The Fairness Doctrine Is Next (Before or After Global Warming)

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Blames Fairness Doctrine Abolishment for Conservatism Popularity

It looks like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is running for the office of chief censor. He absolutely hates the free flow of ideas and makes it plain in this Digital Journal article about his appearance on the same London, Ontario stage where ironically two days earlier Canadian university officials attempted to censor Ann Coulter.  Kennedy, upholding that same spirit of censorship, blames the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine for the rise of political views that don't fit into his liberal world vision:

Hero of the right, President Ronald Reagan, is no hero to Kennedy. "He had the gift of making people feel comfortable with their own prejudices."

Many of the problems of today, Kennedy traced back to actions taken by Reagan. Kennedy believes the American people are fed a media diet of right-wing propaganda, and it "all started in 1988 when Ronald Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine said that the airwaves belong to the public. They were public-trust assets, like air and water, and broadcasters could be licensed to use them" but they must use them in the public interest and to advance democracy.

If the Fairness Doctrine was still in place, "You could not have a Fox News," he said, nor a Rush Limbaugh, for that matter. But the doctrine is gone and Fox and Limbaugh are here. Quoting Pew Research, Kennedy said, 30 percent of Americans now get their news from talk radio, which is 90 percent dominated by the right. Another large number of Americans say their primary news source is Fox News, which Kennedy clearly believed would be better named Faux News. 

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/03/25/robert-f-kennedy-jr-blames-fairness-doctrine-abolishment-conservatism-#ixzz0jFo3vvQ0

Link:

Ed Schultz Mocked Us in 2008 for Warning About the 'Fairness' Doctrine's Return; Now Calls for its Return

Word of my efforts made its way to him.  And he sought me out and approached me so as to ridicule us for fighting the good fight.  He rigidly insisted that no Democrat - no one in fact - was seeking a return of the Censorship Doctrine.

"Who talks to Nancy Pelosi more - you or me?" he angrily asked.  I replied "Have you talked to Nancy Pelosi - ever?"  Because if he had, once, ever, he had done so more than me.  (And more's the pity for him.)

He responded "Well I just spoke to her, and no one wants to see (the alleged "Fairness" Doctrine) brought back."

I tried to persuade him that there were plans in the works but he remained, as always, impervious to facts.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2010/03/25/ed-schultz-mocked-us-2008-warning-about-fairness-doctrines-return-now-#ixzz0jFovZxIQ

Blogger Subpoenas from the Transportation Security Administration -- Connection to Previous Story about Democrats Criminalizing Dissent (Illiberal Egalitarianism)

For context, see: "Obama's America -- Criminalizing Dissent (Daily KOS and HotAir on Same Page)"

This story is troubling because the go-ahead to criminalize the new media has been crafted by the Left to suppress the effectiveness of passing information on to persons that isn't through the filter of FOX or MSNBC. The Left likewise wants to stop the effectiveness of talk radio with the battle over the Federal Government requiring a "Fairness Doctrine."  This is the first outcropping of the new view (a Democratic Congress and Executive) of the new media.

TSA subpoenas bloggers, demands names of sources

WASHINGTON – As the government reviews how an alleged terrorist was able to bring a bomb onto a U.S.-bound plane and try to blow it up on Christmas Day, the Transportation Security Administration is going after bloggers who wrote about a directive to increase security after the incident.

TSA special agents served subpoenas to travel bloggers Steve Frischling and Chris Elliott, demanding that they reveal who leaked the security directive to them. The government says the directive was not supposed to be disclosed to the public.

Frischling said he met with two TSA special agents Tuesday night at his Connecticut home for about three hours and again on Wednesday morning when he was forced to hand over his lap top computer. Frischling said the agents threatened to interfere with his contract to write a blog for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines if he didn't cooperate and provide the name of the person who leaked the memo.

"It literally showed up in my box," Frischling told The Associated Press. "I do not know who it came from." He said he provided the agents a signed statement to that effect.

In a Dec. 29 posting on his blog, Elliott said he had told the TSA agents at his house that he would call his lawyer and get back to them. Elliott said late Wednesday he could not comment until the legal issues had been resolved.

The TSA declined to say how many people were subpoenaed.

The directive was dated Dec. 25 and was issued after a 23-year-old Nigerian man was charged with attempting to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight as it approached Detroit from Amsterdam. The bomb, which allegedly was hidden in Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's underwear, malfunctioned and no one was killed. Authorities said the device included a syringe and a condom-like bag filled with powder that the FBI determined to be PETN, a common explosive.

The near-miss attack has prompted President Barack Obama to order a review of what intelligence information the government had about Abdulmutallab and why it wasn't shared with the appropriate agencies. He also ordered a review of U.S. aviation security. The government has spent billions of dollars and undergone massive reorganizations since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

The TSA directive outlined new screening measures that went into effect the same day as the airliner incident. It included many procedures that would be apparent to the traveling public, such as screening at boarding gates, patting down the upper legs and torso, physically inspecting all travelers' belongings, looking carefully at syringes with powders and liquids, requiring that passengers remain in their seats one hour before landing, and disabling all onboard communications systems, including what is provided by the airline.

It also listed people who would be exempted from these screening procedures such as heads of state and their families.

This is the second time in a month that the TSA has found some of its sensitive airline security documents on the Internet.

___

On the Net:

http://www.elliott.org/blog/full-text-of-my-subpoena-from-the-department-of-homeland-security/(pound sign)more-10228

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2009/12/30/the-fallout-from-sd-1544-09-06-the-feds-at-my-door/

It seems to me that the subpoenas should be going towards how ineffective our security is and how easy it is for persons from other countries to get into the U.S.

Obama's America -- Criminalizing Dissent (Daily KOS and HotAir on Same Page)

The Minority Report has a great article title: Feinstein and Durbin Want to Kill Citizen Journalism. Blogs of Victory has great insight on this "liberal" hypocrisy in their post No Shield for YOU!!  Of course the Daily KOS is attacking these two liberal Democrats, something that you normally do not see.  When a topic that can bring HotAir and KOS together to fight this topic... it has to be really wrong!  the following is from The Daily KOS's post, Sens. Feinstein and Durbins attack on citizen journalism (Language Warning, they are liberals):

But those two troublemaking Dems, now identified as Sens. Feinstein (CA) and Durbin (IL), are back again,  ....

Basically, Feinstein and Durbin want to restrict shield law protections for those who are either salaried employees or contractors of big media. If not, it's basically fuck you.

This isn't a partisan issue, it's one between those who are so stuck in the past, that they can't fathom a more diverse and expansive media environment -- one that is no longer dominated by the NY Times and the TV networks.

If you are represented by one of the senators on the committee, please give them a call and ask them to oppose this measure. Again, this shouldn't be a partisan issue, so calling your Republican senator (for once) might actually make a difference. Committee members are:

Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)
Dianne Feinstein (California)
Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)
Chuck Schumer (New York -- he's kosher on this)
Dick Durbin (Illinois)
Ben Cardin (Maryland)
Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island)
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Ted Kaufman (Delaware)
Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania -- also kosher)
Al Franken (Minnesota)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Jon Kyl (Arizona)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
John Cornyn (Texas)
Tom Coburn (Oklahoma)

Note -- this isn't about me. I'm a salaried writer. This amendment wouldn't exclude me. This is about most of you, and countless bloggers and writers who do their own brand of journalism because they believe in their cause, not just because it's a gig.

Feinstein and Durbin want to relegate you to second-class status in favor of the old media dinosaurs bleeding themselves dry. This is unconscionable. Protect the act of journalism, not people who fit the government's definition of "journalist".

Again, that is a left-leaning (almost as far left as you can get) blog calling us to arms.

 (HotAir h/t, Shot in the Dark import)

Democrats: Criminalizing Dissent
By Mitch Berg

Democrats Diane Feinstein and Dick “Turban” Durbin – who have long been the Dems’ official trial-balloon-floaters for assaults on free speech like the “Fairness Doctrine” – are proposing an amendment to a Senate bill (S.448) clarifying the press shield law.

And it’s aimed squarely at citizen journalists like you and I.  Via RWN, here’s the amendment text, with some emphases added:

AMENDMENTS intended to be proposed by Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. DURBIN )
Viz:
In section 10(2)(A), strike clause (iii) and insert the following:
[a "journalist" is shielded if he/she] (iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity—
(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, 1or other means; and
(II) that—
(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;
(cc) operates a programming service; or
(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;

In other words, you need to be an employee of a news business.  All of us hobby hacks in our pajamas in our basements are out in the cold.

In section 10(2)(B), strike ‘‘and’’ at the end.
In section 10(2)(C), strike the period at the end and insert ‘‘; and’’.
In section 10(2), add at the end the following:

(D) does not include an individual who gathers or disseminates the protected information sought to be compelled anonymously or under a pseudonym.

This would seem to be aimed at the likes of James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles – provided they’re not employed by a Major News Outlet, of course.

Leaving aside the obvious indication that this is the Democrats’ way of circling their wagons around ACORN – this is a fascinating look into the authoritarianism of the Democrat party at work.

The conservative blogosphere is dominated by independents who cover their fields of expertise, whatever they are (this blog: music, financial planning, wine, tomatos and Minnesota politics) for the pure, unadulterated love of the game.  From Power Line (which covers all they survey) to Speed Gibson (who patrols the ramparts of northwest-suburban education), we mostly do it because we want to, money be damned.

The left, on the other hand, has built up a network of “business” entities and non-profits, from the pseudo-newspaper-y “MNPost” to the not-very-covert propagandists at the “Center for Independent Media” (parent of the Minnesoros “Indepdendent”), at exquisite cost; one might now presume that this money was spent to get ahead of the legislative curve that the Feinstein/Durbin proposal represents, as a further attempt to shut down independent, non-government-vetted thought in this country.

This is Obama’s America.

A Peak at the Future of the Fairness Doctrine

This could be any Democrat in congress speaking about talk radio...

