Coming to a radio or TV network near you - the sounds of silence, at least from conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Same goes for Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager and Laura Ingraham and the rest of talk radio and TV.
Whispers are growing louder that certain Democrats, a growing number of them, want to impose "balance" in broadcasting, otherwise known as the Fairness Doctrine, which was legislated into FCC law back in 1949 but dismissed in 1985 because, as Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. pointed out, it "chilled speech."
It also ran counter to our First Amendment, which states that our government should not be interfering in our rights to express ourselves freely.
In a nutshell, the Fairness Doctrine is about "equal time," and I knew how this worked during my radio days back in the late 1970s, where I functioned as editor at an all-news station in Philadelphia. If one man took three minutes to denounce the mayor, we had to scurry to find another man to support the mayor - and, we had to give him the exact same amount of time or else.
If we were lax by 10 seconds, we risked losing our license to broadcast.
Or, if a woman called in blessing Israel, we had to quickly find someone to curse Israel, watching the same clock and observing the minutes and the seconds.
In theory, the Fairness Doctrine sounds fair; in action it's a recipe for censorship.
This system of equal time (for one party only) operates wonderfully in places like Russia where, the New York Times reports, people who disapprove of Vladimir Putin suddenly vanish from the airwaves and in some cases vanish completely. Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe love the Fairness Doctrine, as do dictators all around the world who nationalize everything that isn't nailed down in order to remain in power and disenfranchise the people.
But this is America, in case we've forgotten, and it does seem that some of our legislators have forgotten that this land is our land and this air is our air.
They say they want "fairness" but what they really want is to NATIONALIZE THE AIRWAVES. They want government control over our eyes and ears.
Who will decide whether Alan Colmes was allotted the same 20 minutes (to the second) as Sean Hannity?
Who will do this monitoring? Most likely some factotum at the FCC, a small man or woman, but wielding the power of Big Brother.
Big Brother Will Be Watching You!
Rosie O'Donnell will surely have a case, a legal case, against Rush Limbaugh if he exceeds the speed limit on speech.
If Rush gets an hour, Rosie gets an hour. It's the LAW (if they have their way).
If Ann Coulter shows off her great legs for 10 minutes, the same 10 minutes go to Al Franken (Gawd forbid).
Can these restrictions bleed over into the rest of our culture? How about newspapers, books and movies? These - these are also speech.
Is that next?
Once we start tinkering with our First Amendment, anything is possible.
Don Imus already experienced the wrath of "fairness" and was kept off the air until he did penance. He was dead wrong to say what he did, but it still sends a message of censorship to boot a man off the air for being temporarily stupid. Imus is no bigot, and if he is, he is bigoted against everybody - and that seems fair.
Now Imus is back, but he'd been forewarned. Al Sharpton has the word out that he's "monitoring" Imus.
Really? Who elected Sharpton to monitor anybody?
Monitoring our speech. Is this what we want, in this country?
The Bathsheba Deadline: An Original Novel Jack Engelhard's latest novel, THE BATHSHEBA DEADLINE, now available in paperback, places journalism at the center of our war on terror. Engelhard wrote the international bestselling novel INDECENT PROPOSAL that was translated into more than 22 languages and turned into a Paramount motion picture starring Robert Redford and Demi Moore. His commentaries, like this, appear regularly on his Amazon blog. He can be reached at viewopinion@aol.com.
.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
This is sophomoric and false. Although I'm not convinced that THE Fairness Doctrine, as it was while in place, is the correct solution to leveling the playing field, it is hardly an effort to silence anyone, but rather, an effort to encourage MORE open free speech, by providing time for opposing viewpoints.
The liberal media has been the dominant voice on all of our public airwaves for far too long now, and it's time we all stood up in support of a form of Fairness Doctrine, to level the playing field, so that republicans no longer have to be downtrodden and have their voices hidden away from public consumption.
But, I must rebuke what you have said. Yes, the liberal media has been the mainstream way most of this nation has gotten their news, but on the other hand, we have had voices of conservatism on the radio for many years. The issue with the Dems is the libs haven't gotten a stonghold on the radio and that's the beef they have. If the libs on radio couldn't get their listenership to entice their sponsors, then the Fairness Doctrine looks appealing to them. In essence, it's to squelch the conservative voices all across this nation by forcing them to present the liberal side, whether their listeners are wanting it or not. It should be up to the free markets to decide who they promote on their radio stations, not the government's.
I fear for the future of America, if liberals are allowed to continue dominating all broadcast media the way that they have since the Fairness Doctrine was allowed to sunset.
If republicans are EVER to hope to have a voice in the wilderness, we ALL have to stand up in support of a resurrection of this law, so that the playing field can FINALLY be leveled once again. Haven't we all had more than enough of the liberal media?
It is truly not that difficult to understand. If the government wants to get into the broadcasting business, let them buy a station and have crackpots running at the mouth 24 hours a day and let the rest of the airwaves go as the market decides. Of course I'd like to remind them that this is OUR money they would so foolishly squander...not THEIRS...but this is another topic.
I keep hearing Jefferson's words in the back of my mind...getting louder with each passing day..."if government becomes destructive to these ends [of Liberty] it is the RIGHT of the People TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT."
