The Genachowski-led FCC begins its backdoor efforts to reimpose the “Fairness Doctrine.” This comes as no surprise whatsoever. There will be more to come on this and related fronts. Tip of the Cap to: The Loud Talker, NewsBusters, Free Speech Alliance.
(Please leave us your thoughts and comments)
Below, Mister Bill Moyers weighs in on the Fairness Doctrine’s reimposition. His comments are interesting for a couple of reasons. One, they miss the point. As this and other sites have remarked, The Doctrine (or some form thereof enjoys both overt (US Senator’s Stabenow and Kerry to name a few), and covert support. Look for covert supporters to pursue “localism” and “media diversity” (“media consolidation” is another phrase to watch) to accomplish the Fairness Doctrine’s impact and suppress all dissenting views. Policies which individuals like Moyers and those of his ilk are apt to endorse instead. Don’t be fooled by the public disavowal of the “Fairness Doctrine”. Those who aspire to eliminate conservative/libertarian viewpoints are relentless in their approach. That is why the actions of the Julius Genachowski-led FCC must be thoroughly and constantly scrutinized. Media censorship is very much alive and well in the hearts of numerous policymakers and activists. Second: Moyers really did say the following:
These people earn millions inciting riots in the public mind. If they were required to be fair, they would soon be penniless, out on the street, cup in hand.
Tip of the cap to Video Cafe/Crooks and Liars for video, Campaign for Liberty, The Radio Equalizer, Sweetness and Light, Quincy Republicans.
As of this writing, it appears that today’s Senate FCC confirmation hearings will be held as scheduled. The nominees in question are: Julius Genachowski as Chair and Robert McDowell as a commissioner. According to a Wall Street Journal piece, Genachowski supports, among other things: ”…media ownership rules that encourage more diversity;” as well as “net neutrality”, another tendentious issue. It is expected that these issues will come to the fore during today’s hearings. The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell has issued a set of questions that he and his organization deem imperative to ask of each and every FCC nominee. They are reproduced here and divided into the following categories: Media Diversity, the “Fairness Doctrine”, and Localism. On the issue of Media Diversity, of especial interest is a document obtained from the Obama Campaign’s website during an internet search using the term “The Obama Tech & Innovation Plan”. Entitled “BARACK OBAMA: CONNECTING AND EMPOWERING ALL AMERICANS THROUGH TECHNOLGY AND INNOVATION”, the document makes the following remarks regarding Media Diversity:
Barack Obama believes that providing opportunities for minority-owned businesses to own radio and television is fundamental to creating the diverse media environment that federal law requires and the country deserves and demands. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownsership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.”
And what could one possibly object to in that statement? Taken at face value, perhaps nothing. Looking beyond face value, and focusing instead on their implementation, one might wonder exactly what does “federal law require” and as defined by whom? What exactly are the “…public interest obligations” of ”broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.” And as defined by whom? For example, as defined by the FCC website, Broadcast Localism encompasses a set of principles and practices requiring broadcasters to “…serve the needs and interest of the communities to which they are licensed.” In terms of specific implementation, then FCC Chairman Michael Powell launched a “localism and broadcasting initiative” in August of 2003. The initiative included provisions for the creation of a Localism Task Force (LTF), authorized to among other things:
conduct studies to determine the nature and extent of “local” service being provided by broadcasters;
A November 17, 2008 article in the American Thinker interprets the localism issue as the backdoor means by which the Obama administration can silence conservative talk radio while simultaneously publicly disavowing the “Fairness Doctrine”. For starters, the head of the Obama presidential transition team is none other than John Podesta, President and CEO of The Center for American Progress or CAP. According to the article:
In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. This report complained that there was too much conservative talk on the radio because of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urged the FCC to “[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing. Podesta’s choice as head of the Federal Communications Commission’s transition team is Henry Rivera. Since 1994, Rivera has been chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council. This organization has specific ideas about localism:In other words, it would not do for broadcasters to meet with the business leaders whose companies advertise on their station. Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.Rivera’s law firm is also the former home of Kevin Martin, the current FCC chairman. Martin is himself an advocate of more stringent localism requirements.
Talk Radio, The Fascist Doctrine, the “left-wing boomlet”, and the future of Conservatism as seen through Brian Mahoney’s “The Radio Equalizer”
Bertram Gross warned of dangers of “Friendly Fascism” before Jonah Goldberg’s newer model.
The British press is increasingly assuming the role of skeptic (American ‘journalists’ once performed this role but no more).
Vladimir Putin NOT an Obama Kool-Aid drinker.