President Barack Obama's recent statement about his opposition to resurrecting the so-called Fairness Doctrine is a good first step, but shouldn't be the only step his administration takes to burying political censorship by the FCC for good, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell and Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) President Grover Norquist argued in a joint statement released today.
[click logo above at right to be directed to the Free Speech Alliance petition]
After all, liberal organizations and individuals like MoveOn.org, ACORN, John Podesta's Center for American Progress, House Energy and Commerce Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) have expressed their intention to silence talk radio by alternative regulatory means such as nebulous FCC "diversity" in ownership and "localism" requirements.
President Obama must make clear his opposition to those back-door regulations as well, Mr. Bozell declared:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓"We are glad that President Obama says that he ‘does not believe the (so-called) Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.' But he should state his opposition to the use of any FCC regulation with the intent of censoring talk radio. He should also guarantee a veto of any bill that will silence free speech on the airwaves.
"The President should also insist that his nominee for FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, publicly pledge right away - before his confirmation hearing -- that he too vows not to use the regulatory powers of the FCC to silence talk radio. We need to know definitively that the man who will head up Obama's FCC will in every way possible preserve free speech on the airwaves.
ATR President and Free Speech Alliance petition signator Grover Norquist agreed:
While I'm pleased to hear the President say he opposes revival of the ironically named "fairness doctrine," I'd like to hear him come out with full-throated support for freedom of speech. Government censorship has many forms, and while President Obama now opposes this form, where does he stand on the more ominous issue of censorship by proxy under the friendly sounding ‘localism' banner?
Call me a skeptic, but while what a politician says worries me, what they explicitly don't say worries me even more. If liberals want an equal voice on talk radio they simply need to produce a product the public wants to hear. It's the public rejection of the products they've offered thus far that has made liberal talk radio a failure, not some ‘vast right-wing conspiracy.'
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Politicians Love to Split Hairs
February 19, 2009 - 14:32 ET by deerjerkydavePoliticians love to split hairs. When Obama says he opposes the return of the fairness doctrine, he may only be saying that he opposes it in the same form that it existed previously. He may not oppose other new measures which produce the same net effect, the censorship of conservative talk radio.
Fairness Doctrine
February 19, 2009 - 15:26 ET by JDWHow would manipulating the FD benefit lib blogs?
Permitting equal participation by conservatives is like playing 9th grade football against varsity.
JDW
DAILY WAVE
Whatever else you think, your mother and my mother are both mothers
Every once in a while.....
February 19, 2009 - 15:28 ET by notinstl....roll down to Sirius Left Radio. I hear Bill "I want to be heard (even though apparently noone wants to hear him)" Press, Thom Hartman, some lady with a VERY annoying voice and Making it plain w/Mark (I sugges it's "making it painful"). If these individuals were saying something that someone wanted to hear, they'd find them. As it is, they are unlistenable.....rhetoric, no facts, no rational discussions...I try to take in more than one perspective on things, but surely there is someone that can speak that side of things and sound semi-coherent...
Fairness in the Airways
February 19, 2009 - 20:16 ET by ChattychitoThe whole thing the Fairness doctrine promotes supposedly is the that opposing views be presented on any view on every Media outlet whether it is Radio, TV, Cable or Internet.
The problem is that MSNBC, CBS, ABC and CNN et al, would and do comply by not showing true oppositional views.
Generally the way it goes is something like this, they (the Media outlet)have a real hard critic of a position like Christ Matthews give is rehearsed positional rendition of the evils of the Plan plus the evils of those who oppose it.
Then they have some pansy, usually somebody nobody has ever heard of, give some oppositional rendition of a High School level debate, that any normal intelligent person could not genuinely consider that the spokesman of the opposing view really represents that of the Oppositional view.
Fairness is not in the amount of time given to opposing views but that truth is given the chance to be seen and heard by the viewing American public. Not the hyped up Media lie they want to spoon feed us. Which often is like giving a child a does of Castor Oil for the second time.
What the main line media considers to be the Fairness Doctrine is not considered to be fair at all but lopped sided Media Bias.
Didn't Bozell Campaign To Get Howard Stern Off The Air?
February 19, 2009 - 20:38 ET by The7SticksIt's a bit of a double standard to claim that you support freedom of speech on talk radio, because wasn't Bozell one of the may so-called "decency" advocates who wanted Howard Stern's so-called "filth" off the air? Bozell was present at President Bush's 2006 signing of the "Broadcast Decency Act", or as I more appropriately call it, the Broadcast Censorship Act, which boosted the fines for people who use expletives, even fleeting uses. I keep hearing there is a complete difference between the two issues, but I don't buy it. Isn't it perfectly within the confines of polite discussion to have some intelligent conversations about the usage of such expletives? After all, that's what George Carlin did best in his "Seven Dirty Words" monologue, because he did have such a mastery of the English language and could tell you that there were always someone who tries to replace a word with a euphemism. Did you know that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was referred to as "shell-shock" back in WWII? I wouldn't have known that if it weren't for such language geniuses like Carlin.
So my point is, it's kind of a double standard if you oppose the Censorship Doctrine when you have supported the Broadcast Censorship Act, isn't it? Why should we be afraid of seven dirty words the way liberals are afraid of conservative talk show hosts? Either all speech is free speech or it isn't. That's the way I see it.
I certainly think there is a difference between
February 19, 2009 - 21:32 ET by general companyPolitical speech and porno speech. Stern should be held above the decency laws?,,,,Why? Keeping one ideas censored is a bit different then describing another stripper.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg