If you had any question concerning how much the left wants the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine in order to kill conservative talk radio, you got your answer on the floor of the Senate Friday.
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from reinstituting this archaic edict.
As NewsBusters reported on June 30, such an amendment overwhelmingly passed in the House a few weeks ago by the tally of 309 to 115.
Unfortunately, Senate Democrats didn’t even want to debate this issue, and, instead, lead by Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), objected.
For those interested, an unofficial transcript of Coleman and Durbin’s exchange – which marvelously depicts the differences in how liberals and conservatives view the Fairness Doctrine – follows (video available here):
On Wednesday, Republican Representatives Mike Pence (Indiana) and Greg Walden (Oregon) joined Republican Senators Norm Coleman (Minnesota), Jim DeMint (South Carolina), James Inhofe (Oklahoma), and John Thune (South Dakota) in a press conference to discuss preventing the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine.
For those that are interested, the entire event can be heard on MP3 in two parts here and here.
As NewsBusters has reported here and here, Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) is on a mission to prevent the reinstitution of an archaic Federal Communications Commission edict disingenuously called the Fairness Doctrine.
As most sane people are aware, folks calling for this reinstatement are interested in anything but fairness, and, instead, are looking to kill conservative talk radio.
With that in mind, Congressman Pence spoke on the floor of the House Wednesday about the urgency to pass the Broadcaster Freedom Act which would permanently prohibit the reinstitution of this pathetic doctrine (video available here):
When it comes to the First Amendment, too many people in this country have a distorted sense of what that document actually means.
This is especially true of the liberal elite media which construe the First Amendment in the following manner: 1) Congress shall not make any attempt to censor or diminish the rights of any media outlet--except those dominated by the right. 2) Congress shall not restrict flag burning or any form of pornography. 3) Religious people do not have the right to express their religion in public. 4) Political speech is equal to money and therefore can be censored at whim.
To those who doubt that, take a gander at this recent Kansas City Star editorial, denouncing the new John Roberts court:
result, made clear in rulings handed down this week and earlier, is
empowerment for the powerful and callousness toward individuals.
If the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to reinstate the controversial Fairness Doctrine which has not been in force since the ’80s, do you think it would have been headline news?
Well, on Thursday, an amendment to the Financial Services Appropriations bill prohibiting funds to be used to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters passed in an extraordinary show of bipartisanship 309 to 115.
In fact, 113 Democrats joined 196 Republicans in favor of this funding ban. Yet, virtually no media reported the news.
Before we get to that, the following statement was made by one of the amendment’s sponsors, Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) on Thursday:
In the eyes of most political observers, the Democratic takeover of Congress signaled tougher federal scrutiny of business interests, but those same pundits might make an exception for the entertainment industry given that Hollywood is a major financial base for Democrats. But when the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on children and TV violence on June 26, the roles seemed to be reversed: it was the Democrats taking the entertainment industry to task as socially irresponsible, while Republicans in general favored the do-nothing approach.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) began with a strong call for the television barons to stop pouring sewage into America’s living rooms, promising to introduce a tough bill next month to allow federal regulation of indecent, violent, and profane content on TV. He slammed Hollywood for putting its short-term profits ahead of the long-term interests of children by conducting "a never-ending race to the bottom," and insisted the industry was “unable and unwilling to police itself."
With all the carping and whining about conservative talk radio these days, I’m beginning to wonder if this is indeed a larger cause of all the planet’s woes than global warming.
In fact, if you hadn’t noticed, there are a number of high-ranking political officials who believe the public’s opinion of illegal immigration emanates directly from radio talk show hosts that are enflaming the citizenry concerning this important issue.
Regardless of the sudden frequency of such publicly-aired sentiments, or their inanity, to hear them expressed on the floor of the Senate by the Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) Thursday was nevertheless entertaining (video available here courtesy of Allah at Hot Air):
Joseph Berger's New York Times column on education today doubled as a film review. "Film Portrays Stifling of Speech, but One College's Struggle Reflects a Nuanced Reality" criticized an anti-PC documentary, "Indoctrinate U," by bringing in an incident that occurred at Vassar college that was not even featured in the movie. Berger actually defended Vassar punishing a conservative campus publication by defunding it and shutting it down for a year.
