [the ‘fairness doctrine’] may be, it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment and with the American tradition of independent journalism.”

fairness doctrine
fairness doctrine

posted by Lisa @ 4:59 PM 0 comments

The Fairness or Unfairness Doctrine?

Whenever you hear words like “fair” and “fairness” coming out of the mouths of Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein you know that your wallet or one of your constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are up for give-and-take negotiations: you give, they take. This latest Democrat move to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine is nothing but an underhanded attempt to silence the opposition.

The Fairness Doctrine of 1949 was applied by the FCC back in the days when there were only three broadcast stations and the radio played only the top 40. The Fairness Doctrine was put in place to ensure that broadcasters presented a variety of views on controversial subjects, beyond their own. The FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 when it was found that it had the net effect of reducing rather than encouraging debate. Broadcasters tended to avoid controversy because they feared government fines and the potential loss of a federal license. The lack of real debate in the airwaves maintained the political status quo that was promoted by the print media.

With advancement in communications technology the Fairness Doctrine is an anachronism. It makes one wonder why the hard sell to put it back in place. The liberals don't lack for opportunities across the spectrum of American media outlets. They dominate the print media, the mainstream broadcast news, most of the cable news stations and the taxpayer-funded National Public Radio. How many conservative stations are supported by the taxpayer?

Clearly, the Democrats’ real target is to reduce the influence of the conservative voices on the AM band. The conservative radio talk shows have been so effective in providing fair debate to the Left’s ideas that Diane Feinstein has blamed them for the defeat of the immigration bill. That is, their unchecked bias was to blame and hence the need for “balance” on talk radio. Does Feinstein believe that all the rest of the comfortably liberal media was insufficient to loudly provide alternate views to those of a few radio shows? “Balance” is liberal speak for domination. The immigration bill failed because the liberals and their media lap dogs didn't have a leg to stand on and thanks to conservative radio shows, the American public found that out. Without conservative radio to balance the rest of the media universe, the American public will remain vulnerable to half-truths and flat out harmful liberal ideas.

The Democrats' sudden interest in fairness begs the obvious question: will MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, the editorial page of the New York Times and Bill Moyers will be required to give equal time to opposing viewpoints? Hardly. The problem is that the Left's 1960s nihilistic social and political ideology has been and will continue to be summarily rejected by a majority of the American people who, having suffered decades from the fruit of their policies, demand common sense and rightness in governance. Since the Left's ideas cannot compete, the left wing of the Democrat Party is seeking to use the power of the Legislature to shut down the competition. The First Amendment be damned, full speed ahead. If the so-called Fairness Doctrine comes back to life, what is to stop the Left from regulating the internet?

Thank goodness Representative Mike Pence (R-6th Indiana) is on his toes. On June 29, he introduced, along with 100 sponsors, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, a bill that would prevent the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Rep. Pence's legislation is critical to ensuring actual fair and balanced debate of controversial issues. To squelch conservative talk radio is to set the country up for extremely bad, and even dangerous, governance and it is un-American to boot.

posted by Lisa @ 8:50 AM 0 comments