A Colloquy On The Fairness Doctrine

The debate over the Fairness Doctrine continued in the Senate today, as Dick Durbin blocked Norm Coleman from offering an amendment that would forbid content control in political speech on the airwaves. Coleman and Durbin then got into a series of volleys on the nature of speech and broadcast licensing, which capsulizes the differing approaches to freedom between the two parties:

Mr. Durbin: I’m sorry to interrupt you but I really wish that through the commerce committee or the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, we can really get into this question. But the senator is arguing that the marketplace can provide. What is the senator’s response if the marketplace fails to provide? What is the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view? Since the people who are seeking the licenses are using America’s airwaves, does the government, speaking for the people of this country, have any interest at that point to step in and make sure there is a despair balanced approach to the –a fair and balanced approach to the information given to the American people?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I’ll respond to the final question here. Very clear disagreement here. The government does not — does not — have the responsibility to regulate content of speech. That’s what the first amendment is about. It’s exactly what the first amendment is about. Government’s not supposed to be regulating content. And in a time in 1949 when you had three network TV stations, basically, when had you limited channels of communication, I presume there was a legitimate concern on the part of some that, in fact, government needs to step in and ensure balance. But now we’re in 2007. We’re at a time where we’ve got 20,000, you know, opportunities for stations and satellite, where you have cable, you have blogs, you have a whole range of information. I think it would be — I — I can’t even conceive — I can’t even conceive that the market could not provide opportunities for differing positions because it does. And in the end — in the end, consumers also have a right based on the market to make choices. And so if they make choices that say we want to hear more of one side than the other, that’s ok okay. And I think it’s very dangerous, I say to my — my friend from Illinois, I think it’s very dangerous for government to be in the position of deciding what’s fair and balanced. Because as we see on the floor of the senate, oftentimes amongst ourselves, learned — hopefully learned individuals who’ve the great humble opportunity to serve in the US Senate, we have differences as to what is fair and balanced. And so the reason I think we have a First Amendment is that we get government out of — out of the — the measuring, controlling, dictating, regulating content and that’s my concern. …
John Kennedy stated, “we are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” Mr. President, I’m not afraid of of — of the people. I’m not afraid of the people having access to the in information, ideas that they want to have access to. But I am afraid of the government stepping in and regulating content. We have a first amendment. That’s the underpinning, the foundation of all the other amendments. The fairness doctrine flies in the face of that. It was rejected. It was rejected in 1987. The idea of bringing it back today is a very, very bad idea. This amendment specifically includes the Armed forces network. Our folks are out there on the front line fighting. They should be able to tune into whatever they want to tune into and they shouldn’t be thinking that back home someone at the FCC is listening and monitoring and deciding what is fair and what is balanced. Let the people decide. Let the market decide. Let the first amendment flourish.
Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

The effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine is entirely about fear. Durbin and his associates are afraid that they have lost the debate, and they want to shut down the forum rather than acknowledge it. Either that, or Durbin and Barbara Boxer and anyone else who wants the government to dictate the content of political speech think you’re too stupid to find differing points of view.
The Fairness Doctrine never made any sense at any time, but today’s communications market make it especially inappropriate. We have millions of Americans debating issues on the Internet at places like Captain’s Quarters. News sources from around the world can be accessed within seconds (or minutes, if you’re stuck on dial-up). Talk radio occupies a small niche in a cornucopia of information sources.
Anyone who claims that Americans can’t access all sides on an issue is either being deliberately disingenuous or is hopelessly obtuse. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide which applies to Dick Durbin. In the meantime, kudos to Norm Coleman for staying on top of this assault on free political speech.
UPDATE: Here’s the NRSC site opposing the Fairness Doctrine, called Stop Liberal Censorship. Be sure to keep up with FD news and information at that site — and a big welcome to Instapundit readers.

87 thoughts on “A Colloquy On The Fairness Doctrine”

  1. “Disingenuous?” Is that an oblique way of saying Dick Durbin is “lying?” Bravo, Norm Coleman!

  2. More On The Fairness Doctrine

    CQ has a text snippet from the Senate floor today. The liberals are not going to let this issue go. They see Alt Media as a threat and they are out to regulate it until the only political media remaining

  3. Of course they’ve lost the debate.
    That is the significance of Senator Harry Ried’s (D) surreal behavior at his press conference yesterday.
    What happens if we leave Iraq, Senator Ried?
    “This is not a debate.”
    Just like Algor: “the debate is over.”
    The democrat party is obsessed with ending debate.
    Real Americans value debate.

  4. GREAT job Norm. You could not be more right.
    Now, get ‘right’ on support for our troops in Iraq.
    Has there EVER been a war run on the clock?

  5. Hey, I’m all for a fairness doctrine!
    First target — the LA TImes newspaper, where the cartoon page has only liberal artists — the conservative characters (such as Mallard Fillmore) have all been let go.
    Forcing “equal access” by conservative writers to the LA Times would be an interesting and good side effect of this type of legislation. Wanna bet it’ll happen?
    After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

  6. Well, if you’re too young to remember Floyd R. Turbo*, I guess you can say that no good came from the Fairness Doctrine.
    *Johnny Carson in a hunting outfit, IIRC.