"A new documentary is making the rounds that argues, with vivid examples, that the nation's colleges are squelching freedom of expression and are no longer free marketplaces of ideas.
"The film carries the striking title 'Indoctrinate U,' and was made by Evan Coyne Maloney, who describes himself as a libertarian and is looking for a national distributor.
Anyone that has picked up a newspaper, or turned on a radio or television recently knows that liberals are once again mounting a campaign to subvert free speech, and eliminate conservative talk radio.
With this in mind, Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) announced on the House floor Wednesday a bill he plans to introduce that would prevent Democrat efforts to reinstate what is somewhat hypocritically called the “Fairness Doctrine.”
What follows is the prepared text of Pence’s statement, as well as additional information supplied by the Congressman on a conference call held early this morning (emphasis added):
“Elizabeth Edwards should look close to home when it comes to ‘hatefulness and ugliness’ for it was her husband’s Democratic presidential campaign that hired two official bloggers who attacked ‘Christofascists’ and insulted Christians and their faith in the most repulsive words imaginable, which I won’t repeat here. Go Google Amanda Marcotte and Holy Spirit.
By now, most people in America have viewed the scene from Tuesday’s “Hardball” when Elizabeth Edwards, wife of presidential candidate John Edwards, called in to dress down Chris Matthews’ guest, conservative writer Ann Coulter.
After seeing the coverage of this matter Wednesday morning, a revelation made at MSNBC’s “Hardblogger” emits a bit of a rodent aroma leading one to believe that this entire incident was set up not just to embarrass Coulter, but possibly to advance the current Democrat push to squash conservative talk radio (emphasis added):
The discussion ended up being a classic battle between a capitalist who believes that free market forces are determining programming on the radio dial and a leftist who feels ownership is to blame for the scarcity of liberal talk shows.
In fact, Schultz actually was rather hypocritical in his position as demonstrated by the following (video available here):
Webster’s defines “conservatism” as meaning “marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners.” Sadly, today there are those who call themselves “conservative” who have no interest in preserving tradition, who uphold no standards on the question of taste, and who have no appetite for appearing the slightest bit fuddy-duddy on the question of manners.
This kind of conservative has embraced the anarchical libertarian worldview which on matters of traditional manners and tastes throws caution to the winds, embracing the notion that the “market” – society’s lowest common denominator on cultural issues -- should decide. And if this erosion of traditional values leads to the disintegration of the culture, so be it.
This might explain why a managing editor of National Review Online, a brand name synonymous with conservatism, would be arguing that the F-word is not indecent on national broadcast television in prime time; insists that the idea of “community standards” in matters of public morality is out of touch; and perhaps most surprisingly, mocks the idea that “the sanctity of children’s ears” is a defensible moral cause, as if innocent kindergarteners can’t handle full-fledged cussing binges.
Update (Ken Shepherd): Maloney tells me he'll be on the John Gibson radio program on Fox News radio shortly after 6:20 p.m. to discuss this.
As NewsBusters reported here and here, liberals around the country are carping and whining about conservatives having too much control of AM radio.
In fact, just yesterday, the Center for American Progress issued an outline as to what needs to be done to counter what it views as an unfair dominance of the airwaves by conservatives.
With that in mind, Brian Maloney has taken a look at the data collected by the Center to identify just how bad things really are for those poor liberals trying to compete with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al.
What Maloney found – not surprisingly – was that the Center fudged the numbers a bit to make it look like things were much worse than they actually are (emphasis added throughout):
This information was relayed to radio host John Zeigler of KFI 640 AM Los Angeles by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) who witnessed the Senators talking about something that they heard on talk radio which upset them so that they said:
We’ve got to do something about this. These are nothing but far rightwing extremists. We’ve got to have a balance. There’s got to be a legislative fix to this.
For those interested, an audio of this discussion is available here, with the transcript to follow:
The supposedly “free speech” left are out in force trying to silence all voices in the media with views different than their own just in time for the 2008 presidential campaign.
Potentially more worrisome, one liberal advocate in the middle of this debate has close ties to the Clintons, although it is quite unlikely the press will convey such when its recommendations are disseminated with their predictable stamp of approval.
