Bush Vows To Veto The Fairness Doctrine

[apdst]

Link (http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2008/03/11/bush_fairness_d.html)


Bush: ‘Fairness Doctrine’ unfair
By Ken Herman | Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 02:19 PM


In Nashville today, during a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, President Bush said there’s nothing fair about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that once required broadcasters to offer air time for competing ideologies.

The FCC got rid of it about 20 years ago. Now, some Democrats in Congress - long the target of popular conservative radio talk-show hosts - think it’s time to bring it back.

Perish the thought, Bush told the religious broadcasters in the following passage that ends with a veto promise.

“This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways - America’s airways - stay open to those who preach the ‘Good News.’ The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away.”

” I mention this because there’s an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides. This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington’s definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don’t like.”

“We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don’t agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don’t acknowledge that you are the balance … The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we’re strengthened by diversity of opinions.”

“If Congress truly supports the free and open exchange of ideas, then there is a way they can demonstrate that right now. Republicans have drafted legislation that would ban reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have blocked action on this bill. So in response, nearly every Republican in the House has signed onto what’s called a ‘discharge petition,’ that would require Congress to hold an up or down vote on the ban. Supporters of this petition are only 24 signatures away.”

“I do want to thank (Indiana Rep.) Mike Pence, who is with us today, and Congressman Greg Walden (of Oregon), for pressing this effort and defending the right for people to express themselves freely. And I urge other members to join in this discharge petition. But I’ll tell you this: If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, I’m going to veto it.”

[Elrathin]

There was a time for this bill, and it has long since passed. It was useful when we had restrictions for radio frequencies etc, but with the internet this is no longer an issue.

This bill should die and for once, I agree with Bush wanting to veto it.

[apdst]

That's twice in one day, Elrathin.

I need a drink!...LOL

[Go Fish]

The notion of forcing Americans to pay for leftist radio programming is ridiculous on its face. Air America was their last attempt at a national liberal radio format, and it was an absolute disaster.
Now, if we could just get PBS, NPR and the NEA outlawed, there WOULD be fairness.

[Shintao]

The notion of forcing Americans to pay for leftist radio programming is ridiculous on its face. Air America was their last attempt at a national liberal radio format, and it was an absolute disaster. Now, if we could just get PBS, NPR and the NEA outlawed, there WOULD be fairness.


Hmm, there is still free speech tv. I agree, no one should be asked to pay for a Liberal show to balance the airwaves of America. Yu can either pay for it or use freespeech tv, or local communty tv outlets.

Why was the Air America show a disaster?

And why would you want to remove PBS,NPR,NEA, if you favor free speech? What are you afraid of?

[Go Fish]

Because the NEA, NPR and PBS are taxpayer-funded. As for Air America, stealing money from children just isn't the way to do business. You really hadn't heard about this? No problem. I'm here to help. This is bad, bad stuff.

Charge: Charity Funds Diverted To Air America
Authorities Say Money Meant For Boys And Girls Club Went To Liberal Radio Network 'Air America'
NEW YORK (CBS/AP/DOI) ― Two former executives at a government-funded youth organization whose finances were scrutinized after it diverted money to the liberal radio network Air America were charged Thursday with misappropriating $1.2 million of the non-profit's funds.

Charles Rosen, a former executive director at the Gloria Wise Community Center, and his former assistant director, Jeffrey Aulenbach, face charges of grand larceny and obstructing governmental administration. Rosen was also charged with forgery.

New York City's Department of Investigation, which investigated the nonprofit for two years, said the men improperly took more than $290,000 from the organization for their personal use, on top of their already unusually large salaries.

The money -- described in the non-profit's books as business expenses -- went to pay for home renovations and furnishings and new cars, among other things, according to a Department of Investigation report released Thursday.

City investigators said the pair also improperly transferred $875,000 to Air America, which was co-founded by one of Gloria
Wise's executives.

At the time, the Gloria Wise center ran a school and youth programs in the Bronx, and was affiliated with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, but most of its money came from government grants and contracts.

The public disclosure of the club's "loan" to Air America prompted heavy criticism and charges of hypocrisy from conservative
commentators in 2005.

