Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Amanda Carpenter :: Townhall.com Columnist
Dems Eager to Regulate Talk Radio
by Amanda Carpenter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Prominent Democrats want to revive a policy to require broadcasters to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues, spurred by complaints that talk radio has unfairly impacted the national immigration debate.

An article published Wednesday by The Hill quoted Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.),stating: “It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision.”

The Fairness Doctrine was a Federal Communication Commission regulation that dates back to 1947. Under the regulation, station licensees were considered “public trustees” that had an obligation to present multiple perspectives on public issues.  In the 1987 case Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts ruled the regulation was not mandated by Congress and the FCC was not obligated to enforce it. As a result,the FCC discarded the Fairness Doctrine.

Wednesday morning Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) told WYNC’s Brian Lehrer: “The Doctrine ought to come back.These are the people who wiped out one of the most profound changes to the balance of the media is when conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements. And the result is…. you know they’ve been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views.”

Since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, conservative talk radio has exploded in popularity, while liberal efforts like Air America went bankrupt. The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank comprised of many former Clinton Administration staffers, issued a report on June 21titled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radiothat concluded 91 percent of weekday talk radio is conservative.

The report states: “The gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S.regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.”

Well-known talk radio host Michael Medved, who frequently invites liberal guests to his Salem Communications show, said, "Up until today, the Fairness Doctrine was confined to the fever swamps of the extreme MoveOn.org left. With Dick Durbin and John Kerry talking about the return of it, it’s time to pay attention."

He continued, "The best way for people to understand this is that a country western station succeeds because people know it’s a country western station. They know any hour of the day or night if they punch that button into their car radio they are going to get country music. They don’t expect that the country music is going to be balanced by hip-hop or the Metropolitan opera."

When asked to react to Durbin’s remarks about reinstituting the policy, Bill Bennett, popular Salem Communications talk radio host, said, “Wow. This is serious.”

“In the past, I thought some of my colleagues were being a bit too excitable about this, but now you have serious Democrats like Durbin and [Dianne] Feinstein talking about it,” he said. “This is a clear violation of the first amendment and we will fight it with all that we can.”

In a June 24 interview, Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace asked Sen. Feinstein (D.-Calif.) if she would revive the Fairness Doctrine. She said,“Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.”

Feinstein added: “I remember when there was a Fairness Doctrine, and I think there was much more serious, correct reporting to people.”

Republican Sen. Trent Lott (Miss.),who appeared on the program with Feinstein, was quoted in a June 15 New York Times article about immigration saying, "Talk radio is running America.We have to deal with that problem."

In the Fox interview, Lott said he did not support the Fairness Doctrine.

Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.), a former talk radio host, will introduce legislation this week with Rep. Greg Walden (R.-Ore), a radio station owner, to prevent the Fairness Doctrine from being enacted again.

Pence explained that barring any legislation, like the bill he is proposing, a future President could resurrect the regulation.

Last week, Sen. Inhofe (R.-Okla.) told KFI talk radio host John Ziegler he had overheard Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) speaking with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.) about “putting a legislative fix” on talk radio in the past.

Pence said, “To me the scenario that presents a genuine threat to the wide-open, free market debate that is talk radio today is the notion of a Democrat President in the White House with appointments to the FCC and some sufficient majorities in the House and Senate to bring this Fairness Doctrine back, all with very carefully veiled in rhetoric about everybody having their say.”

“As long as we have a Republican President in the White House I’m sure we’ll have a veto and I’m sure we’ll have the votes to sustain it. But what happens after a year and half if we lose the White House and we don’t regain the Congress? That’s why we need this legislation,” Pence stated.

Pence will also introduce an amendment to the Financial Services Appropriation bill with Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R.-Tex.) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.) to block any federal money from being used by the FCC to impose the Fairness Doctrine.

 

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Amanda Carpenter is the author of “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton,” published in October 2006.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Amanda Carpernter. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
ACLU
Anyone want to make a bet that the ACLU won't touch this one? The "Fairness Doctrine" is definitely a 1st amendment issue, but they may (or will) drag their feet on this one.

Their true colors (agenda) may come out, if they don't act on killing it.

Fairness Doctrine is obvious
The Fairness Doctrine was obviously government control of free speech and, besides being a dumb idea, it was un-constitutional to begin with. Most folks are more engaged and vocal nowadays and won't stand still for a repeat of this idea. The fight to protect the First Amendment from any further attacks, such as McCain-Feingold, will be even more fierce than the fight against illegal immigration. Congress still has no idea who they are screwing with.

Talk radio is the voice of the people, democracy in action, a concept lost on most Senators and Representatives as we are witnessing during this illegal immigration debate. It's too bad many of these Senators and Representatives have to finally grow up, especially considering the age of many of them. The time has been long overdue. I think many of them are still throwing temper tantrums and babbling incoherently. Ted Kennedy comes to mind and so does David Obey. It's too bad we keep re-electing these same dimwits. So, let us stop doing it!

Any Senator or Representative who has so little grasp of and respect for the Constitution, as many in the current crop exhibit, should be drop kicked down the Capitol steps on their fat tutu's. We don't have to wait for terms to expire, we just need to make enough noise to cause them to resign their office. I know, it's wishful thinking on my part, but I can hope can't I?


First is inoperative
I sure like the First Ad the way it is interpreted by most people rather than the way it is written.

It says, “Congress shall make no law respecting … … “ then lists a series of things. Now if you wonder what the Congress is, this same Constitution spends several pages telling exactly what Congress is. As long as Congress makes no law “respecting” those things listed, the First is inoperative.

It doesn’t say anything about the President, the IRS, the FCC, the City Council, the State Legislature, or your boss, or even your wife.

And if you read the First as it is really written, if any of those other folks make a law or a rule concerning any of the “freedoms” listed in the First, Congress can not invalidate that law or rule, because that would be Congress making a law “respecting” the very things the Constitution says they can’t make a law “… respecting.”

This could go on forever.

Protecting 1st amendment rights
We have the second, and we are still the Home of the Brave and Land of the Free.

Free men do not ask permission to speak his mind, nor for any other God given Right as the right to keep and bear arms.

The socialists should be very happy they do not get their way into law, cause if they did, they will force many to bring about a new war of Independence.

This incrementalism of communism will be stopped, one way or another.

Talk Radio vs MSM
The point some people miss is that conservative talk radio IS the balance to the MSM.

Third Eye
That is the right question. I say the audience decides. If people want to hear what you have to say you will gain market share, if not it withers on the vine.

The Crucial Question
Who Decides?
Sure it's easy with polarizing issues, but what about the non-partisan issues that get discussed?
Would you like someone like Randi Rhodes or Thom Hartman to decide what is right or left? These two think that Bill O'Reilly is far right wing and Rush Limbaugh is off the right side of the map. How about someone like Michael Savage? He believes that Bill O'Reilly is a lefty and that Rush Limbaugh is center right. Which of these two types of people will decide what is fair? What type of 'equal time' would we have from each of these types?

See my blog for my commentary on the fairness doctrine, "A Fair for all and No Fair to Anybody"
(Click on Third Eye above)

Lilly
Liberals are free to come on the radio, Air America and Randy Rhodes.But stations shouldn't be forced to carry them. The station owners are going to put on what is profitable. If lib talk made money it would be on, just because libs can't compete the current stations shouldn't be made to carry their message. The leaders of this charge don't like conservative talk radio, and would rather silence it than find ways to compete. Can we say Hugo Chavez.
Its the free market of ideas, not enough people like what libs are selling. After all you have the major TV newscast, as well as NPR which is forced financed by conservative tax dollars too, and libs still can't compete even with welfare.

KC

Nightowl
When you look at his name, assuming it's not satire, are you surprised? I'm so glad they are on the exact opposite end of the country as I am.

Check out what the geniuses in TedKennedyLand are debating this week:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/26/sex.change.inmate.ap/index.html



Mass. Liberal
"Cons are the biggest crybabies in the world. Go change your diapers. Get over it - you cannot control the world."

In relation to the subject this is one of the dumbest entries here.

back on track
Someone a while back said democrats aren't even interested in th fairness doctrine, then I see stuff like this dated June 28, 2007:

Taylor Marsh asked about the Fairness Doctrine and Rep. Spence's amendment to prohibit enforcement of the fairness doctrine on conservative talk radio. Speaker Pelosi said this will not come to the floor, that she is solidly behind bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.







Will
Well, that doesn't really have that much to do with talk radio, but...

I'm in the military and know guys in Iraq - two right now. The doom and gloom you get from the MSM (you know, the impartial guys) is grossly exaggerated. MOST of Iraq is secured; a couple of provinces aren't. And most of the Iraqis are on our side. If you don't know, a lot of the people we are fighting are Iranians who are using Chinese weapons. Everyone ignores Syria, but I would be surprised if they aren't interfering too.

Where have we failed? In deposing and executing a dictator who killed 2 million people? In getting a country to the point where it had its first free elections, maybe ever? We are merely following up on our foreign policy from 1998, from a guy who had the same Presidential Daily Brief GW Bush gets:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998



For lilly
You wrote:

"You folks claim that college professors, journalists, and schoolteachers are too liberal---you want some conservative voices among them. How is that different from liberals wanting some liberal voices on talk radio?"

It is different two ways.

1. Most liberal college professors and teachers are paid by the government because they work in public schools, colleges, and university.

2. The government REQUIRES children to attend these schools. That means the governemnt is forcing many children to attend public institutions paid for with tax dollars which are essentially liberal indoctrination centers.

Conservatives don't expect journalist opinion to be balanced. And we don't object that 80%-90% of the media is liberal. What we object to is the pretense of the lib media that they are balanced when in fact they are hopelessly liberal.

But since you've raised the point that our educators aren't balanced; that they are heavily liberal; why aren't Feinstein, Kennedy, Reid, Durbin, et al busily constructing a "fairness doctrine" for public schools and pushing it through the legislature. I mean, since they're so concerned about people getting "both sides" of the story.

Don't kids deserve "both sides" of the story and "correct reporting" as much as they deserve condoms and free health care?

Will
You couldn't be more right...no party is doing much for me right now. I would vote for the Libertarians, but for now it's a wasted vote. A viable third party candidate would be good in my opinion. Jesse Ventura did it and got elected.

I have been bitterly disappointed in the spending going on for the last six years. I think "No Child Left Behind" was well-intentioned, but disastrous in execution (plus, none of the federal gov't business anyway).

The ONLY reason I vote Republican of late is because I think they are aware there is a real threat emanating from the Middle East. If you have two parties who are equally profligate, but one is blissfully unaware of Islamic threats, to me I go with the lesser of two evils. If you all had someone good like Lieberman (I know he changed), I would truly vote for him -way before I would vote for that idiot Specter. You guys don't help yourselves by saving Michael Moore two seats at the DNC, or by having Owlgore say he views 'global warming' as a greater threat than nuclear war.

lilly
Sorry to hear that.

I am a conservative, and I don't enjoy most prime time shows, but I haven't attempted to get them banned either. The government shouldn't regualte the airwaves, for better or worse. It's simply unconstitutional.

I'm glad you have learned something about economics on this site...that's cool.

To Axphil
Thanks for your concern. No, he won't be all right, and taking care of him takes most of my time. When I take a break I like to sit down here and chat about interesting issues with interesting folks. Sorry I am not always available to respond immediately. I like the seagull image Raganar put up---sounds very free to be a swooping seagull.

The issues we discuss here are among the most important of our age. It's unfortunate that they don't always get really discussed---just hollering, "You're stupid" or "I'm turning you off" doesn't at all get to the heart of the issue, which always has two sides.

Should the government regulate the airways? On one hand this means putting on a liberal voice to counter Rush Limbaugh, which conservatives don't want---but it also means getting the smut off TV during prime time, which conservatives do want. Should a family have the right to turn off a patient's life support (think of the Teri Schiavo controversy)? On one hand it means doing all possible to sustain a life until God takes it, which conservatives want---but it also means enormous cost which families are seldom able to bear and which conservatives do not want to see the state pay. These just two of the many double-edged swords our society faces, and usually there's no easy answer.

Obviously I am a Democrat, although I would say I am a fairly centrist one. So why do I come to townhall, a conservative site? Because I don't think it's that interesting to talk just with people who agree with me. That gets to be like being a bat sending your own radar blips off the wall of the bat cave. I learn a lot here. I don't think I ever really understood the free market philosophy before coming to townhall (I wish now that I had ever taken an economics course but I never did)---but now that every day seems to bring more bad news re Chinese imports, that's yet another issue with two sharp sides. Yes, the free market is shutting out China with a vengeance---but in the meantime there's a little matter of kids already poisoned by toothpaste and cats already dead from bad catfood. So I would argue for regulation in advance of such tragedy.

Must go now. No rudeness intended; duty calls.


Will
Well said, and truth be known, I am conservative but with a good chunk of libertarian thrown in.

If Al franken et al are on the radio, i have no objections to that at all. whoever is interested can listen all day long. As a minimal government kind of guy, I can't see regulation of airwaves (and implicitly infringing on free speech) being a government charter.

lilly
I hope yuor husband will be all right.

To answer your question, the difference is that conservatives are not agitating for any doctrine to equalize professors, MSM, etc. We don't think it's the role of government to 'regulate' such things.

By the First Amendment, no one is prohibiting Al Franken and his ilk from having a radio show. Witness Air America. Getting anyone to listen is a different issue.

By the same token, no one is MAKING any network broadcast the Super Bowl, but they line up to do it because of the advertising revenue.

When "Cosby" was on, should we have made NBC broadcast a half-hour show with all white people for equal time? Or should we just let NBC play shows that are highly rated and make money?