  7. The effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine is entirely about fear. Durbin and his associates are afraid that they have lost the debate, and they want to shut down the forum rather than acknowledge it.
    I don’t think it’s so much about fear (although there is that) as much as about control. The Left already have friendly coverage from most of the newspapers, the three network news outlets, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and NPR. The only things they don’t control or have consistently friendly support from are Fox and AM talk radio, so of course that’s what they want to regulate. It’s like the old Soviet saying: “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.”
    Look, would the Fairness Doctine cover newspapers? Nope. Would it cover those outlets that are friendly to the Left? Hardly. After all, that would require NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, PBS, CNN and MSNBC to give equal time and balanced treatment to conservatives. That simply isn’t going to happen.

  8. And there are certainly more than two sides to any issue. ARe the John Birchers going to get a radio show? How about the American Nazi party? The Wobblies? Heck, we need to hear the Raelians’ viewpoint too.

  9. Unclesmrgol:
    I know your being tongue in cheek, but some of the proposals I have seen explicitly exempt print news (NYT, WaPo, LAT, etc.).

  10. Cap’n Ed wrote:
    Either that, or Durbin and Barbara Boxer and anyone else who wants the government to dictate the content of political speech think you’re too stupid to find differing points of view.
    In other words, they think that all Americans are just like the brainless idiots who keep putting them into office!
    But it’s not about people NOT being able to find “alternative points of view”. As Sen. Coleman points out, there are thousands of outlets in the form of different TV channels and networks, radio programs, newspapers, magazines, blogs, etc. Sitting at my computer right now, I could find an outlet for virtually every point of view under the sun ranging from the totally mainstream to the absolutely bizarre. In 21st century America, a person has to actively TRY to avoid hearing / reading alternative points of view.
    But listen to how libs talk about Rush, Fox News, conservative blogs, or any other speech that doesn’t agree 100% with them. They don’t WANT alternative speech. It outright infuriates them to think that somebody, somewhere, is listening to Rush or Sean, or watching Brit Hume or Bill O’Reilly. To their totalitarian minds, somebody hearing an “alternative view” is somebody who’s being lied to (libs, you see, are the only ones who have the 100% truth). Well! They can’t allow people to hear lies (defined by them as anything that doesn’t agree with them). The Soviets and other communist regimes had the same official attitude about western news: they branded it as dangerous lies that they would not – COULD not – allow their people to hear. They would jam and censor and imprison to prevent their people from hearing “subversive” views. Some of our politicians would feel right at home in the Soviet Interior Ministry or Politburo.
    Libs try to cloak their totalitarian ideas with misleading words like “fairness”, but it boils down to their desire – nay, NEED – to control what we read, hear, see, and (ultimately) think.

  11. know your being tongue in cheek, but some of the proposals I have seen explicitly exempt print news (NYT, WaPo, LAT, etc.).
    Posted by: David in San Diego at July 13, 2007 12:39 PM
    It’s not about exempting them, their are SCOTUS decisions that put them in a different class.
    The only thing it applies to is licensed radio and tv broadcasts over the air in public airwaves.
    Cable TV is out, Satellite TV is out, Satellite Radio is out and the Internet is out.

  12. Amendment 1
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
    prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
    of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
    the Government for a redress of grievances.

    What part of “Congress shall make no law” don’t those Senators understand?

  13. Partisan politics aside, the sheer megalomaniac stupidity of certain ‘statesman’ to actually believe they can control the direction of the discussion and the way people think, talk, and act in this day and age exhibits a total disconnect from reality. Given the technological way we live today, there is in fact, as Norm Coleman so aptly pointed out, no reasonable way to police the airwaves.
    It doesn’t matter if a person is liberal, conservative, moderate, Dem, or GOP, anyone who is from a state where someone as unreasonable as a few of these Fairness Doctrine devotees currently resides, should be concerned. Maybe they aren’t concerned about ‘fairness’ but they should be concerned about the total and complete psychotic break from any knowledge about the day to day operation of the modern world.
    To put it more succinctly, these people are just plain terrifying. They are living in a 1960’s world where there are a handful of radio stations, Telstar, Sputnik, and warehouse size computers that couldn’t even do the work of a slide-rule. Their arrogance of ignorance never ceases to amaze me.
    The “department” of monitors that would be needed to accomplish what the Dems desire would be akin to something straight out of the Cold War Kremlin. The sheer cost of such an endeavor would be prohibitive. Given the make up of today’s Supreme Court, any measure that could possibly survive a Presidential veto, or would survive a Dem POTUS in a few years probably could not survive.
    What angers me more that the possibility of ‘thought police’ is the fact that these people do not give a ‘rip’ about our money or how they spend it.
    SJ Reidhead
    The Pink Flamingo

  14. “The only thing it applies to is licensed radio and tv broadcasts over the air in public airwaves.”
    Yes but that means NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS and NPR are ALL FAIR GAME! Do the Senators really want to go there? Somehow I don’t think they have thought that far ahead.
    Cindy

  15. What if the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view?
    BOTH points of view? Here Durbin inadvertently raises another objection to the doctrine. Who decides what viewpoints are legitimate and what are illegitimate? Would NORML get to rebut any anti-drug message? Under what logic would Al Qaeda be excluded?