Air America blamed the transaction on its former chairman, Evan Montvel-Cohen, who was ousted in 2004 amid questions over the validity of his investments in the network.

The radio network has since repaid the money. Under a recent agreement, the bulk of it was returned to New York City agencies. Some was returned to the Gloria Wise organization, which reorganized, took on new management and continues to operate a nursery school program.

(© 2006 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)

[PatrickHenry]

Seems a bit off-topic to me, Go Fish.

But the "Fairness Doctrine" is BS anyway.

Even with it, they wouldn't allow really critical opinions of the status quo.

Just more mainstream smoke from the "other" party.

As if that was the only other opinion out there.

I despise the gatekeepers of the left.

[Go Fish]

So you think that CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, NPR, PBS et al are government functionaries? I only hear the left complaining about Fox. Surely you don't think Keith Olberman is in the tank for George Bush, do you? That Dan Rather was just trying to garner sympathy for Bush when he lied about the ANG papers? That calling polls in Florida "closed" before they were somehow helped the Republican juggernaut?

[PostmodernProphet]

So you think that CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, NPR, PBS et al are government functionaries?

only when the government is controlled by Democrats.....

[brien]

The "Fairness Doctrine" is neither fair nor should it be doctrine....

[Drocket]

There was a time for this bill, and it has long since passed. It was useful when we had restrictions for radio frequencies etc, but with the internet this is no longer an issue.

The fairness doctrine doesn't apply to internet/cable television/whatever. It only applies to broadcast television and radio. This is because those are transmitted over publicly owned airwaves, and as such, the government can enforce standards on them since the broadcasters who are using those airwaves are only doing so because the public permits them.

[Grizz]

Sorry boys and girls, but PBS and NPR are about the fairest shows you'll find out there in media land. I'd almost include the big three (ABC, NBC, CBS) who've gotten a whole lot better. As for the auxillary wings of the RNC (rant radio, Christian Talk Radio, Fox, etc.), the Fairness Doctrine would still allow them to rant all they wanted, and continue to promote radical right wingers, except in the immediate period leading up to an election. Sounds fair to me.

[Go Fish]

Yeah, but our taxes go to PBS and NPR, and I don't want mine to. Regardless of how a person feels about the networks, they live and die by their own merit.
Drocket, what you're talking about is governmental control over the news, and that isn't acceptable.

[apdst]

This is because those are transmitted over publicly owned airwaves, and as such, the government can enforce standards on them since the broadcasters who are using those airwaves are only doing so because the public permits them.

Radio is the medium where the Dems are getting their asses spanked the hardest, so of course, they want to take advantage of that little technicality.

It's suppression of free speech, no matter how you slice it.

[Easy90]

"Sorry boys and girls, but PBS and NPR are about the fairest shows you'll find out there in media land" (grizz)

The test of the veracity of that statement lies in the fact that only a screaming, hair's on fire Liberal would ever say that.

The "airways" aren't owned by the government. The only reason government is supposed to "regulate" frequencies, is to prevent jamming, and thereby rendering them unusable. When government "regulates" what people way on them, then you have a violation of free speech. Socialists like to label things the exact opposite from what they truly are. The "fairness doctrine" is in reality...suppression of free speech. It's really not fair at all. It's an attempt by socialists to silence opposition. Of course, they lie about it. Lying is what they do.

[Drocket]

The "airways" aren't owned by the government.

So who owns them? The person/corporation who broadcasts on a frequency first? What if one company manages to broadcast on all frequencies first, thus giving them a monopoly on all transmissions?

What if two people broadcast on a specific frequency at the same time, but far enough apart that, at the beginning, there isn't any interference, but over time, they both want to expand with a more powerful broadcast and it starts to overlap?

What about the fact that anytime somebody transmits on an open frequency, it, by necessity, violates everybody else's rights by 'trespassing' on their property?

Owning a frequency is as ridiculous as claiming to 'own' the color orange.

[AlanC]

The "airways" aren't owned by the government.

So who owns them? The person/corporation who broadcasts on a frequency first? What if one company manages to broadcast on all frequencies first, thus giving them a monopoly on all transmissions?