And the disingenuous part of the fairness doctrine is that it ONLY seeks to regulate talk radio. No similar rules would apply to CBS, NBC, ABC, or CNN. Why? Bear in mind, if you get this doctrine, 'fairness' dictates that for every hour of Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, there would be an hour of Rush Limbaugh. Yet liberals never complain about Keith Olbermann, nor do they complain about Chris Matthews, who has worked for several Democrat presidents. Why is that?

dcdiva
Re "The left controls [newspapers]": have you ever looked at the website "Who Owns What" which is maintained by the Columbia University School of Journalism? It shows the ownership of all major media outlets (newspapers, magazines, TV, radio). As you will see, most are now owned by Corporate America, which is notoriously Republican. You think an owner doesn't control his outlets?

Abolish Death Penalty "Conditionally"
I’d abolish of Capital Punishment, under certain conditions. The death penalty is far too humane considering my alternative. Of course these “conditions" would require abolishing Patrol Boards and “modification” of existing laws regarding so called “cruel & unusual punishment. For those convicted of the most horrific and egregious crimes, REAL confinement would be more appropriate punishment. For a definition of REAL “confinement”, Google search “oubliette”. It gives true meaning to; “lock em up and throw away the key”. Leave it to the French to invent non lethal punishment so horrific that prisoners begged for death. Then there’s a “socially beneficial” alternative: Medical Experimentation. Think about the rapid advances in medical research Dr. Josef Mengele could achieve if he were alive and in charge of the Bureau of Prisons today. Either alternative would likely be more of a deterrent, as both are extremely NOT Nice. But then, Im NOT a “nice guy”.

To Bobbit
No, when Murdoch established a media outlet to support his political point of view he wasn't speaking as government. However, when Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine to support his political base, he WAS speaking as government. Re-establishing what Reagan got rid of would fall into the same category.

Sorry Ragnar
Between your posts at 11:56 and 2:59 I was not at the computer because in that time span I had to take my husband to the doctor then fix his lunch, go to the grocery store, and start an extra cleaning of the guest room as my kids are coming for the weekend. I still won't be free to sit here nonstop 24/7 but will make every effort to respond to you. What was it you especially wanted me to see?

Balance
You folks claim that college professors, journalists, and schoolteachers are too liberal---you want some conservative voices among them. How is that different from liberals wanting some liberal voices on talk radio?

This is truly serious
It's understandable that libs like lilly, bama, and massachusetts lib would use this issue to splay rude and childish insults at conservatives. That's what libs do when their online.

What's of more concern to me is the number of sensible conservatives who don't understand what the Fairness Doctrine really means.

First, it means that Limbaugh, for example, who is on for 3 hours each weekday, would have to give 1-1/2 hour of that time to someone a government agency deemed to have "the opposing point of view". Either that or any station carrying Rush would have to give someone like Al Franken his own three hour show. No one wants to listen to Franken for three minutes, let alone three hours, so there would be no audience, and thus no sponsors, so this would make it financially impossible for the station to carry Rush.

The same problem would occur if Rush turned half of his show over to some pathetic, revolting lib poseur. That "whoosh" you would hear would be the sound of (literally) 10-15 million radios being turned off or to some (any) other station all at once.

The Fairness Doctrine is a treacherous, dishonest way for the Democrats to shut Rush (and others) down because he/they can't be shut up. And all the proof you need is that it is the same cabal of Democrat Senators-for-Life, Kenndy, Reid, Feinstein, Durbin, and so on, who are trying to abuse the authority of their office and put lipstick on the pig they're using to do it by using the term "fair" to describe an act of blatant despotism.

Why?
Let's leave free speech alone. Let the marketplace decide.

Ragnar
So true about Lilly, but at least the 'deposits' seagulls leave behind spread seeds and make good fertilizer. Lilly can make no such claim.

Even the NY Times serves a purpose - if you are a bird owner.

Anne
Your suggestion to put “Lilly the Lying Loony Lib” and other Idiot Liberals like her on PREMANENT IGNORE is a good one. You’ll note that she never responds to criticism.
So attempting to get an answer from her is a waste of time. (See my post of 11:56 re Lilly). As one observant person who posts here regularly, astutely put it: Lilly is like a seagull. She flies in, takes a dump, and then flies away. LMAO

just ignore them
Fox CBS
NBC
CNN
PBS
MSN

And we need to "balance" talk radio?

Seriously, ignore Lilly. I have never heard conservatives saying we need to shut down lib media outlets. Free speech does not protect you from hearing things you do not like. We finally have a piece of the action and something needs to be done about it? It is market driven. If no one wanted to hear it it would go away, (like Air America, boohoo)

I am not worried about the Dems who say this drivel. It is guys like Trent Lott and the other quislings who want to sell out our country who concern me. They need to keep feeling the fire of our wrath. I thought it was supposed to be REPRESENTATIVE government. They don't want to hear from us? Lott says we didn't know what was in the bill! We understood it all too well. Scumbag traitors.

Ignore the Mass guy too. He is stuck on diapers.

Fairness
Let us consider universal application of the fairness doctrine, taking it beyond what has already been suggestted. In addition to applying to television, newspapers, cable tv, hollywood, the public school system, colleges and universities, let us mandate a correction to another blatant bias.

I live in New Hampshire. Both our Senators are Republicans, and both our Representatives. Both Senators from (M)assachusetts are Democrats, as are all their Representatives. This is clearly unbalanced, biased and unfair. The solution is simple. Make it a law that each state must have one Republican Senator and one Democrat. Further, the number of represenatatives from each state must be an even number, and half Democrat, half Republican. The President and Vice President must be, one Republican, one Democrat. Thus we would achieve balance, and with a 50/50 split in Congress, they would be able to do much less than they do (to us) today, and that in itself would be a good thing. But, enough ophantasy and frivolity.

Once again, an abbreviated version of my concern that if they have any degree of success stifling talk radio, they are going to come after the internet, especially sites such as this one. Be prepared to fight.


afsarge
arguing with residents of an alternative universe is wasted effort. Lilly continually proves an ineffective advocate for the left point of view. Better to ignore someone who can't see the truth when presented. She rants but cannot validate

lilly dear
Please tell us where you are getting your stats? How in the world can you sit there and claim the MSM has moved to the center? Center of what? You pointed that Fox is more to the right, great, but please show me what other network is anywhere but far left? We have Foxnews, you have ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC/PBS, yeah, I guess I can see how its balanced on TV. You know it isn't and yet you still come in and try to tell us otherwise. Talk radio is what it is because it has a product to sell its audience. If that product could not get listeners, it would not last long. I know this is news to the socialists, but in the free market that's how it works. If liberals putout programs people wanted to hear, they would be as successful. So what does that tell you? The market has spoken.

fairness
It's been said before by people who were far more honest than the current crop of power mad partisians.."what ever advances the cause of socialism(democratism)is just.

Free Markets
Let’s not forget what is really driving the fact that Conservatives rule talk radio – the free market. If there were popular Liberal talk radio shows, there would be stations in every market in America who would put them on. Radio stations are businesses, and are in the business of producing profits for their owners/shareholders. This profit is earned by selling on-air advertising to businesses and others. Obviously, the more listened to a show is, the higher the amount of money someone is willing to pay for that advertising time. Alternatively, if a show is not very popular, it is very difficult to sell the advertising time so the profits are much lower. If the Liberals really want to compete in the talk radio arena, they need to do it the old fashioned way – find something that actually sells.