  16. What part of “Congress shall make no law” don’t those Senators understand?
    This is a good argument, one that also applies to the FCC policing the content of the public radio and TV airwaves.
    The Fairness Doctrine was first meant to assure that the finite number of public airwaves weren’t all promoting a similar opinion.
    In the 80s, the supreme court ruled that the new technology had rendered the limited number of airwaves argument outdated. Basically, there are plenty of places to express one’s views outside of TV and radio.
    I think people who look to revive the law today will say there are still a finite amount of public radio airwaves and that this is still a medium that reaches the most amount of Americans… and right now is skus largely right. And since these are public airwaves, all views should be represented on them.
    Basically, the radio airwaves are currently dominated by a strong right-wing view. And since these public airwaves are probably still the best way to reach a mass audience in this country, steps should be taken to ensure those airwaves have more balanced programming.
    I happen to disagree with that view and agree with most on here that the Fairness Doctrine inhibits free expression.
    But, going back to Bingley’s point. To those against the Fairness Doctrine, are you also against the FCC handing out fines for what they deem indecent programming?

  17. “What if the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view? ”
    Notice that Durbin uses the words-” BOTH points of view” . As if their can’t be more than one view of an issue .
    Yep , nuance sure is a strong point of progressives.

  18. “What if the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view? ”
    Notice that Durbin uses the words-” BOTH points of view” . As if their can’t be more than one view of an issue .
    Meant to say more than two sides/views of an issue .

  19. Gee. wouldn’t it be cool to bring the Fairness Doctrine to all TV series? So, anytime a TV series has a show whose plotline demonstrably tilts to one end of the political spectrum (cough, cough, LEFT), the network is obligated to follow up with another episode that tilts in the other direction?
    And then apply the same fairness doctrine to newsrooms — maybe they have to employ the same number of GOP and Dem reporters and writers and producers and so forth?
    And of course, academia: so universities would have to hire equal numbers of conservative and liberal professors.
    If the Dems want to agree to all these stipulations, then I’d be willing to consider their proposals for applying “Fairness” to talk radio.

  20. >>If the Dems want to agree to all these stipulations, then I’d be willing to consider their proposals for applying “Fairness” to talk radio.>>
    The problem with this is that in their opinion, if it tilts right, it’s biased. If conservatives think it tilts left, then it’s balanced. There _is_ no left – that’s just a figment of your extreme rightistimagination. There is only “right” and centrist.

  21. I would be willing to conduct a two year test of the fairness doctrine on government subsidized media ( NPR and PBS ). If that works we can discuss other media.

  22. “What is the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view?”
    “Basically, the radio airwaves are currently dominated by a strong right-wing view..”
    Mr. Shipley’s statement is really what the first statement (provided by Mr. Durbin) means. Whether either point of view currently dominates is irrelevant. The Democrats can’t win this argument unless they can demonstrate that the current regulatory structure is rigged to prohibit licensing to “progressive” talk programs. With Air America about to get another shot, I’ve not yet heard any complaints that licenses are being denied, only that they can’t compete.

  23. “Basically, the radio airwaves are currently dominated by a strong right-wing view..”
    Simply not true – NPR for one is a huge network, with nationwide and worldwide news gathering reach, publicly funded, and totally liberal-oriented. PRI, Pacifica, and other similar nets are also lefty in orientation. Then you have the state-level publicly-funded networks…
    Really the only part of radio that is conservative-dominated is AM talk radio.
    Isn’t having all the alphabet TV networks plus the publicly-funded radio networks delivering a liberal message enough?
    Let me answwer my rhetorical quiestion… no it is not enough for the Democrats. They regard their position as the truth and anything different is aberrant, and should be managed. This is not about balance, it is about control.
    And yes, I think the FCC should get out of the content-overview business – we’re a mature society that can accept or reject ideas just fine all by ourselves. At least we should be, and that’s the actual threat to Dems – they rely on control of the message to the victim classes that they nourish like a careful gardener.

  24. The first amendment has already been wounded by the BCRA (Thanks, Senator McCain…you hack!).
    The Dhimms would be perfectly happy to appoint big government (meaning themselves) the arbitors of all speach the same as BCRA made them the arbitors of political speach.

