DeMint to force vote on "fairness" doctrine

the funny thing is;

1) gunga ho and his fellow travelers were on fire about "diversity of ownership". their view was that it would kill conservative radio, because of course, they appear to define the word "diversity" in purely ethnic and cultural terms.

2) i gave a simple explanation of what "diversity of ownership" means. also gave an example. i didn't use any bad words there.

3) gunga snack's response to my post was;


he also alluded to his impending "C W II" should he be deprived of his daily download from the central conservative hard drive; (i use the term loosely; there's nothing conservative about gun get dinner or his vaunted radio stars).

4) i confess... confronted with such obtuse, or possibly, lack of intellect, i became frustrated and well... i....okay. i told him to pull his head out of his ass. but jeeez... it really bugs me when people are purposely dimwitted.

5) to tell the truth though, i'm concerned that gunsheb heatlump will not have the great stamina required to pull off his hannity inspired civil war II if his feelings are so easily hurt by a tiny little bitch slap.

Foxfyre wrote:

Woiyo's post re the dirty little secret built into the bill that 'killed' the Fairness Doctrine should get everybody's attention here. Look for lawmakers and their media advocates to pronounce the Fairness Doctrine dead today. Don't expect them to play up the 'promote diversity in ownership' clause, however, that could be the biggest assault on freedom of the press that Congress has come up with since McCain/Feingold and could be far more dangerous.

The whole problem with 'fairness' is who gets to decide what that is? What criteria do they use? Who figures out whether there is compliance? If 90% of Americans favor any issue, must 50% of the time radio or television devoted to it still be opposed to it? What relief is offered to radio stations who can't get advertisers because nobody wants to listen to what the government says they have to put on?

But far more chilling is the government deciding what 'diversity' looks like in deciding which citizens will receive licenses to operate a radio station. Again who gets to decide that? What criteria do they use? Would the lefties be comfortable with the Bush administration deciding that? Will those right of center feel good about the current Congress and Administration deciding that? Isn't having control of PBS enough?

There is a lot of unused band width out there available for anybody to use. If there is a market for more 'diversity', there is absolutely nothing stopping anybody from taking advantage of it.

But if we allow the government to decide who will run the media and what it will be allowed to put on the air, we might as well hang it up because without our First Amendment, we will have no freedom at all.

I would be very happy to see the Obamaites try to censor conservative and Christian radio. I am sure of several outcomes:

1. Continued commentary by conservative TV, Conservative magazines and conservative nespapers and blogs reminding watchers and readers of who exactly was responsible

2.Thousands of letters and phone calls to Congressmen, especially those House and Senate members running in November 2010.

3. The leftwing House and Senate members have probably never seen the door to door campaign that would ensue if and when the radio broadcast regulations were passed.

I would be very happy to see the regulations passed. It would materially reduce the Democratic hold on the House and Senate.

The truth is that the right wishes to censure free speech by forestalling any action that would permit the left to have a voice on the public airways. The right doesn't seem to realize that the people own these airways, and are entitled to hear all types of voices. That is what free speech is all about.

Of course, the public owns the airwaves. It also owns the airwaves on which TV is broadcast. At this time, the three major stations CBS< NBC AND ABC ALL LEAN LEFT. There should be some equity-agreed.

I would be very happy to see the Obamaites try to censor conservative and Christian radio. I am sure of several outcomes:

1. Continued commentary by conservative TV, Conservative magazines and conservative nespapers and blogs reminding watchers and readers of who exactly was responsible

2.Thousands of letters and phone calls to Congressmen, especially those House and Senate members running in November 2010.

3. The leftwing House and Senate members have probably never seen the door to door campaign that would ensue if and when the radio broadcast regulations were passed.

I would be very happy to see the regulations passed. It would materially reduce the Democratic hold on the House and Senate.

Reply report Sun 1 Mar, 2009 05:13 pm Foxfyre wrote:

Woiyo's post re the dirty little secret built into the bill that 'killed' the Fairness Doctrine should get everybody's attention here. Look for lawmakers and their media advocates to pronounce the Fairness Doctrine dead today. Don't expect them to play up the 'promote diversity in ownership' clause, however, that could be the biggest assault on freedom of the press that Congress has come up with since McCain/Feingold and could be far more dangerous.

The whole problem with 'fairness' is who gets to decide what that is? What criteria do they use? Who figures out whether there is compliance? If 90% of Americans favor any issue, must 50% of the time radio or television devoted to it still be opposed to it? What relief is offered to radio stations who can't get advertisers because nobody wants to listen to what the government says they have to put on?

But far more chilling is the government deciding what 'diversity' looks like in deciding which citizens will receive licenses to operate a radio station. Again who gets to decide that? What criteria do they use? Would the lefties be comfortable with the Bush administration deciding that? Will those right of center feel good about the current Congress and Administration deciding that? Isn't having control of PBS enough?

There is a lot of unused band width out there available for anybody to use. If there is a market for more 'diversity', there is absolutely nothing stopping anybody from taking advantage of it.

But if we allow the government to decide who will run the media and what it will be allowed to put on the air, we might as well hang it up because without our First Amendment, we will have no freedom at all.

That's pretty far from the truth. The truth is that in the Washington D.C. region (and I'm not aware of a reason to think that most other regions would be different) we have any number of radio stations spewing left wing BS all over creation including at least one (NPR) which spews leftwing BS abroad at public expense, and the ONLY radio station we have which features the half dozen or so well known conservative talk hosts which demoKKKrats want to shut down is the one AM station WMAL.

Apparently having one dissenting voice is too ******* much for today's demoKKKrats but, again, they **** with WMAL at the risk of going into the history books on the same page as King George.