What if two people broadcast on a specific frequency at the same time, but far enough apart that, at the beginning, there isn't any interference, but over time, they both want to expand with a more powerful broadcast and it starts to overlap?

What about the fact that anytime somebody transmits on an open frequency, it, by necessity, violates everybody else's rights by 'trespassing' on their property?

Owning a frequency is as ridiculous as claiming to 'own' the color orange.



So that justifies governemnt dictating what can and cannot be said in the area of political speech? I must have missed that exception to the 1st ammendment. But McCain/Fiengold has already done that, so we can just enlarge the window?

[Hogan]

I'm personally all for the Fairness Doctrine and I'm a "Right Wing Conservative" - here's why: I would LOVE for the media to REALLY present both sides. The left can't see how the current main media does basically NOTHING when it comes to reporting 'right wing' issues because they don't understand them. Examples of this would the questions asked of the Presidential candidates during debates. Candidates are asked questions such as "If Roe vs Wade were to be overturned, would you be favor of persecuting a woman who has gotten an abortion." The question has NOTHING to do with a 'right leaning' argument such as the health of the baby but only the 'left's' woman's rights issue. Another GREAT example of this was when President Bush first went to visit the troops in Iraq on Thanksgiving Day. When the news broke I was (*obviously) watching Fox News. I was so happy I turned over to CNN because OBVIOUSLY the President of the United States visiting our troops in a war zone was HUGE. I watched CNN for about an hour before they even mentioned it and then only in a little 'ticker' at the bottom of the screen. Yeah, that's fair and balanced. The mainstream media practically never gives fair treatment to 'right wing' issues. If the Fairness Doctrine REALLY DOES what it implys it will do - give FAIR coverage, I say GO FOR IT! For some reason I seriously doubt however that even if passed I will EVER see the mainstream media covering issues FAIRLY that are important to me.

[Drocket]

So that justifies governemnt dictating what can and cannot be said in the area of political speech?

Nobody said dictating what can and cannot be said - its only about presenting both sides of a discussion. And yes, it does. Both sides share ownership of the broadcast airwaves, and both sides have a right to be represented.

What you say and do on private methods of transmission - cable television, for example - is your own business.

[firefox]

I support Bush's veto, but I'd also like it a lot more if he vetoed the FCC's operating budget as well- I don't expect that to happen anytime soon though...

[AlanC]

Nobody said dictating what can and cannot be said - its only about presenting both sides of a discussion.

Nice try. But if I express my views on talk radio, that is freedom of speech. If the government then says I have to present another sides views, someone else's views, or "allow" someone else to come on my show and give their views...that is dictating and controlling what I say.

It is suppressing my ability to present my view or it is dictating the manner in which I can or will be allowed to present them. It amounts to an attempt at censorship of free speech and you know it.

[Drocket]

But the airwaves aren't infinite - it is, in fact, quite limited, permitting only a relatively small number of stations in each market. I own those airwaves as much as you do. By your using up the common resource of the airwaves, preventing others from getting equal access, you have, in essence, stolen from those who's viewpoint you've prevented from being distributed.

[AlanC]

But the airwaves aren't infinite - it is, in fact, quite limited, permitting only a relatively small number of stations in each market. I own those airwaves as much as you do. By your using up the common resource of the airwaves, preventing others from getting equal access, you have, in essence, stolen from those who's viewpoint you've prevented from being distributed.


Name one commentator, talk show host, or political analyst that has not been able to get on the airwaves because they were all used up. That is a smokescreen. There are liberal talk shows and hosts. If people listen to them, they will stay on the air. If people listen to them, they will be economically viable. If people listen to them, they will grow and add stations.

If they spout drivel and no one tunes in, they will fail. Its called a free market. You are confusing privately owned networks with NPR. There, liberal shows don't need an audience or ratings. There they can live on government subsidies.

If your ideas are viable, bring them to the marketplace and let them compete in an open fashion. Don't attempt to backdoor and control political speech through censorship.

The government leases the public airways through licensing agreements. But this is an attempt to limit and censor free speech. It is unconstitutional.