With that in mind, the left-leaning Center for American Progress published a report Thursday detailing how conservatives dominate the talk radio dial, and exactly what needs to be done legislatively for liberals to wrest control over this medium (emphasis added throughout):
Reporting on yesterday’s “Take Back America” liberal conference, CNSNews.com’s Randy Hall shows how the organized Left is mounting a full-fledged campaign to delegitimize Fox News and other non-liberal media outlets. The Leftists are especially gleeful that they managed to persuade Democratic candidates to boycott any debates that would be aired on the Fox News Channel, with MoveOn.org’s Adam Green boasting about how the successful scuttling of Fox debates provides "a blueprint for things that we can continue to do now and in the future, which is finding key leverage points to achieve victories against our opponents."
Next up on the agenda, according to these Leftists, is an attempt to block the sale of the Wall Street Journal to NewsCorp’s Rupert Murdoch.
If a counterterrorism officer working for England’s Scotland Yard admitted to leaking an intelligence report containing al Qaeda attack plans to a British newspaper, do you think this would be newsworthy here in the States?
Well, our media certainly didn’t think so, as such occurred in a British courtroom Monday, but not one American press outlet deigned to share the information with us.
As reported by This is London (h/t NB reader Gil Andrews, emphasis added throughout):
ABC’s Brian Ross broke an exclusive story Monday, first at his blog “The Blotter,” and then on “World News with Charles Gibson,” concerning teams of well-trained al Qaeda suicide bombers supposedly heading to the United States and Europe.
Jim Manzi [of National Review’s Planet Gore] recently posted on the problems encountered when experts undertook even a cursory examination of the U.S.'s surface temperature measuring stations, which are the world's most reliable...a sobering thought for reasons we all shall soon see.
For those that don’t think our enemies are watching the activities surrounding America’s antiwar movement, just consider that several Syrian media outlets reported Cindy Sheehan’s resignation as peace activist last month.
In fact, one Syrian columnist actually did a significantly better job than any major American journalist.of accurately tying Sheehan's disgust with Democrats to their failure to live up to their 2006 campaign promises.
Assume for a moment there was evidence some weather stations around the country were underestimating mean temperatures. Would a media fixated on expanding climate change alarmism investigate and report this phenomenon to demonstrate that the planet was actually warmer than people think?
“60 Minutes,” “20/20,” and “Dateline” would have all done rather lengthy exposés into the matter, correct?
Well, a former meteorologist for the CBS-TV affiliate KHSL in Redding, California, by the name of Anthony Watts has examined 48 of the 1221 weather stations in the 48 lower states, and found irregularities that could be skewing the data upward.
Watts reported his first startling finding on this subject at his “Watts Up With That?” website on May 9, 2007 (emphasis added throughout):
Fox News anchor Geraldo Rivera appeared on the June 15 edition of "Fox and Friends" to blast the organized left wing campaign against Fox News. After discussing Angelina Jolie’s banning of Fox News from her premier of "A Mighty Heart," Geraldo moved on to blast the far left blogs, and some Democrats, particularly John Edwards, who willingly followed. Geraldo could not resist to express his loathing of immigration enforcement and expressed outrage that some Democrats "go over and kiss CNN’s a**" when they have enforcement proponent Lou Dobbs.
Geraldo noted the Fox News has "just as many different opinions on different issues as any other network." He then labeled this anti-Fox campaign as "a form of censorship." The entire transcript is below.
It seems that Rosie did more on “The View” than lame Donald Trump imitations, belittle Elisabeth Hasselbeck (as well as Republicans in general) and advance ridiculous conspiracy theories that defy logic, not to mention physics. Rosie also controlled the issues discussed on the “The View,” and while she was on the show, certain issues were off limits...like heterosexual sex.
According to the TV Guide, during a June 13 appearance on the popular LA-based radio show “On-Air with Ryan Seacrest,” Barbara Walters revealed the control that Rosie wielded over the show's daily discussions. From the TV Guide (bold mine throughout):
On several occasions I have pointed out how much better foreign media are at presenting reports either skeptical of anthropogenic global warming or addressing the failings in government sanctioned solutions.
Last week, the BBC did a report on the European Union’s carbon trading scheme failing so miserably that CO2 emissions in the region have actually increased since the strategy was implemented.
Think any American television news division would touch this story save maybe Fox News?
Regardless of the answer, BBC.com presented some of the findings on June 5 (h/t Willis Eschenbach):