Which leads me to my review of Liberal talk radio. I’m a Libertarian who enjoys listening to both sides of any argument, though 90% of the time I’m going to side with the Conservative. I have Sirius and flip over to Sirius Left once in a while just to see what’s going on. It’s an absolute snooze-fest. These people are so boring it is unbelievable. I listened one day to some woman for an hour with her talking about her trip to the store for a party she was putting on for some other Liberals that coming weekend. I kept listening because I wanted to know if she was ever going to express an opinion – she didn’t. It was unreal. I challenge anyone to tune in to any Conservative show and see how long it takes for someone to clearly express an opinion.

There are some interesting opinions on the left side of the aisle, but there seems to be no one with the style or the ability to talk about it on the radio. Until they do, the market will rule and Conservatives will own the medium (which, at this point, they should).

Fair and Equal Knowledge
I don't remember her name, but do you remember when a reporter, columnist, or famous for some reason female, from some organization in New York City, very likely the NY Times, said something like, "I can't imagine Nixon got elected, I don't know anyone who would vote for him."


Equal talk, equal listen
Equal listening time, not equal broadcasting time

It will do no good to insist on an equal number of minutes of hate and lies broadcast from the left.

There must be a law that requires all thinking people who listened to Real Interesting Radio, to spend that exact number of minutes — remember now, you must stay awake and not yawn — listening to Hate America Radio and the likes of Stupid Miller, Hate B---- Rutty Roads, and that boring monotone who gave up radio and is running for Senate as a Demo.

Won’t he fit right in with Mr. KKK, the Swimmer, the Sandwich (for those who don’t remember the story of Dodd, Kennedy and the waitress) and all those other equal timers.

By the way, speaking of equal time when do other Senators get equal time with Mr. KKK? Just this morning on CSPAN the Senate President said, “Twenty minutes for Mr. KKK, ten minutes for anyone else.” And that actually happened at about 3:00 PM ET.

Here's the problem . . .
The liberals live in an alternate universe brought on by the combination of drug abuse, marxist indoctrination at the university (and for the children, at home), wussification, and naivete.

Ask any liberal, ANY, and they will tell you that there is no bias in the media, the newspapers, the univerisities, the government bureaucracies, or the courts.

They have sanctimoniously annoited themselves as the most-enlightened among us. They know better than the rest of us booger-eatin' morons. They're positions are the "correct" ones.

According to Senator Feinstein: “I remember when there was a Fairness Doctrine, and I think there was much more serious, correct reporting to people.”

I hope no one glossed over the use of the word "correct". Exactly who is it who decides whether reporting is "correct"? Why, it's the liberals. From their perspective, they're situated firmly in the middle. They don't personally know anyone who disagrees with them. They only hear this fringe element out there called talk radio that seems to be brain-washing the ignorant masses.

Since they view themselves in such a holy light, anyone to the right of themselves must be radical, fascist, or any other derrogatory term of which they can think. Those to the left of them, well they don't count - or better yet, they're more correcter (bad grammar intended for effect, libs).

It's like Bernard Goldberg says, a fish doesn't know it's wet . . . much like libs in the media . . . who live in an echo chamber. The talk radio shows I listen to are constantly responding to liberal nonsense. Libs are invited to respond. Lib mouthpieces are invited to come on and debate. I don't see that in the media unless you have four libs up against one (usually weak) conservative punching bag.

The point is that liberals are constantly pushing the envelope to change society. Though many are well-meaning, their shallow thinking does not allow them to see the logical effects of their policies, which are almost universally detrimental. Someone's poor . . . give them money . . . there, problem solved . . . don't I feel good about myself now?

They never look at the ongoing problem or the root cause. I'm all for charity, just not governmentally-sponsored redistribution of wealth. I'm also for teaching a man to fish so I don't have to continually provide him with mine.

I know I'm a bit off topic now, but the point is that liberals don't think like we do. They emote. They can't defend their positions, so they must rig the system so they don't have to. They'll tell you what you need to hear, don't you worry your pretty little head about that.

This garbage about the media being skewed to the right is absolute sophistry. At the very least conservatives will tell you that what their doing is providing opinion. Libs, on the other hand weave their point of view into every fiber of their being. That's why there is no form of entertainment from which you can get a break from liberal rants. There is no boundary. They have no shame.

That's why the only way to make sure that our voices are heard is to defeat liberals politically. My only hope is that the mainstream culture that is dominated by the children of the sixties will die out and a rebirth will take place where common sense, logic, and reason will once again take hold.

I'm not optimistic based on the history of the world, but I can hope and do everything I can to hold back the liberal hordes.

Would the Dems be pushing this
if talk radio was TOTALLY DOMINATED by the left wing????

Well -- WOULD THEY?!?!?!!?!!?

Lilly
Let's say whay you say is true. Murdoch established FNC because of the slant her percieved to exist in the MSM. He was not directe nor forced by the government to do so. And that Lilly is the crux of the matter. He was not "required" to do anything. He did it because he knew the market yearned for it and would support it. When o when will you left wing nutcases understand government is not the answer to everything but usually the problem with everything? As someone once said when the government becomes powerful enough to give you everyhting you want it is also powerfuil enough to take it all away. Let the market decide. What the he** are you libs afraid of (other than your ideas and programs being exposed as cr@p)?

Correct Thinking
It's not about hearing both sides, it's about promoting "correct" (ie: liberal) thinking.

Feinstein: “I remember when there was a Fairness Doctrine, and I think there was much more serious, correct reporting to people.”

---


40 YEARS OF DEM CONTROL
For 40 years the DEMS controlled everything we said and did. When someone comes along and does what the DEMS dont like thay want the changes made to support them. Its funny to watch a group of people whose ratings(14%) are lower than the PRES to demand quieting the people who they claim to represent. Freedom of speech is always thrown out when it comes to the DEMS being the target. Talk radio covers more than just politics
If we the people are not demanding that the whole lot be thrown out and start over then we get what we deserve. Power to the peeps. Keep freedom of speech alive.

Lilly "The Lying Loony Lib" is back.
Can anyone explain “Lilly the Lying Loony Lib”? She constantly posts her rants on conservative blogs, but never responds when criticized for some of her stupid comments. At best she is viewed as just another crackpot Lib and ignored or laughed at. At worst, she’s loathed for the liar she occasionally is. What I can’t understand is why she continues to seek such abuse. Perhaps she’s a masochist or just delusional; thinking she’ll actually convince someone. Perhaps she could if she were reasonably intelligent, rational, and presented well thought out arguments rather than, inconsistencies, distortions, half truths and occasional lies. And perhaps we’d take her more seriously if she ever responded to comments and criticism. But she never does. She’s known as Ms. “Hit & Run”. She drops her B.S. bombs and then runs rather than respond. But this in itself says something about “Lilly”. She can’t handle criticism. She never fires back a response because she has NO ammunition.