[Drocket]

Except you've just pretty much proven the point by making the 'free market' claim. If there was a massive supply of free airspace, it would be pretty darn cheap to run any sort of station you want. Transmitters aren't that much money. The costs comes in with the cost of licensing (and before you even try to blame that on the evil government, its an auction system. Whoever is willing to pay more gets it. There's a lot of demand for extremely limited number of licenses.) What that means is that only the absolute top, highest-rated stations can afford to stay on the air.

Conservative radio is more popular - fine. But the conservative market that controls 51% of the market can and does trample over the 49% liberal side. By being even slightly larger, one side is essentially able to control 100% of the market. Not exactly a free market, when it all gets boiled down, now is it?

[AlanC]

Conservative radio is more popular - fine. But the conservative market that controls 51% of the market can and does trample over the 49% liberal side. By being even slightly larger, one side is essentially able to control 100% of the market. Not exactly a free market, when it all gets boiled down, now is it?

I'm sorry, but that is really convoluted reasoning. First off, there are already a ton of regulations that go along with an operating license.

Now exactly were are these figures comming from? And how does 51% of the market "trample over" 49% of the market. And how do you see that as being controling of 100% of the market. Do you have any facts that show this is taking place?

And are you admitting that conservatism finds a much larger audience than liberalism when it comes to talk radio? Perhaps you don't need a government mandate as much as you need better ideas then. Or better talk show hosts maybe?

[Drocket]

I'm sorry, but that is really convoluted reasoning. First off, there are already a ton of regulations that go along with an operating license.

Mostly along the lines of 'stay in your own frequency' and decency standards (which, by the way, are another example of the public-owned nature airwaves.)

Now exactly were are these figures comming from? And how does 51% of the market "trample over" 49% of the market. And how do you see that as being controling of 100% of the market. Do you have any facts that show this is taking place?

And are you admitting that Conservatism finds a much larger audience than liberalism when it comes to talk radio? Perhaps you don't need a government mandate as much as you need better ideas then.

Yes, conservative radio is more popular (the 51% stuff was just random example numbers.) My point is that by being more popular, conservative radio is able to quite literally prevent liberal radio from even existing - conservative radio stations can bid more for the license when it comes up for renewal, and simply take over. The reverse would be true if liberal radio were more popular. So you may want to think twice about the 'you just need better ideas' thing - if liberal radio manages to find them, conservative radio will cease to exist. Then we'll see who's in favor of the fairness doctrine... :P

[AlanC]

Yes, conservative radio is more popular (the 51% stuff was just random example numbers.) My point is that by being more popular, conservative radio is able to quite literally prevent liberal radio from even existing - conservative radio stations can bid more for the license when it comes up for renewal, and simply take over. The reverse would be true if liberal radio were more popular. So you may want to think twice about the 'you just need better ideas' thing - if liberal radio manages to find them, conservative radio will cease to exist. Then we'll see who's in favor of the fairness doctrine...

I have heard many stations that carried both conservative shows and liberal ones. The liberal ones tend to go away because of ratings and ad revenue, not because the station owner is suppressing them.

If Al Franken can find an audience, more power to him. If any group of shows are well recieved, the station owner will be able to keep them on the air. No one owns radio to make political statements, they own them to make money. As for me, yes I would still shun anything like the fairness doctrine, even if the reverse in popularity were true.

Why? Because I didn't hear the part that said, "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it....as long as you present the other side as well."

You have never seen me here calling for a liberal voice to be silenced. But I will forever be against the governement telling any private enterprise what they cannot say or what they have to say about politics in order to stay on the air.

[Easy90]

There's no shortage of radio stations in any major market that are willing to sell Liberal programing. Sadly however, as is quite evident here...Liberals don't understand how a free market works.

Radio programing sells advertising to pay the bills. Advertising sells based on exposure. Exposure means...(in the case of radio) people who willingly take the time to tune in and listen. Any programming that produces lots of listeners means a radio station makes a lot of money. If few listen...no advertising sells...hence, no profits. That also is why liberalism has gravitated towards NPR and PBS...since they aren't dependent upon a large audience, hence large (advertising) revenues to air.