Chavez hits at Venezuelan media with new laws

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is taking steps to tighten restrictions on the media despite mounting opposition by private media to a series of proposed reforms that would expose them to criminal prosecution.

Chavez supporters argue that the measures limiting broadcasting rights for radio and television will lead to a significant "democratization" of the media, which has been controlled by a handful of owners.

"We will launch a strong fight for the democratization of communication, to break the media oligarchy in Venezuela," Communication and Information Minister Blanca Eekhout said recently.

In a recent report, National Telecommunications Commission (Conatel) chief Diosdado Cabello said 27 families have "privileged ownership" of 32 percent of the radio broadcast industry.

But for Chavez's opposition, this "now or never" approach to the media is just the latest onslaught on press freedoms by the firebrand leftist leader, who has never forgiven the privately owned media for backing a failed coup against him in 2002.

"The only player that exposes many of the things the government is doing is the media, and the government feels it has to regulate them," professor Marcelino Bisbal, editor of the book "Communication Hegemony and Control," told AFP....

What does a Sane Democrat/Liberal think about this? Let’s ask Camille Paglia

Link:

Fairness Doctrine -- Extra Machosauce

He mentions the McDonald's dude... here it is for those that do not know:

Michael Savage vs. California Attorney General Jerry Brown over the Fairness Doctrine

Liberal Democrat Blisters liberal Democrats for Pushing Return to "Fairness Doctrine"

(HotAir h/t)

Chavez and the Fairness Doctrine

Venezuelans protest typical Leftist moves to shut down broadcasting that doesn’t give the “States” “blarney.” How is this different than the Leftists here in the U.S. trying to push the fairness doctrine back onto us? No difference at all. These same Lefties ditched the Fox News debate, because, Fox News is the only outlet that is center-right, whereas all the others are center-left.

Venezuelans protest opposition TV channel closure

Article Link - Reuters

Tens of thousands of protesters on Saturday denounced President Hugo Chavez's plans to close an opposition television channel, accusing their leader of maiming Venezuelan democracy as he forges a socialist state.

Chavez says RCTV, the country's oldest private broadcaster, supported a bungled coup against him in 2002. He has had a long-running battle with opposition television stations, calling them "horsemen of the apocalypse."

The reference to the “horsemen of the apocalypse” rings with these Liberal Catholics in the central and lower Americas. Liberation theology is the joining of theology with Marxian understandings of nature (both natural and human). It rings much different to conservative theologians… but this is a discussion for another blog (When? Who knows?).

The Un-Fairness Doctrine: Unevening the Playing Field, by Law

Article Link – Townhall.com

Beware of liberals using such words as "fairness." In resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine," liberals are trying to kill conservative talk radio and restore their media monopoly. Period. The doctrine would selectively stifle free political discourse, which is essential for our representative government. …

…This is not to say that the government's elimination of the regulation discriminated against the liberal message. The liberal viewpoint still dominates the mainstream media, cable TV, except for Fox News, and the overwhelming number of major print media outlets. Liberals also have equal access to new media outlets, though they've had enormous difficulty competing in the marketplace of ideas. …

….Liberals can't stand the competition. Democratic Congressman Maurice Hinchey is sponsoring the "Media Ownership Reform Act," whose proposed reforms include the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine….

This is nothing but abject sophistry. Different views are already heard -- and not just in the mainstream media. There have never been more media choices. Nothing -- except consumer resistance -- precludes liberal entry into the talk radio market. But the First Amendment doesn't require people to listen to and support your message.

With the Fairness Doctrine liberals would use government to micromanage the content of talk radio, realizing that they simply can't compete on an equal playing field in that medium. Notably, they aren't advocating balancing the messages of the major print or broadcast media giants.

The reason liberals can't compete in talk radio, besides their hosts being boring, oppressively cynical and pessimistic, is that their would-be audience is already fed through the mainstream media.

Conversely, conservative talk has been successful, not just because it is more entertaining, professional and optimistic, but because conservative audiences were starved for a likeminded message.

The liberals' goal is not balance, but to destroy conservative talk radio by requiring that each nano-segment of every show contain the counterbalancing liberal viewpoint, instead of relying on other shows or other media to deliver that viewpoint. What will they demand next: that political candidates present both sides of every issue to ensure balance?

Such draconian hyper-monitoring would destroy those programs. Besides, there is no fair, sensible or practicable way to regulate content. Objectivity is impossible over such subjective matters.

What do the paternalistic proponents of the regulations mean by the representation of "all sides?" Would the terrorist viewpoint deserve equal time? Don't laugh, many believe that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and liberals routinely sympathize with tyrannical dictators like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

What is truly scary is that liberals believe that media outlets predominately presenting their viewpoint are not biased. To them, the liberal viewpoint is objectively correct -- the only proper way to view the world -- and the conservative one, aberrant and reality-challenged, not even deserving of First Amendment protection. Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not much.

This arrogant mindset is what has troubled conservatives for years. It's not just that the mainstream media has presented a monolithic liberal message; it's that they denied their bias and purported to be completely objective in their selection and reporting of the news and commentary. At least with conservative talk, the hosts admit their bias and are honest about when they are editorializing.