Since “Lilly the Lying Loony Lib” obviously isn’t going to go away, perhaps the best recourse is to place her on PERMANENT IGNORE. Or to put it another way: Refuse to engage in a battle of wits with the MENTALLY DISARMED.....LMAO

Is it any wonder that the dems are
doing this? GWB has proven to be one of their best allies in years in the WH. They are trying to get as much of their agenda passed as possible with Bush in the WH because the existing political bums are going to get annihilated come the next elections. It looks like we are going to have to hope that the House can keep any anti-American legislation from passing as the Senate is just one big circle jerk and I don't even know what Bush is anymore.

RE: Lolo
"The right has not been complaining about media bias for thirty years."

Actually, we have recognized the left wing bias for about 30 years.

The difference between us on the right and the fascists on the left like lilyliar is that our solution involves not consuming the leftwing treason that constitutes the majority of the mainstream media, and instead support more balanced news reporting (see the declining readership of such papers as the New York Traitors and the Boston Glob, while the readership of the Wall Street Journal is increasing, and see the dominance of the Fox News Channel), but fascists like lillyliar and her ilk prefer outright BANS on anything and everything that DARES to voice a different point of view.

Lillyliar and her ilk, as I said, are fascists, plain and simple. They CANNOT tolerate ANY differing opinions, and thus they need to resort to the force of law to do everythign they can to limit or shut down differing thought.

In short, conservatives just change the channel. Fascists of the lillyliar ilk work to ban dissent. Nuff said.

Oops
should read (from the left SIDE of the aisle)

Azzachussetts Libdolt
You wrote: "Cons are the biggest crybabies in the world. Go change your diapers. Get over it - you cannot control the world."

Another well thought out, intelligent argument from Azzachussetts! Can't you stop spewing long enough to see the irony of your moronic statement? Conservatives complain that the government (from the left die of the aisle) may consider CONTROLLING the content of talk radio ( and who knows where else after that?) and you tell us we cannot control the world. You guys would be funny if you weren't so dangerous. I have no doubt what you would be saying if Repubs were trying to stifle Air America. Fortunately there is no need to do that as they are quite proficient at that themselves.

lilly the loony lib
is also a liar. The right has not been complaining about media bias for thirty years. What's scary is you actually believe your dribble. It seems freedom of speech is only for the left, especially when they are demonstrating and castigating the military.

Where is this quote from?

"I saw the injustice and did nothing, therefore I became guilty myself."

Fairness dotringe FOR ALL!
Let's bring back the "fairness doctrine". Instead, though, of ONLY applying it to the ONE AND ONLY "public" service dominated by conservatives like the Constitution-hating FASCISTS like Feinstein and lillyliar prefer, let's apply it to EVERY SINGLE "public" service.

Imagine the 100s of 1000s of public school teachers and university professors that would be ejected from their jobs of brainwashing the American youth in the ways of socialism as they are replaced by conservatives.

Imaging the Dan Rathers and Keither Olbermanns of the TV media that would find themselves in the unemployment line because their beloved "fairness doctrine" has demanded they be replaced with "balancing" points of view.

Imagine the hordes of newspaper scribblers like Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman who would be dragged kicking and screaming from their jobs and replaced with conservative counterparts.

Then imagine the pathetic whines of Feinstein and lilyliar.

Now THAT would be just GREAT!

Perspective
Murdoch says clearly that he established FOX to give conservative balance to what he saw as liberal media bias. Fair enough. And talk radio was established to give conservative balance to what was seen as liberal media bias. Again, fair enough.

So if balance was good then, balance is still good. Surely everyone agrees that talk radio is overwhelmingly right-biased. Conservatives want to keep it that way. They aren't really interested in balance or fairness---what they want is control.

Hypocrites
It's funny ya know. When conservatives complain about the smut and filth on the airwaves that inudate our children at all hours, liberals are always quick to stand up and tell us that we should just change the channel. But when it comes to anything to do with conservative opinion like Rush, Fox News, et al, rather than following their own advice and simply changing the channel, they want to legislate it out of existence. The Founders would be rolling in their graves.

Remember politicians are like diapers - they should be changed often and for the same reason.

Perspective
I have read many times (including just the other day) that Murdoch established FOX because he wanted to provide a conservative balance to what he saw as a liberal-biased news media. Fair enough. And, talk radio was established to provide a conservative balance to what was seen as a liberal-biased news media. Again, fair enough. But if it's fair and good to assure conservative balance, then by the laws of logic the opposite must also be true and liberal balance must be maintained (or re-established, since the weight in some media is now clearly right-biased). Talk radio is overwhelmingly right-biased. Why should that medium not be required to present liberal views as well, in the interest of balance?

For nearly thirty years now I have heard people on the right never stop complaining and moaning about liberal bias. In response, traditionally liberal outlets have moved toward the center in an attempt to satisfy conservatives. For example, the Washington Post now has a daily column on religion that it didn't have before, while Harper's, Atlantic, and TIME have presented a great deal from the conservative viewpoint, and a few years ago the liberal editor of the Los Angeles Times was replaced with a conservative. Meanwhile, if you go to the website "Who Owns What", maintained by the Columbia University School of Journalism, which provides information on the ownership of newspapers, magazines, and TV and radio stations, you will see that just about everything now is owned by Corporate America, which is notoriously Republican.

And the right doesn't tolerate any opinion but its own. One of the daily newspapers I read is The Chicago Tribune, which has not endorsed a Democrat for the presidency since 1852---it is a Republican paper and most of its editorials and opinion columns reflect that orientation. However, when the Trib published columns by the late (liberal) Molly Ivins, there were ALWAYS letters to the editor demanding that her column be discontinued otherwise subscriptions and advertising would be canceled at the behest of the writer.

Nevertheless, those on the political right continue to whine that they are persecuted and left behind. It appears that they don't want balance: they want control.

Continued
The right to "CHOOSE" is absolute if you're choosing abortion, but Heaven help you if you would like to choose to listen to conservative talk radio.

The liberals have stacked the courts, media, public education, entertainment outlets, and government bureaucracies with their soldiers. Their quest for absolute power over our lives is insatiable. They cannot afford for dissenting voices to be heard.

Talk radio has become the electronic town hall where people with conservative viewpoints come together to discuss current events. They even let a few liberals come on and make fools of themselves when they get up the nerve.

The problem is that liberalism as an ideology is illogical and unworkable in the long run. That's why they shun debate. They want to appeal to your emotions by telling you how "Bad" the other side is. They want to assign nefarious motives to conservative thought, speech and actions rather than discuss them rationally.

Stalin is alive and well in America.

The Left
The left is the refuge of the infantile mind. Just like in the Man-made Global Warming debate, opposing views are not to be heard, and if they somehow slip into the public, they are to be dismissed, not refuted.

I find it ironic that the same side of the political spectrum who hold as sacrosanct the right to dismember an unborn child - a right that is not to be found, expressly written, anywhere in The Constitution - only applies the First Amendment - that which IS expressly written - when it serves their purpose (e.g. pornography, flag-burning, etc.)

They also hold in contempt the Second Amendment and seek to violate it at every turn.

The right to "CHOOSE"

bama & masslib
You've done it, you've made our case. Your elitism is showing for all to see.
The fact that the left controls 90% of all media you people can't stand not having the other 10%.
Color this all you want, change the wording but this is censorship plain and simple.
Hugo and soros would be soooo proud.

massliberal-clueless
Spoken like a true socialist, "Cons are the biggest crybabies in the world. Go change your diapers. Get over it - you cannot control the world."