Liberals want to shut up anyone who is not Liberal...because liberalism cannot compete in the arena of ideas. This whole controversy is about shutting up people...Pure and simple!!! That's why the "doctrine" isn't a "fairness" doctrine, it's a "shut down conservative radio" doctrine.

[4Reaganomics]

Conservative radio picks at government, which works because Government is very easy to pick on. Liberals pick at big business, and given that a large quantity of people who listen to politically based programs in their vehicle have earned a good living through big business, it does not work so well.

Overall, I think most of us can agree that we don't need government to tell us what can and cannot be on the radio in terms of political views. We have fingers and can change the station if we do not like what we are hearing.

[PostmodernProphet]

I still think the reason liberal radio has not caught on is that folks believe they get sufficient exposure to liberal views on the news sources already available.....radio shows like Limbaugh and Hannity, television networks like Fox are watched because they offer something DIFFERENT than the networks offer........Air America didn't.......

[4Reaganomics]

and we have to realize that there is a large liberal population who ride to work on bicycles

[Easy90]

I still think the reason liberal radio has not caught on is that folks believe they get sufficient exposure to liberal views on the news sources already available.....radio shows like Limbaugh and Hannity, television networks like Fox are watched because they offer something DIFFERENT than the networks offer........Air America didn't.......


Exactly! If you want to watch a liberal comedian pretend to be a political pundit...it's all over TV...Watch Leno or Letterman...or you can pick up liberal philosophy on most drama programming. If you want to get a liberal slant on current events, watch any of the alphabet news shows. TV offers enough popular shows to sell advertising. It's tougher for radio to sell advertising when they offer left-wing programing.

[Grizz]

Nobody said dictating what can and cannot be said - its only about presenting both sides of a discussion.

Nice try. But if I express my views on talk radio, that is freedom of speech. If the government then says I have to present another sides views, someone else's views, or "allow" someone else to come on my show and give their views...that is dictating and controlling what I say.

It is suppressing my ability to present my view or it is dictating the manner in which I can or will be allowed to present them. It amounts to an attempt at censorship of free speech and you know it.



If the host of the talk radio show does not let you express your views because they do not agree with his, or cuts you off in mid-sentence, what has happened to your "freedom of speech"? Or are you saying that free speech is ok so long as everyone agrees with you?[hr]
Yeah, but our taxes go to PBS and NPR, and I don't want mine to. Regardless of how a person feels about the networks, they live and die by their own merit.
Drocket, what you're talking about is governmental control over the news, and that isn't acceptable.



There are a lot of people who don't want their taxes going to the defense department and some of them deducted that percentage from what they had to pay. They're called convicted felons.

BTW - just how much do NPR and PBS get from the government? what percentage of their budget comes from tax funding?
[hr]
"Sorry boys and girls, but PBS and NPR are about the fairest shows you'll find out there in media land" (grizz)

The test of the veracity of that statement lies in the fact that only a screaming, hair's on fire Liberal would ever say that.

The "airways" aren't owned by the government. The only reason government is supposed to "regulate" frequencies, is to prevent jamming, and thereby rendering them unusable. When government "regulates" what people way on them, then you have a violation of free speech. Socialists like to label things the exact opposite from what they truly are. The "fairness doctrine" is in reality...suppression of free speech. It's really not fair at all. It's an attempt by socialists to silence opposition. Of course, they lie about it. Lying is what they do.


Sorry to break this to you, but there've been enough studies to show that NPR & PBS are really "fair and balanced". They just don't say it and do something else.

No, the airways aren't "owned" by the government, but they are regulated to greater or lesser degrees. Also, there are laws concerning political campaigning so someone who buys one or more radio stations and uses them as little more than 24/7 outlets for one and only one political view should run afoul of those other laws. You also must be aware of the ability of the FCC to prohibit certain words, videos, etc. on broadcast television. Is that also wrong? Would you have any problem with your local weather forecaster at 6:30am telling you and the kids, "Hey - there's one big a$$ motherf****g storm moving in. Time to hit the grocery store for milk, bread and beer."


One final note: The reason liberal talk radio doesn't do as well is because liberals don't have to tune in to know what to think today. Just thought I'd mention that.