News Blog for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. Content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this "Blog" - no paid ads - no payments for articles.Fair Use Doctrine is posted & used. Blogger/Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Contact: editor@arranewsservice.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home PageFollow @arra
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
(429-347 BC)
Monday, January 29, 2007
Discussion on the Fairness Doctrine continues
RenewAmerica Forum: The latest threat to Americans' freedom of speech is under consideration in Congress in the form of the "Media Ownership Reform Act"-- sponsored by Democratic Congressman Maurice Hinchey. The bill would reinstate the old Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation that existed from 1949 to 1987.
The Fairness Doctrine enabled liberals to monopolize the radio airwaves by requiring broadcasters to air "both sides" of important issues. Since the liberal media at the time already controlled our nation's information systems, this meant that challenges to that dominance had to be "balanced" with the liberal perspective--multiplying the influence of the liberal ideology . . . [Click for more] Previous 1/19/07 post: The Un-Fairness Doctrine by David Limbaugh Tags:fairness doctrine, FCC, free speech, Media Ownership Reform Act, talk radioTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
This drive to trample the rights of free speech deserves a strong counter reaction in defense of our First Amendment rights. Anyone who believes in individual rights should realize it is in the best interest to guarantee that radio talk-show hosts and interest groups, which include liberal groups such as the AFL-CIO, can speak as they choose when they choose without government interference.
Rush Limbaugh says, "Words mean things." To this bunch, "fairness" means that their viewpoint rules. Bipartisanship" means that Republicans, Independents, even conservative Democrats must capitulate and agree with the libs.
These activists on the far left are positively giddy over the Democrats' takeover of Congress, and they're ready to do "whatever it takes" to set their gains in stone by passing new laws to KILL CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO. Captains' Quarters call this the "Hush Rush Plan."
nobody is talking about suppressing the ultra-conservative television and radio personalities. We will always defend their right to speak, no matter how repugnant their ideas are to us. But we do not and cannot defend their right to suppress other ideas: to hang up the phone on the caller who disagrees, to restrict guests to one party and one position. Freedom suffers when only one side is represented in the media, when a monopoly on the airwaves belongs to one party. We don't want an improved fairness doctrine because it will help us politically; we want it because we believe that a politically healthy nation is exposed to, and can choose from, a full range of possible views, without any being suppressed. The nation's political health is imperiled as long as there is a chokehold on the kinds of political discourse that get heard. Adding more voices doesn't necessarily make politics more liberal; but it does make it less likely that people will vote against liberals because the only thing they know about liberalism is a distorted caricature of it distributed by the media, and not by actual liberals. The real question is: why are conservatives so in doubt about the strength of their views that they have to shut all others out? I think that's a question that finds answers both in the conservatives' own authoritarian tendencies, and their doubts about the ability of their ideas to sway large numbers of people in a truly free marketplace of ideas. Without a captive audience, who would follow them?
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru - @arra
#Christian Conservative; Retired USAF & Grad Professor. Constitution NRA ProLife schoolchoice fairtax - Editor ARRA NEWS SERVICE. THANKS FOR FOLLOWING!
To Exchange Links - Email: editor@arranewsservice.com!
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting principles & beleifs beliefs of other organizations, this blog/site is soley controlled and supported by the editor. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
4 Comments:
This drive to trample the rights of free speech deserves a strong counter reaction in defense of our First Amendment rights. Anyone who believes in individual rights should realize it is in the best interest to guarantee that radio talk-show hosts and interest groups, which include liberal groups such as the AFL-CIO, can speak as they choose when they choose without government interference.
Rush Limbaugh says, "Words mean things." To this bunch, "fairness" means that their viewpoint rules. Bipartisanship" means that Republicans, Independents, even conservative Democrats must capitulate and agree with the libs.
These activists on the far left are positively giddy over the Democrats' takeover of Congress, and they're ready to do "whatever it takes" to set their gains in stone by passing new laws to KILL CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO. Captains' Quarters call this the "Hush Rush Plan."
nobody is talking about suppressing the ultra-conservative television and radio personalities. We will always defend their right to speak, no matter how repugnant their ideas are to us.
But we do not and cannot defend their right to suppress other ideas: to hang up the phone on the caller who disagrees, to restrict guests to one party and one position.
Freedom suffers when only one side is represented in the media, when a monopoly on the airwaves belongs to one party.
We don't want an improved fairness doctrine because it will help us politically; we want it because we believe that a politically healthy nation is exposed to, and can choose from, a full range of possible views, without any being suppressed.
The nation's political health is imperiled as long as there is a chokehold on the kinds of political discourse that get heard. Adding more voices doesn't necessarily make politics more liberal; but it does make it less likely that people will vote against liberals because the only thing they know about liberalism is a distorted caricature of it distributed by the media, and not by actual liberals.
The real question is: why are conservatives so in doubt about the strength of their views that they have to shut all others out? I think that's a question that finds answers both in the conservatives' own authoritarian tendencies, and their doubts about the ability of their ideas to sway large numbers of people in a truly free marketplace of ideas. Without a captive audience, who would follow them?
Post a Comment
<< Home