RWNJ Conservative Views from Cincinnati

The Broadcaster Freedom Amendment offered by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) to the D.C. Voting Rights Act was voted in overwhelmingly 87-11 (46 Democrats crossed over to vote with the Republicans). This amendment prevents the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

Here’s the catch… Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) added an amendment (which passed 57-41 with no Republican support) that instructs the FCC to take a proactive stance “to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership.” This is some broad language that could be interpreted in many ways.

DeMint anticipates some issues and commented “Sen. Durbin’s amendment exposed Democrat intentions to impose radio censorship through the back door using vague regulations dealing with media ownership.  Sen. Durbin’s language was so broad, it could apply beyond radio to television, newspapers and the internet. All eyes are now on the FCC.  If they attempt to shut down free speech indirectly, we will fight to stop them.”

Though the “Fairness Doctrine” may be stopped, it appears a back door method to media censorship could open up.

2 comments, join the conversation

Posted under Media

The Business & Media Institute is reporting that Sentor DeMint (R-SC) is planning on adding the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the D.C. Voting Rights bill next week.  This amendment would prevent the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

Attached is audio of Bingaman (D-NM) stating his support of the fairness doctrine.  Unfortunately, the Fairness Doctrine will only limit free speech instead of promoting it.  Currently the media is open and all viewpoints have equal opportunity to be heard.  Success and failure is based upon the ability of those viewpoints to hold an audience.

5 comments, join the conversation

Posted under Media

The New York Post put up an article that got me thinking.  Obama claims that he isn’t looking to have the Fairness Doctrine return.  But what are the odds he would stop it?  There is little doubt that Pelosi will push this through.  I cannot see any situation where an Obama administration would veto it.

The Post does an excellent job pointing out that the name “Fairness” makes it sound like a good thing.  Unfortunately, many people don’t think about what the true effect of this is and blindly think “Oh, fairness is a good thing, I support that!”  I wonder how many people actually understand that it actually is Government dictation of media content.

Currently, the media is open to anyone that wants to participate.  The free market dictates what is successful and what is not.  Liberals have tried to break into talk radio, but these ventures have not been successful.  Air America is not a failure because it hasn’t had a chance, it is a failure because the product is not desired by the public.

The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than a move towards Government-controlled media.  Media outlets will be forced to air programming offering an opposing point of view of another program, regardless of their popularity.  Advertisers will not support programming that does not provide listeners that could potentially purchase their product.  Knowing this fact, media outlets will move away from programming that might invoke the Fairness Doctrine.

The net effect is a drowning out of free speech!  The current environment is not restrictive to anyone’s speech.  If a program is in demand, it is able to find a place to broadcast and be heard.  If a product is not in demand, it will lose its voice.  This is not because it is being drowned out, it is because it is not wanted for consumption.  Supply and demand works just fine here.

The Fairness Doctrine is simply an assault on free speech.

One comment, what do you think?

Posted under Media