Were I a young man these days, I very much fear that this is exactly what I might be attempting...as the frustration with this cancerous tumor everyone forgot to remove while they still could..... grows and consumes everything in its path.
Interesting comment, considering that "the government" is "you and I," and that the public airwaves belong to "you and I."
"Of course I'd like to remind them that this is OUR money they would so foolishly squander...not THEIRS...but this is another topic."
Again, the government is "you and I," and the public broadcast airwaves belong to...well...the public. Not to Sinclair. Not to Murdoch. Not to Turner. Not to Soros. Not to Franken. Not to Hannity. Not to Limbaugh. Not to ClearChannel. They belong to YOU AND I. ALL of us.
"I keep hearing Jefferson's words in the back of my mind...getting louder with each passing day..."if government becomes destructive to these ends [of Liberty] it is the RIGHT of the People TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT.""
It's rather hysterical to see rightwingers quote the most leftist of all founding fathers, particularly when it's been the rightwingnuts who've been opposing liberties and freedoms so fiercely over the past 7-1/2 years!
Meanwhile, it's no secret to anyone with a thinking mind why the rightwing so staunchly opposes the free speech that the Fairness Doctrine would bring about. For 20 years now, they've OWNED virtually the entire AM bandwidth, save for the past 4, when AAR finally arrived to bring some truth to the light of day. The fact is, progressive radio terrifies these wingnuts, because they see how effective it is at combating the lies of the right, and how popular it is in markets that it's been allowed to wander into.
Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, and Randi Rhodes all beat some of the biggest names in rightwing radio world, when they compete head to head in the same market. No WONDER the righties don't want to allow progressive voices onto MORE stations!
Btw, it is NOT "market driving forces" to have one rightwing company gobble up over 600 radio stations and then force them to all broadcast the same rightwing drivel 24/7. Do you know how Limbaugh got to be the goliath that he is today? It sure as hell wasn't because of his message or his "talent."
It was because he was syndicated by ClearChannel, who then offered the show for free to dying AM stations across the nation, in exchange for ad air time. Boom. Instantly, his show was being broadcast in every market in the US, and in many cities on more than one station, and during more than one time slot. Many stations carried his show for 6-8 hours every day.
Now, how can we test whether or not there is a "liberal media" as the delusional wingnut freaks suggest? Hmmmm...I've got it...
Let's see if they're in favor of, or opposed to a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine! Surely, if they're as downtrodden and locked away in silence as they'd have led us to believe over the years, they'll JUMP at the chance to level the playing field, right?
Wait a minute...wingnuts are OPPOSED to the Fairness Doctrine. Well now...that can only mean one of two things...
Either wingnuts are stupid, or they've been lying all along, and the media really ISN'T liberally biased. Go figure. Well, I guess they could be both STUPID and LYING, couldn't they? Yeah, fer sure.
This is truly one of the most laughably absurd issues that the wacky, delusional wingnuts have taken on. Anyone with even a shred of intelligence only has to point to the MSM marketing of the illegal republican war with Iraq to understand that the MSM is definitely NOT liberal. The liberal message prior to the invasion was that it was NOT necessary, because there was NO evidence to support the administration's claims, and that we would be mired in an endless, disastrous occupation forever once we entered.
Instead, what we heard, 24/7, for months on end, was "WAR WITH IRAQ!!!" The only progressive voice on television at the time was Phil Donahue, and he was fired specifically because of his stance against the march to illegal war, in spite of the fact that, at the time of his firing, he was MSNBC's #1 rated program host. Some "liberal media," huh?
Then again, had the media been "liberal" in 2000, we'd have not had to endure 9/11, or any of the other monumental disasters that have been the hallmark of this miserably failed, collossally corrupt presidency in the first place, since the public would've been made aware of the Bush/Hitler ties during WWII, and of Junior's AWOL status during his stint in the TANG. Those two issues alone would've eliminated any possibility of the election ever being close enough for a corrupt, partisan supreme court to steal, and we'd have all been spared the worst and most highly corrupt presidency in US history.
But, you whack-a-doodle wingnuts just keep right on pissing and moaning about fictitious beasts, and leave the real world to those of us that have the mental capacity to deal with the problems that it presents. You provide outstanding entertainment for us, but please, do keep your hands out of the real world, because God knows, you aren't capable of doing anything but creating disastrous messes when you fiddle with it. We're all far better off when you folks just keep to your little pretend, cartoon world.
When I'm reading a very good book, I think about it even when I'm not reading it. So I'm thinking about the book I'm reading now and how it relates to this. (I'm getting to your books next, Jack. Since I always like what you write on gather, I'm very anxious.) The book, Child 44 by Tom Rob Smith is about the Soviet Union in the 1950s. Everyone, every single person except retarded people, was scared to death all the time that they might say the wrong thing or say it too loudly or too often because it might be cause for their arrest and death.
Granted, the book is fiction. But the story of government control of speech, letting them decide what and how much is fair, is, I think, the direction we'd be heading in if this comes to pass.
I have already had two so called supporters of free speech threaten me by being friends with someone who does not allow them on her articles...because they bash her all of the time, gang up on her.. and posts articles about Obama... Can you believe it they are mad at her for not allowing them to comment but they are telling me who to be friends with... They are nuts or trying to intimidate and it wont work for me.. It has for some of the others, but I call those wimps who give in to this kind of cyber bullying..