Let's see, its liberals trying to stifle free speech and yet you accuse us of trying to control the world? Look in the mirror, hypocrite. Its appears you who are trying to control everything. If that's the best you got, then maybe its your diapers that are getting full. You can't compete in the market, so you want to shut down the opposition. Good supporter of the 1st amendment. Time to grow up.

bama- open eyes
Hey pal, you need to open your eyes. If you missed the whole interview w/ Feinstein, the point was she wants to bring back the fairness doctrine. Just because you don't think its worth mentioning doesn't mean its not an issue that being discussed. The whole reason its a topic is because it is being brought by your pals on the left. Again, why is it you liberals are so afraid of others having a voice? Are you so arrogant that you think your is the only one worth being heard? If talk radio isn't your thing, fine, change the station but don't try to tell us we shouldn't be allowed to listen to it. I do the same whenever for NPR. Now that's boring.

Sidesaddle,Hitchhiking Left
__For many years I watched network tv,PBS,read the world,and local news,and listened to various talk radio shows. A great deal of that time the Fairness Doctrine was in place. Used by the left to secure power by blinding the public.In order for their half truths,and double talk to work, they needed to have half the time,and double the cost of the opposition. The following quote is from para. { 26 } of: http://www.mttlr.org/volfour/hazlett_art.html
__"As Bill Ruder, an Assistant Secretary of Commerce under President Kennedy, noted: "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.""
__Please go to that link and read the lessons! It is dated September 25, 1997. I'm sure you will get a good chuckle out of para.{21}concerning a radio commentator Father Charles Coughlin,and his nickname for FDR. Fits the left to a tee.

Joe Oliva
You have it wrong. The most important election in our system is NOT, I repeat NOT NOT NOT the general election in November. There is no choice in this election and everyone must vote for either Rep or Dem, depending on which group holds closer to your view.

The most important elections are the PRIMARIES. This is where you vote the bums out. This is where local chapters can challenge incumbents of both parties. This is where RINOs like Specter can be eliminated with out garaunteeing the seat will go to the Dems. True Liberals (i.e. those who are not Leftist and retake the Democratic Party from the anit-Americain Leftist who praise the likes of Michael Moore, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and the like) Everyone who sits at home during the primaries has no position to complain.

the thought police revealed
The truth is a terrible thing to waste. There have been many good points here about how absurb it is prima facie to attempt to regulate what is said on public radio. Funny thing... the left is all for defending civil liberties and "freedoms" UNLESS and UNTIL those freedoms of speech involve exposing THEIR scams/shell games, ulterior agendas, and profligate spending. Then they become like the thieves who are not the least bit sorry they stole, but really ticked off that they got caught at it!

The left already dominates the MM (major papers, news magazines, the traditional TV networks) Hollywood, college campuses/academe, and thanks to feckless, disingenuous, quisling RINO neoCON pan-Mexican Presidente Jorge, will soon have the W.H. and likely control Congress as well. They simply want it all-- Big Brother will know what is best for us.

I'll agree to the "fairness doctrine"
only if the libs agree on the following conditions:

1. That it (the fairness doctrine) will be applied to all media; NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, CNN, NYslimes, LA slimes, Newsweek, Time magazine, Washington post, NPR, etc, etc.

2. It will be applied to K-12 schools. For every teacher with liberal views, there must be one with conservative views. Ditto for universities. For every communist...I mean...liberal proffesor, there must be one conservative.

3. All movies produced by Hollywood should have a 50/50, con/lib ratio. Same goes for sitcoms and commercials.

4. Every lib who puts a bumper sticker on their car that reads: "Kerry/Edwards", should have one right next to it that reads: "Bush/Cheney". And every lib who places a bumper sticker on their car that reads: "Bush lied, kids died", should also have one right next to it that reads: "Bush spied, terrorists died".

Now that's fair. Any takers? (If anyone thinks this post is idiotic; you would be right; It reflects what I think of the Dems and their fairness doctrine).

dcdiva
With all due respect, talk radio is as "hot" these days as ever, probably more. Millions and millions of people are in their cars all over the country, 24 hours a day. That's why even the re-runs from earlier in the day are immensely popular.

Taking the comments here,
I have to extrapolate what it would mean if this was a talk radio station.

Mostly conservatives expressing reasoned outrage; one liberal, Dona261, who is also on the right side of the issue.

Then there's MassLib with his idiotic little rant.

Now, who would tune into MassLib of their own choice?

dangerous durbin
The dick is wrong, Americans are already hearing both sides of the immigration story, the msm is spewing the elistists side, with Talk Radio & TH giving the other.

So dick the turbin durbin wants to silence TR through the unfairness doctrine, no surprise there, I hope he won't be surprised when I decide to defend the 1st amendment with the 2nd amendment.

consavant and wildwest
"the dems are talking about reviving the fairness dcotrine. They are the ones wanting to stifle debate. If there is no danger why are the dems in congress bringing the matter up as something they need to address "

i thought i was real clear in my comment ... no speech in either body has addressed the need to change the fairness doctrine ... i defy you to even uncover a proposed bill to limit the airways. until you are able to do so ... it shall remain a strawman argument ... put up or shut up. bullpoo walks and facts rule ... get with it!

and dont come back with the remarks made by "senator outrage" from the state of okies ... that ol liar doesnt belong in this discussion!

One request
My biggest complaint, not just with talk radio, but with almost all media, is that it's next to impossible to get both sides of a story without spending hours online trying to decipher the far-left and far-right.

Most Americans are not extreme left or right, but that's all the media seems to give us.

I would love to be able to listen to one show and get all the info I need on a political issue. That show doesn't exist today and I don't think the Fairness Doctine wil give me that.

bama
the dems are talking about reviving the fairness dcotrine. They are the ones wanting to stifle debate. If there is no danger why are the dems in congress bringing the matter up as something they need to address

bama
Straw man? I guess only in delusional minds considering it's the dem congress members talking about it and cons responding. And you claim we're creating the straw man? Are you from Massachusetts as well?

Talk radio is running America
That was a stunning admission by Trent Lott. What is one to conclude about the kind of leadership we have in the Senate when the legislative body is being outdone by a handful of radio talk show hosts?

MassachusettsLiberal
No wonder buffoons like you continue to elect the likes of Kennedy. Do you even read what you write or even understand the issue? Cons are for freedom of speech, not control of speech like the libs. You and your kind are the losers of the world and can't win in the market of free speech so you want to control it.

