Good Democrats...

Over 100 House Democrats Help Defeat the Fairness Doctrine, While in the Senate Dick Durbin Blocks Norm Coleman’s Fairness Doctrine Foil


Last month, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 309-115, amended the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to bar the FCC from requiring broadcasters to balance conservative content.

That vote count means more than half the Democrats in the House voted for the ban as well. That should pretty much bring all discussion about reimposing the doctrine again to a halt.

But, while House Democrats labeled the reintroduction of the FCC's fairness doctrine a non-issue and grandstanding by talk radio, on Friday (July 20, 2007) Senate Democrats blocked an amendment to an appropriations bill similar to one that passed without incident in the House.

Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) tried Friday to amend a defense appropriations bill to insure that the FCC could not reinstate the doctrine, which was scrapped by the FCC as unconstitutional back in 1987. The “Fairness Doctrine” required broadcasters to provide the other side on issues of public importance. It's disappearance from the FCC rulebook helped spur the rise of primarily conservative talk radio.

But Coleman's attempt was blocked in a procedural move by Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Senate Democrats have been most vocal about bringing back the doctrine. "In this day and age, reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine is not about equal balance, as its supporters claim, it is about muzzling broadcasters," said Coleman on his Web site http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=1361.

.
Coleman has said, "I believe it is a dangerous proposition for the government to be in the business of rationing free speech and determining what is fair."

The Same Liberals Who Rail against Content Restrictions, SUPPORT Other Content Restrictions!

Fresh on the heels of their decrying FCC restrictions on obscene, outrageous &/or offensive content by the likes of Don Imus and Rosie O’Donnell (proof that a stopped clock is right, at least twice a day), many of the same Liberals are out in force supporting...YES, OTHER FORMS of content restrictions!

Yes, the Left is favoring content restrictions in the media in the form of HR 4069 IH or the “Media Ownership Reform Act,” (MONA) which, among other things, seeks to bring back the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine," scuttled in the 1980s by the great Ronald Reagan.

Why was it scuttled?

Because it didn’t work!

Well, actually, it was never intended to “work,” in any “fair” or balanced way. It sought to maintain the Liberal hegemony over the media and it did that quite effectively over its lifespan.

Am I being hypocritical? Don’t I not only oppose MONA, but would support a “Fairness Doctrine” that mandated the media accurately reflect the public viewpoint, which is more than 2 to 1 Conservative/traditionalist?

While I would love to see the entire spectrum of our media and our educational establishment, for that matter, more accurately reflect the American public’s viewpoint, I DON’T, at this point, support any law that would mandate that.


From the great Mick Brady at Dancing in Tongues;

“The driving force behind this push is none other than our old friend, Dr. Strangelove himself, the radical leftist billionaire, George Soros.”

<

From Insight: "At a recent National Conference for Media Reform, sponsored by Free Press, a Massachusetts-based group heavily subsidized by Soros, (Maurice) Hinchey (D-NY) laid bare his plan to silence conservative voices on television and radio. The anti-war McGovernite attacked Savage, Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts, saying they were “responsible” for leading the U.S. into the Iraq war, as well as for preparing the ground for future military invasions of Iran and Syria. According to Hinchey, these men pose a “threat” to American national security. Hence, under his bill, they would be fired."

<

"All of that stuff will end," Hinchey said.”

<

Scary stuff indeed. Try for one moment to imagine where this country will end up if one half of its population is silenced. You can find the answer in most of the places in the world that have been taken over by zealous leftists: they invariably end up in totalitarianism.”

http://dancingintongues.blogspot.com/

Indeed, it is scary stuff, and it begs the question, if it’s OK for the likes of 60’s radicals like Maurice Hinchey to support a law that seeks to silence the majority voice in America within its media, why wouldn’t it be OK for Conservatives to call for an expanded form of that doctrine that would, at the least limit Liberal voices to their numbers in society (16%)...if not eliminating them from the media altogether as Soros and Hinchey seem to support doing with Conservative voices?