  25. RE: Tom Shipley‘s July 13, 2007 2:20 PM:
    The Fairness Doctrine was first meant to assure that the finite number of public airwaves weren’t all promoting a similar opinion.
    And it was just as wrong then as it is now. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S PLACE TO DECIDE WHAT “OPINION” SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE AIR. As Mr. Bingley asked, what part of “Congress shall make no law…” does the Congress (and, I’m sorry to say, many ordinary Americans) simply not get?
    I think people who look to revive the law today will say there are still a finite amount of public radio airwaves and that this is still a medium that reaches the most amount of Americans… and right now is skus largely right. And since these are public airwaves, all views should be represented on them.
    The argument about “public airwaves” is falacious (I recognize that Shipley is not making the argument himself). The ONLY reason to regulate the “public” airwaves at all is the same reason that traffic is regulated on “public” roads: to keep people from bumping into each other. The FCC asigns frequencies and power outputs to keep stations in a given area from interfering with each other. The FCC’s business should pretty much end right there. Once it grants a licence to broadcast on a certain frequency with a certain power output, its job is effectively done. The people (i.e. the market) will decide whether to listen.
    Once you allow the government to decide who gets to be on the air based on “fairness” (which is a totally subjective determination), the rules change with every election. Shipley, a lib, thinks the media skews right. His fellow lefties would use the Fairness Doctrine to shut down “unfair” rightwing broadcasting. What’s to stop us nasty ol’ conservatives (who think the media skews left) doing the same thing when WE win elections? Answer: nothing at all.
    As for “all views” being represented on the airwaves, that would be very difficult. America is a diverse nation with LOTS of different views. Shall we mandate that everybody gets equal time? Or proportional time? Shall we force broadcasters to allow the communists to have air time? What about the nazis? The klan? Feminists? Gays? Homophobes? Christians? satan worshippers?
    Basically, the radio airwaves are currently dominated by a strong right-wing view. And since these public airwaves are probably still the best way to reach a mass audience in this country, steps should be taken to ensure those airwaves have more balanced programming.
    I happen to disagree with that view and agree with most on here that the Fairness Doctrine inhibits free expression.
    I’m happy to hear it. Shocked beyond words, but happy.
    Incidentally, WHY is talk radio predominantly conservative (FWIW, I also think that it is)? What stops liberals from developing their own versions of Rush, Hannity, Boortz, etc? Answer: nothing at all. They’ve tried several times to have their own radio talk shows… and failed. Talk radio is right wing because (gasp!) there’s an audience for it. Left wing talk radio is not successful because (gasp!) there ISN’T an audience for it. You can’t mandate that people watch / listen to / read things that they don’t like.
    But, going back to Bingley’s point. To those against the Fairness Doctrine, are you also against the FCC handing out fines for what they deem indecent programming?
    An excellent question. Do we want to allow broadcasters to (for example) show hardcore porn? Does the government have an abiding interest in trying to limit the ability of children to see such material?
    I have to say (with some regret) that it does not. The responsibility for determining what content children are exposed to rests with their parents. If they are worried that Junior will tune in to adult programming, then they need to more closely govern his use of the TV, not leave it to a “benevolent” government to do it for them.

  26. They can’t even stop trying to stifle smaller candidates from appearing in debates, and yet they can be believed that they’re pushing the fairness doctrine out of a sense of balance? Puh-lease
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QBT8HG0&show_article=1
    I tell you, a cold chill wind is starting to blow in this country, I’m sure Kucinich is starting to feel a bit like the Dixie Chicks or the very least Cindy Sheehan. Speaking of Cindy, why the cold shoulder kossacks? Doesn’t she still have absolute moral authority?

  27. Captain, You nailed it with the fairness doctrine article. I wonder if those who favor fairness and affirmative action would be willing to go on a massive firing spree of liberal college professors, replacing them with enough conservatives in the name of fairness. It would improve education as well.
    Life is not fair. We are guaranteed opportunity, not outcomes.
    eric aka http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com

  28. This is no debate on the ‘Fairness Doctrine”.
    There is no such thing as a “Fairness Doctrine”. There is a push to impose censorship by a tiny group of anti-Constiutional extremists. The legislation that created the “Fairness Doctrine” was unconstiutional when it was written,and that it became law and was enforced ever for even one moment is a black mark in our history.
    We are a free people as long as we stop the ilk of Durbin, Boxer, Clinton, etc. from stealing it.
    The lefty extremists who have shoved their way into the public square, and are demanding to take over discussion in the square must be stopped.
    This is what the debate is about.

  29. After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
    No. That argument — that conservatives could just use FD for their own ends — is wrong on so many levels (one is its premise that there are only two sides, “goose” and “gander”).
    The core problem with it is that it grants the premise that government should have the power to regulate content at all — and that’s really all that the enemies of the First Amendment on both dominant “sides” want. Give the government this power now,, they whisper to each other — get everyone used to it first. We’ll fight over the particulars of who wields the weapon, later.
    It’s no accieent that McCain-Feingold was “bipartisan”. Always a tipoff that some bigger-than-usual assault on liberty is afoot, that.

  30. When you cut to the chase, it comes down to the fact that conservative talk radio…..and that’s what all these politicans are talking about…..has higher numbers than liberal talk radio and that’s what they cannot stand. ANY politiican that even talks about a need for a “fairness doctrine” is lying thru their teeth.

  31. “The Left already have friendly coverage from most of the newspapers, the three network news outlets, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and NPR. The only things they don’t control or have consistently friendly support from are Fox and AM talk radio, so of course that’s what they want to regulate. It’s like the old Soviet saying: “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.”
    Utter horseshit.
    most Newspapers? LOL, not around here! – Five newspapers (Washington Post, San Cronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Boston Herold – and MARGINALY New York Time (which with its Neocon control oped is almost “Conservative” now)
    as for TV – the big three? more horeshit. CBS only. NBC and ABC have remained centrist for 20 years.
    CNN? – give me a fucking break. Centrist – pure and simple. MSNBC – the network that hire MICHEAL SAVAGE!!! lol, you got that tinfoil hat on too tight!
    …………….NPR has moved so far to the center since 2000, they are no longer Liberal.
    of all the netorks you are paranoid about – only PBS has a clear Liberal bias as seen in its programing such as Bill Moyers’ show.
    – oh ya, I suppose Frontline is a Liberal controlled news show right Bubba?
    – at least you got Faux “News” Netvirk, and Reichwinger AM radio like Savage Nation, and Shawn Insanity correctly catagorized.

  32. Barbara Boxer. Hmmm. I’ve said it once, i’ll say it again.
    Barbara Boxer has a 0% rating for her Senate votes regarding Pro Life. Barbara Boxer has a 100% rating for her Senate votes on Environmental Protection issues.
    Thus, Barbara’s next campaign slogan will be: “Save The Trees, Kill The Children”
    And Barbara wants to determine what is and isn’t right to be broadcast? I wonder…would she have “Bleeped” Dick Durbin’s use of the word “Nazi” when describing our soldiers at Gitmo?