Thanks for the small snippet a liberal's twisted mind, loser!

have some cheese with that whine
my god ... how the right wing prattles on about nothing ... the so called effort to reinstitute the fairness doctrine is nothing but a straw argument being put out their by right wing pundits who need an issue for the downtrodden base. hell, there isnt one proposal to reinstitute the fairness doctrine on the hill ... not one .. get a grip.

besides that ... there are markets in america today where both sides of talk radio compete daily ... the incessant excuse that air america and other liberal talk cant compete is rather disproven in these markets. shows like fast eddie, thom hartman, and randy rhodes to name just a few do quite well. this might be one of the reasons some of the conservative hosts complain so much when stations run both sides of the political spectrum. who knows?

finally, my last trip to the fly over was rather revealing ... after three hours of right wing talk radio .... i turned the radio off. my god .... it was so insulting to anyone with an intellect. if i lived in these brokeback areas, i'm sure satellite radio would be a necessity.

mass lib
are you against debate? Should the fainess doctrine get enacted that will affect all your buddies at move on dot org and the rest of the lib hate sites. With your sites likewise stifled how will you rally the masses to follow your agenda like lemmings. Likewise when you side has to li9mit the vitriol it displays on it's web sites where will your crowd go for their daily dose of hatred for all things conserv. but i guess in your socialist workers paradise that doesn't matter

gcs brian
I think you are giving the dims far more credit than they deserve. They might try and control the public airwaves but taking on the entertainment business which is one of the cash cows underwriting the dims will never be considered. Even under the most bizarre scenerio that the dims succeed with their so called fairness doctrine, they will make it more inconvenient but talk radio will make the transition to pay radio and the dims will like that situation far less as they will only be offering empty threats as well as displaying their total disregard for public discourse. The old admonition about being careful for what you wish for will come back to haunt the short sdighted dims

Satellite radio/ Dems working together?
I wonder if the satellite radio providers are lobbying the Dems on this. The Fairness Doctrine would be a big boost for XM and Sirius, I'd bet. All the talk shows would do what Stern did and escape the government regulators by moving to broadband. Of course, that would probably cause the Dems to pass a law putting satellite and cable under the FCC's control.

talk radio
too bad it didn't exist during kennedy's stint as a lifeguard. Perhaps then he couldn't have gotten away with his crime. The dims know they are betraying america but talk radio keeps the spotlight on the libs rush to turn this country into a socialist workers paradise. Seeing those three bright lights, Kennedy, Reid and Durbin makes one wonder if they were holding auditions for clown of the year

Bad Idea Then, Bad Idea Now
The Fairness Doctrine was a bad idea when there was no internet, no conservative talk radio, no Fox News Channel or other conservative media outlets and it is a bad idea now. I had friends in radio in the 70's who just played music all the time because they were afraid to come up against the Fairness Doctrine. These were liberals by the way. But even their speech was chilled by this dumb policy. Liberals don't want fairness. They want 100% monopoly with no opposing ideas coming from anywhere. They can't compete in the marketplace of ideas so they want to regulate the marketplace. The problem is not Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter or other pundits. The problem is that we conservatives got tired of hearing one side of the issue for so long. We got tired of hearing how bad America is and how good Europe is. We got tired of being taxed to where we can't save for college for our kids or retirement. We got tired of being told our Christian views stink and that it is somehow unconstitutional to talk about them. I could go on about many other issues but the point is that at least we can get a hearing of our ideas on conservative talk radio. And now the powers that be even want to shut that down. Whatever happened to the celebrated freedom of the individual that so many liberals claim to support? Or is that only when you agree with their views? The battle is on, friends.

Same old same old
Expect more nonsense with greater frequency.

Even their bumper stickers are idiotic.




Change Stations
I work in Los Angeles and change stations a lot during my commute to and from work. If the subject is boring or low IQ, I can switch over to another conservative show. I could even switch over to Air America if I wanted to hear whining.

If these little legislators bring back the Fairness Doctrine, we will all be switching away from stations when they run their liberal "balance" show and go to another conservative talk show on another station. Kind of stinks for the station owners to have to carry the likes of Hugo Chavez every other show, but the listeners will continue to find conservatives. I bet even smaller markets will thus get two talk radio stations, so the folks can switch back and forth and continue to listen to solid conservatives all the way home.

Dona261
You are one of few reasonable people on your side of the aisle. I'm glad that you can see this idea of the Fairness Doctrine for what it is. Unfortunately many Liberals don't see it, most likely because they don't want to see it.
You are correct in asserting that people who don't want to take the time to read up on the other side's points don't care about their country enough to care about what happens to us. That was the whole point to Conservative talk radio in the first place, to give a counter to the Liberal driven media.
The thing is though, if Conservative talk radio didn't resonate with so many people in this country. If so many people didn't say, "Yeah, that's how I feel." If so many people felt that they were getting the entire story from the MSM, then Talk Radio would have been DOA. There just would have been no market for some guy on the radio analyzing and spouting off his opinions about the news of the day. The reason Conservative talk radio caught on was because large numbers of people in the U.S. heard the news that the MSM was producing and came to very different conclusions about the meaning of that news than the media was. The MSM was injecting it's own values on the American people, and the many of the American people said, "Wait, THOSE AREN'T OUR VALUES!!!"

Let's regulate everything
That the democratic way -- regulate every single thing under the sun. Radio time is just the beginning. Newspapers and magazines can be regulated. Also bookstores; bookstores can only stock 10 conservative books if they also stock 10 liberal books. And if they sell out of their 10 conservative books, they can't sell any more until they first sell those 10 liberal books. Let's regulate time on Larry King and The View, maybe even The Price is Right and Dancing With the Stars. Only liberals can dance with liberals, conservatives with conservatives, and there must be 5 of each couple. Oh, and no more 3 judges, we MUST have 4, so we can have 2 of each. Equal time and equal space for everybody on every topic everywhere. And they call it "the American way." At very best, a joke. But --

That's the conclusion Democrats come to every time. And doncha' know -- every single time they succeed, paying the tab for it comes out of my pocketbook. And yours. Every time.

Dona261
Thank you for putting political parties aside and looking at the bigger issue. This is 110% about free speech and reguardless of what party we are in, we must fight together for that right.

Upon a little thought the whole idea of equal time falls flat apart. They would have to really pick apart left and right.

Who is a proper counter to Rush? IS there one? Who gets to make the call of who that counter would be? Is it Rush? Is it the govt?

What about liberal shows? CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS would all start giving equal time as well for their entire news casts? How about the daily show? Would Comedy Central be forced to give Mike Savage a news show as well?

How about if I am talking on mobile phone? Obviously, my call is going over the airwaves, does that mean the government owns that call and should afford another equal time on my cell phone though I pay the bill? If I mention how much I hate Hitlary, does James Carvile get to come onto my phone call and give a rebuttle?

The whole idea is crazy and a gross viloation of free speech. There is no such thing as public airways. We have no right to be heard, only the right to speak.

We have 100's of sources of Opinion...
Did the Information Revolution get derailed somewhere. The multitude and variety of sources for news and opinion today is overwhelming. Things have changed in communications and the media since 1950. I can get widely differing opinions on any topic in a few minutes surfing hitting Townhall, Fox, CNN, NYT, Int. Herald Trib, La Monde(I read French), etc, etc, etc. Oh, and then there is the telecast media, and cable and radio, and magazines. A variety of sources and viewpoints provide the strength to our Freedom of Speech. Are we really Venezuela or Cuba?

Who listens to talk radio anyways?
Of course the Dems are upset that talk radio only "expresses" one side of the argument. I'd have to say a majority of talk radio listeners are Republicans. I grew up listening to Talk Radio, especially Rush Limbaugh.

The Left controls most newspapers and TV shows anyways! Are newspapers like NY Times going to have to give the conservative viewpoint on everything? NO! Of course not! What about MTV and their appeal to liberal youth? Don't see them showing anything with conservative views anytime soon. What a bunch of over-regulating control freaks.

No offense to talk radio, but I'd have to say it appears to be on the decline. For instance, through todays technology,people worldwide can read blogs and newspapers online...any day, anytime, and from anywhere! And more importantly about ANYTHING they want! At this rate, there will be a pop-up on every Conservative blog/article online that will display the opposing view or liberal take on the issue.

This Fairness Doctrine is simply a joke and a waste of time. What about free speech?

Hey Senate Democrats, if you don't like what you are hearing on talk radio...CLOSE YOUR EARS or better yet... CHANGE THE RADIO STATION!

fairness

I can picture the fairness doctrine working out this way:

A broadcaster, to provide balance, brings on Ted Kennedy to give the Democratic view on an issue and Arnold Schwarzenegger to give the Republican view.

He called Hillary Satan
and now Don Imus is gone..Imus was a liberal...but he knew horse sht when he smelled it. And he is gone because of Hillary's moles who didn't use the delay button....it is only starting...it began with Imus.

Won't Work
BLUF: Won't work - give the Liberals 'equal time' - Conservatives won't listen to their whinny drivel (apparently most Liberals don't listen either, else Radio Air America wouldn't have gone bankrupt). Rush et al will listen and have even more to ridicule. Only difference is that someone is going to have to pay for the 'equal time' that the Liberals are demanding. What else is new - taxes always go up when Democrats are 'in charge'.

My fax to Durbin
As an Illinois resident.. this is my fax to Durbin:

QUOTE
An article published Wednesday by The Hill quoted Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.),stating: “It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision.”
UNQUOTE

Liar!

You Democrats are God-damned liars and power mad. Are we in Venezuela? I bet you think pornography is protected by the First Amendment but not Talk Radio.

Talk Radio doesn’t do “stories”, the News does stories. So where are the Democrats calling for Political Censorship for ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNN-HN, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, PBS, New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, USA Today, et al…

Oh that’s right.. the NINE TO ONE Democrat to Republican ratio is FAIR … FAIR to you demagogues. Senator, you’re a disgrace to the Constitution of the United States, you’re a disgrace to the United States and you’re a disgrace to the State of Illinois. You’re a threat to my freedom and your stance regarding the Jihad against the United States also makes you a threat to my security.

You and your associates are all garbage. Enjoy having lower approval numbers than George Bush, you worked hard for that achievement while dragging the rest of us down with you.

Disrespectfully, []

Demorats own most of the....
print and TV media. Yet they want to stifle talk radio which is mostly conservative. What a bunch of whiners!!

Huh?
This is beyond stupid. They should be ashamed because it is so transparent. If they were succeeding in the radio talk show arena it would not be an issue. Laughable!

Talk Radio must be Defended
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278

Any attempt to stifle talk radio is a direct assault on free speech.

Calls need to be placed immediately to ones Senators and Representatives in support of Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) and Rep. Greg Walden (R.-Ore) Broadcasters Freedom Act legislation to be introducted shortly in the House.



picture worth a thousand
Seeing Kennedy, Durbin, and Reid in a pic smiling is enough to make me heave.

Constitution Protects Freedom of Speech
Any member of congress that doesn't agree with our constitution is unqualified to serve and should either be removed from office or resign. Any member of congress that seeks to limit speech, except for that which may cause bodily harm to another (ex: yelling fire in theater), should have their citizenship revoked.

A page from Hugo's book
The senators trying to silence opposition are cut from the same cloth as communist dictator Hugo Chavez who shut down an opposition television station.

If it walks like a duck ....

I am a liberal
who votes mostly Democratic. I am definitely not in favor of the fairness doctrine. Write your representatives. If people do not care enough about their future or the future of the country to hear and read all sides, we deserve whatever happens to us.

Who Really Speaks
We all know that talk radio is a conservative outlet. But what is it that liberals are so scared of. Could it be that the hosts of these shows are in fact, representing the views of the people? Maybe it is the people's voice they don't want to hear. Well if they shut down free speech, they can't stop elections, and we will get them at the ballot box. Its that or we may get a little more rebellious....

Amanda writes:
"Since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, conservative talk radio has exploded in popularity, while liberal efforts like Air America went bankrupt."

I wonder why that is? Could it be that's what the market wants to hear?

I agree with apoplectic,The donkeys can't win the game,so they try to legislate rule changes.As long as they're legislating talk radio,how about legislating fairness in the extremely liberal msm?

Hey Drew,
if you are depending on the Supreme Court to help, you are not thinking straight this morning. These are the same elites who decided that McCain/Feingold was good law!

The problem is power in Washington concentrated in two elite parties, both of which are committed to the New World Order/One World Government agenda. Unless and until we reclaim our birthright and disabuse these people of the notion that they are invulnerable to the will of the people, we will see more big government, declining personal freedoms, and greater influence to the internationalist cabal that hates America.

We need to take drastic action in this 2008 election. We need to ignore the Dem/GOP/MSM propaganda, the myth that only they are qualified to govern our great nation. This is only the old tactic of telling a lie often enough until it is believed and accepted as true. It is not true! We do not have to vote for the lesser of two evils, we do not have to elect another elite. We can remove the Presidency from the hands of the Democrats and Republicans, and reclaim our inheritance. Why not?

Please visit my website and check out a way that will accomp[lish that very goal. This is the chance we have been waiting for and we should no longer trust these same individuals again! Thanks, Joe

Dems answer to everything
If you're losing the game, change the rules.

That's the Dems for You
They hate logic and talking about issues because their ideas are flowed and outdated. So what do they do, try a new approach, no, they shut down all debate. Silence the opposition. That is not freedom, that is tyranny. Of course they like things the way they were before when controled the entire media.

I don't know what is so unfair. We control radio, fine they still control all the newspapers and most the cable news networks. Well its too late now, if they try to take talk radio down they will start a riot and that will cause them to back down. And our Supreme Court may well step and say it violates the Constitution, which it does.

This is why my friends the Democrat-Socialists are far to dangerous to be allowed back into power, don't stay home on election day. Thompson-Steele in 2008!

Here we go
They're serious about this, and a Democrat presidency in 2008 will make it very likely that this doctrine will return.

I'd love to see liberals try and defend this behavior. Your guys in Congress are openly and purposely trying to shut down opposing views. Even a bleeding idiot could tell you there is more than enough forum for liberal views to get out - NPR, most major papers, and of course our buds in the drive-by media. This is a naked attempt to shut down the one area that conservatives have control. So please, liberals, try and defend your Stalinists in Congress.

The little guy finally has a voice ...
and is winning -- the freedom haters are losing. So, of course, the Dems and like-minded so-called Republicans want to shut us up.

I think we're in for quite a battle.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.