  33. ” The Price Of Freedom ” , so goes the axiom , ” Is Eternal Vigilence . ” It is woeful to report that our vigilence now has to be directed at our Ruling Classes .
    Some of the most obnoxious authoritarians in Congress are happily endorsing the resurrection of the ‘ Fairness ‘ Doctrine :
    JOHN KERRY , DENNIS KUCINICH ,
    BERNARD SANDERS , California ‘ s Senators BARBARA BOXER and DIANE FEINSTEIN , et . al . The very same cabal that
    boosts this Orwellian ‘ Fairness ‘ also backed McCAIN – FEINGOLD , another flagrant kick in the teeth to the First Amendment and the quaint souls who favor
    Freedom Of Speech .
    ROBERT KENNEDY JR . , quickly evolving into one of the nastiest of demogogues ,
    advocates ‘ Fairness ‘ when he isn ‘ t lecturing the masses at ‘ Live Earth ‘ about
    the dereliction of Americans who are skeptical about Global Warming .
    Kennedy needs to read fomer Justice WILLIAM O . DOUGLAS , who properly rejected the ‘ Fairness ‘ Doctrine for what it was : the means with which Government
    declined renewals of broadcast licenses and , thusly , pressured radio and television stations to limit the political content of their programming . ( The irony here is that Kennedy was recently the recipient of the William O . Douglas award . )
    What NAT HENTOFF , bless him , ridiculed as
    ” Compulsory Free Speech ” is a sick joke and an affront to us as citizens . ” Equal
    Time ” for opposing views ? How many ? How long ? How ever will Senator Durbin ,
    the nearest equivalent have we to JOSEPH
    GOEBBELS , force any of us to listen ?

  34. “Libs try to cloak their totalitarian ideas with misleading words like “fairness”, but it boils down to their desire – nay, NEED – to control what we read, hear, see, and (ultimately) think.
    Posted by: docjim505 at July 13, 2007 1:17 PM”
    this is rich! a Neocon with the B & W world view “your either for Iraqnman for you are against America!” breaching about the Libs totalitarianism!!
    RICH!!!!!!! hypocritical Kettle!
    Neocon = NAZI in all respects. You either agree with our namby pamby “reforming the middle east by gunboat democracy, or you are a traitor!!”
    kindly remove the beam for your eyeball Bubba.

  35. “Simply not true – NPR for one is a huge network, with nationwide and worldwide news gathering reach, publicly funded, and totally liberal-oriented.”
    NOT ANYMORE – they are middle of the road, not Liberal
    “PRI, ”
    WTF? they don’t even have political programing unless you think Lake Wobigon is “Librl”
    “Pacifica,”
    FINALLY you got one right!! WOW Pacifica!! such a huge nework – all 20 stations that carry them!! wow….yep radio sure is “librul”.

  36. “The ONLY reason to regulate the “public” airwaves at all is the same reason that traffic is regulated on “public” roads: to keep people from bumping into each other. The FCC asigns frequencies and power outputs to keep stations in a given area from interfering with each other. The FCC’s business should pretty much end right there.”
    FCC should remove itself from regulating the FM band and open it up as a public radioband. Anyone with a ransmitter can broadcast whatever they want.
    you statement about interference is bogus due to FM’s capture effect. you can only receive one station at a time at a give frequency.
    how many of you “small government” types would actually support such a Libertarian solution – returning all of FM band directly to The People?? – of course some of folks probably like Clear Channel fatcats and “law and order” and are not really for the little guys in truth. so many “conservatives” hate government, but love governmental transnational gluttinous corporations!

  37. Keep in mind that if the “Fairness Doctrine” becomes law, folks like “gaffo” and “Tom Shipley” will want to use it to liquidate the opposition. With the Democrat Congress’ poll ratings at 16% or so and sinking, the Kool-Aid Krowd’s only option (if they want to cling to power) is to launch this Hugo Chavez-esque sweeping crackdown on civil liberties in the name of “fairness”.

  38. “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
    “The people, especially when moderately instructed, are the only safe, because the only honest, depositaries of the public rights, and should therefore be introduced into the administration of them in every function to which they are sufficient; they will err sometimes and accidentally, but never designedly, and with a systematic and persevering purpose of overthrowing the free principles of the government.” –Thomas Jefferson to M. Coray, 1823. ME 15:483
    “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” –Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789. ME 7:253
    “The mobs of the great cities add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIX, 1782. ME 2:230
    “It was by the sober sense of our citizens that we were safely and steadily conducted from monarchy to republicanism, and it is by the same agency alone we can be kept from falling back.” –Thomas Jefferson to Arthur Campbell, 1797. ME 9:421
    Exerpt from George Washington’s Farewell Address:
    I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
    This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
    Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
    It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
    There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. — George Washington

  39. Dick Durbin is without question one of the most disgusting members of the US Senate.
    He ranks right up there with Kennedy, Leahy, Schumer, Boxer, Biden and Harkin.
    His self-righteous air and fake humility is enough to gag a magot.
    He epitomizes the clueless elected officials who are degrading the very structure of our nation. But alas and alak he happens to refleck the same mindless attitude displayed by most of our average bone-headed citizens

  40. Americans have greater access to opinions and information now more so than at any time in the history of mankind, so this attempt to regulate the ability to express an opinion in a public forum (and that what talk radio is, a public forum) is, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, an infringement on individual freedom of speech. If the government begins to regulate the expression of an opinion in ANY public forum, like radio and/or TV, then it is only a matter of time until the government extends that regulation into ALL public and private forums and that is NOT something a free and open society should allow or condone.
    This country was founded on the belief that no government may impose it will, through regulation and the threat of enforcement, upon the free expression of ideas and opinions in any forum, public or private. That is why the Constitution expressly forbade the government from abridging the freedom of speech. The so called Fairness Doctrine would abridge free expression in a public forum by forcing a particular forum to express an opposing opinion even though the expression of an opposing opinion is not necessary in any forum, public or private.
    Those who believe that the Fairness Doctrine is necessary do not understand that we Americans are not as uneducated as to confuse opinion with fact and are capable of forming our own opinions to any given argument. We are not the fools you think we are and we are entitled to express any single opinion we wish in any forum we chose, whether public or private. Let those that express an opinion in a forum decide how best to express that opinion and let the audience of that forum decide whether they agree with that opinion or disagree.
    The government has no authority over the expression of any opinion, so let’s keep government interference out of the forums in which those opinions are expressed.

  41. Where in our Constitution is ANY POV given a guarantee to OWN a portion of the Public Platform or power in the Government? UN-EARNED??? BY GAINING THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE???
    Just because THAT POV thinks THAT is what is “FAIR”???
    I don’t think so!
    EACH POV HAS AN OBLIGATION TO EARN ITS OWN PLACE IN OUR SOCIETY, and IS NOT GUARANTEED A SLOT, THERE.
    The basic flaw here is where Americans accepted the FATALLY FLAWED PREMISE THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OUTLAW SOCIALISM IF WE THE PEOPLE DECIDED TO DO EXACTLY THAT.
    Every time we accepted their FLAWED, STALINIST Premises, WE SWALLOWED BIG FAT LIES DESIGNED FOR OUR DESTRUCTION.
    When we bought THAT garbage that it wasn’t “FAIR” to block the political philosophy of TYRANTS in American politics, EVERYTHING IN AMERICA H AS BEEN TURNED ON ITS HEAD SINCE WE BOUGHT THAT LIE.
    BECAUSE, IF THAT IS WHAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT TO DO – NOT CONGRESS – BUT AMERICANS – THEN WE AMERICANS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO EXACTLY THAT.
    The words were twisted and perverted, we were lied to by the DIMS and SOCIALISTS, we believed a lie AND BOUGHT INTO OUR OWN DEATH.
    NOTHING gives a Socialist organization a RIGHT to a segment of power in our USA government, just because they WIGGLE THEMSELVES INTO SELECT POLITICAL OFFICES AND DO NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR THEIR PHILOSOPHIES.
    AND THEY DO NOT!
    TAKE AWAY THEIR POWER TO OBTAIN OUR TAX DOLLARS FOR PROJECTS WE DO NOT APPROVE OF, WITH WHICH THEY USE THE SLUSH FUNDS TO BUY SUPPORT FROM SOME SEGMENT OF SOCIETY THAT “FEELS” “DISENFRANCHISED” by use of “ENTITLEMENT” programs, etc, NEA, et al – AND WE EMPOWER OUR ENEMIES WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS, with our own hands we give the tools to our enemies, BY SUBMITTING TO ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL OPPRESSION, operating OUTSIDE their Constitutional boundaries.
    THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY SHARE OF POWER BY ANY MEANS OTHER THAN BY EARNING IT.
    That is all that Public Radio and Public TV is is DIM LIBERAL PROPAGANDA and look at THEIR ratings. NO BALANCE THERE, EITHER! OUR MONEY. PHOOEY ON THEM.

  42. “So when do we hear Rush and Ann Coulter on NPR?”
    (sound of crickets)
    Face it, the Ivory Tower people like Shipley and Gabbo are afraid to admit that “progressive” talk radio has time and again shown that it cannot succeed in a free-enterprise, fair market setting. The horrible “ratings numbers” for Airhead America prove this.
    On their world, this means that the free enterprise/fair market free speech talk radio model must be abandoned, in favor of state-controlled regulation that doesn’t allow people to choose, but forces all opinions down their throat. Hitler and Stalin and Mao all did the same thing.
    Face it, “progressive” talk radio has shown time and again that it doesn’t have a market comparable to right wing talk radio (maybe because they don’t have real business people managing their operations?).
    But instead of admitting it and trying to change their message and state it differently, the Gabbos and Shipleys of this world would rather use the government to stifle opposing viewpoints.
    Goebbels would be proud of you guys..

  43. So when do we hear Rush and Ann Coulter on NPR
    I believe Cap’n Ed has been on NPR.
    And Ann Coulter? Not even convservatives take her seriously anymore. And you don’t hear Rhandi Rhodes on NPR. They are very middle of the road and don’t feature loudmouths from either side of the political spectrum.

  44. But, going back to Bingley’s point. To those against the Fairness Doctrine, are you also against the FCC handing out fines for what they deem indecent programming?
    Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 13, 2007 2:20 PM

    **************
    Free Speech NEVER CONSTITUTIONALLY covered CERTAIN TYPES OF SPEECH: Slander, Libel, Fraud, DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION, PORNOGRAPHY, PROFANITY, Conspiracy to commit crimes, Confidence entrapments – Con games, inciting riots or other illegal activity, or the type of yelling things to stampede a crowd into dangerous behavior (yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater where there was no reasonable expection that there was an actual fire, or smoke, etc), Sedition, Treason, bribery, contracting criminal services, etc, etc, etc.
    Thomas Jefferson and a large number of other Founding Fathers said it ALSO COVERS THAT THE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE KNOWNGLY FALSE INSINUATIONS AND SLANDERS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.
    They also said it PROTECTS DISSENT from the government – but NOT SEDITION.
    You cannot find a HISTORICAL foundation in our Founding Fathers for the “RIGHT” TO PUBLIC INDECENCY, or any other DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR that will impede the ability of the community to provide a safe haven for the rightful and legitimate activities of the community members.
    You cannot.
    And you can find PLENTY where the same Founding Fathers that wrote the Constitution did write laws against public lewdity, profanity, pornography, indecency, etc.

  45. I love Dennis Kucinich whining about Hillary, Edwards, and Obama conspiring to shut him out of future debates. Dennis who was the guy talking up the Fairness Doctrine is now talking up free speech. Just like the amazing e-mail in NROs Corner this morning where one Michael T. Eckhart Harvard academic and the President of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) threatened to “launch a campaign against your professional integrity” because a Dr. Marlo Lewis dared to author an article questioning the science behind global warming.
    Free Speech is toxic to neo-liberal thought.

  46. We defeated the Socialists in Germany, in WW2, and REJECTED the Socialism of the USSR, as well, at that time – but we embraced a way of GIVING THEM AN ALLOWED PLACE AMONG US, that allowed them to set in an INFECTION AGAINST OUR LIBERTY:
    Num 33:50 ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan [near] Jericho, saying,
    Num 33:51 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan;
    Num 33:52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:
    Num 33:53 And ye shall dispossess [the inhabitants] of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it.
    Num 33:54 And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: [and] to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man’s [inheritance] shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit.
    Num 33:55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them [shall be] pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
    Num 33:56 Moreover it shall come to pass, [that] I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them.
    Joshua 23

  47. “But, going back to Bingley’s point. To those against the Fairness Doctrine, are you also against the FCC handing out fines for what they deem indecent programming?
    Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 13, 2007 2:20 PM”

    This is a spurious argument as the two are not the equivalent.
    The aforementioned FCC regulations are designed to control individual public behavior, like swearing or nudity, which has been determined as inappropriate. The Fairness Doctrine, in comparison, is an attempt to regulate the means in which an individual may express an opinion in a public forum and does not attempt to regulate the public behavior of those expressing that opinion.
    To use an automobile analogy: The FCC regulations are like speed limit laws which is an attempt to regulate your driving behavior; you may drive a car on this road but you must keep the speed below 65 mph. The Fairness Doctrine is an attempt to regulate what car you may drive; if you drive a Honda, you must also drive a Ford an equal amount of miles. As you can see, the two type of regulations are not equivalent.
    I hope that answers your question..

  48. Shipley and gafffo must have shared that glass of kool-aid. CNN, MSMBC, PBS, NPR, Post, News, Herald, and Times are conservative sources. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHAHAHAHA
    Pardon, while I clean off the keyboard, screen, tower, chair, walls and floor.

  49. ANYONE advocating a ‘fairness doctrine” ( George Orwell ) is a traitor and worthy of the appropriate constitutionally mandated punishment.
    It would be funny if it wan’t so …….. sick.

  50. “So when do we hear Rush and Ann Coulter on NPR?
    Posted by: richard mcenroe at July 13, 2007 7:18 PM”
    Never – same reason we don’t hear Micheal Moore or Al Franken – they are ignorant partisan hacks with nothing of importance to say.
    however if you want to hear intelligent Conservatives on NPR you will. From the disscredited NeoCons, Max Boot, Frank Gaffney, and Elliot Abrams to vendicated Conservatives such as Neal Gurgen.
    NPR imposes the Fairness Doctrine on nearly every political show they offer:
    They have a Conservative speaker and a Liberal speak and give them equal time.
    I’ve personally listened to Max Boot justifying Iraqnam (and similarly John Yu justifying Monarchies in America) at the same time David Corn is refuting all of Mr Boot’s claims (and maybe vise versa – though WRT to Neocons I’ve not heard the vise versa). Equal time.
    NPR is for smart people – and ones who want to be smart or smarter (as in informed rather than have another validate their own biased positions).
    Rush and Coulter and all the other Rant-infotainmemt (including Moore, O’donnel, Franken, and even the cuty Garoffollo) types are lightyears underneath NPR’s standards.
    NPR is not “librl” it is objective.

  51. So when do we hear Rush and Ann Coulter on NPR
    I believe Cap’n Ed has been on NPR.
    And Ann Coulter? Not even convservatives take her seriously anymore. And you don’t hear Rhandi Rhodes on NPR. They are very middle of the road and don’t feature loudmouths from either side of the political spectrum.
    Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 13, 2007 8:05 PM
    ****************
    TSK TSK TSK…
    SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!
    LIES WON’T SUBSTITUTE FOR LETTING US HAVE OUR FAIR 60-98% OF THE AIRTIME.
    Who are YOU to tell us how well Ann Coulter speaks for us and how much WE want to hear her???
    SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!

  52. “Post, News, Herald, and Times are conservative sources”
    my post was clear – those FIVE newspapers are the only LIBERAL ones that I now of.
    I can name 4-time as many Conservative Newspapers.
    re-read my post if you were confused on this matter.

  53. kindly remove the beam for your eyeball Bubba.
    Posted by: gaffo at July 13, 2007 6:32 PM

    **********************
    Sorry, Bub, but when it all gets down to where the rubber meets the road, when your country is at war, and the lines are drawn in the sand – THAT is a place where you decide WHOSE SIDE YOU ARE ON – PERIOD.
    And you better not be caught BACKSTABBING “YOUR OWN SIDE”.
    THAT has NOTHING to do with FREE SPEECH – which DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO SEDITION OR TREASON OR AIDING AND ABETTING THE ENEMY.
    Nobody can MAKE you be loyal to your own nation – and neither can YOU demand that YOUR NATION treat you as a Patriotic loyalist when you TELL THE WORLD YOU ARE NOT WITH “YOUR HOME TEAM” – OUT OF YOUR OWN MOUTH AND BEHAVIOR!

  54. “NPR imposes the Fairness Doctrine on nearly every political show they offer”
    The NPR can not “impose the Fairness Doctrine” as that is beyond the authority of ANY radio or TV network or station, whether publicly or privately owned and operated. They may have a policy to include other opinions in a particular show, but do NOT confuse this with a government requirement or regulation as NPR may, if they wish, disregard their policies at any time without government reprisals like a fine.

  55. The Dems want to tell their critics to shut up.
    Posted by: stackja1945 at July 13, 2007 9:34 PM

    ******************
    Lots of folks tell others to shut up all the time – we tell THEM to shut up all the time.
    This is different.
    THIS is LETHAL.
    This is them TRYING TO LITERALLY AND ACTUALLY SHUT US UP – PERIOD.
    THIS IS THEM TAKING OUR TAX DOLLARS AND DOING WITH THEM WHAT THEY WILL AND DENYING US INPUT INTO HOW OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT – DEPRIVING US OF OUR RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP, DEGRADING US TO SLAVES.
    THE IDENTICAL THING OUR FOUNDING FATHER FOUGHT IN THEIR CASE OF TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION – WITHOUT A VOICE!

  56. “those FIVE newspapers are the only LIBERAL ones that I now of.”
    So the argument of allowing access to opposing opinions is rather moot, isn’t it? After all, even you know of at least 5 different newspapers that offer opposing opinions to conservatives. Explain to me why the Fairness Doctrine needed if everyone is able to access opposing opinions as easily as you?

  57. all you say is bullshit Rose.
    WE ARE NOT AT WAR.
    War has not nor has it ever been declaired by Congress.
    get it? NO WAR
    WE ARE NOT AT WAR.
    ………………………..
    Oh ya you sound like a NAZI – calling for the elimination of the First Amendment during a time of war (which we are not in).
    you shit on our United States Constituiton with your call to remove our Bill of Rights.
    fascism is not conservativsm, you need to understand this simple truth.
    in otherwords you ain’t a Conservative. Conservatives do not call for the destruction of our Liberty or Constitution.
    simple no?

  58. “Conservatives do not call for the destruction of our Liberty or Constitution.”
    Which is why conservatives will not allow the return of the Fairness Doctrine as this would be a direct assault on our Constitutional freedom to express an opinion in a public forum without government regulations as to what opinions can be heard and when.

  59. NPR imposes the Fairness Doctrine on nearly every political show they offer: They have a Conservative speaker and a Liberal speak and give them equal time.
    Please tell me who the conservative counterpoints are to Dan Schorr, Nina Totenberg, Steve Inskeep, Juan Williams, and Mara Liason, just to name a few? These are regulars – where are their conservative counterpoints?
    ps. I don’t want deflecting argument – I want NAMES, if you got ’em.

  60. OKay. How do these idiots impliment this?
    Take Talk Radio. You think the money’s there to turn over air time to people no one would listen to? Just for balance?
    Congress has ratings putting them in the basement. And, every two years the HOUSE has to go out and get voted back in.
    With very low numbers at one end; and the fact that “all the blue dogs” that got seated last November; what do they have to show for this?
    Seems that a bunch of UN-electables … Like John Kerry (gigolo jon cary), are closer, inside to the power structure … And, all the newcomers found out how that would be. THEY’VE GOT NO POWERS!
    Inside congress the left took this 1% margin of victory, and gave themselves bigger offices. And, they now hold the keys to the “agenda.”
    So. You take the loss of prestige. The low approval ratings. And, you try to gage what this war is all about.
    Well, it seems the old media isn’t influencing anyone. So, they’re gonna be given “lift” … Uh, huh.
    What army, though, is going to come along and enforce this crap?
    Ya know, there was once a try at making liquor an illegal drink. How successful was that?
    What makes you think, in our day and age, where lots of people have turned to the Internet for more than just porn;
    What makes you think that you’re gonna stop the way people think?
    Just yesterday, Guiliani was supposed to take a Swift Boat hit. Did you see this before it disappeared over the horizon?
    Guiliani just said those people aren’t fire FIGHTERS, they’re just UNION THUGS.
    Yeah. Fred Thompson went to a photo op; hosted by Senator Pot hole, whose seat went to Shumer. And, Thompson was introduced to the Fire UNION THUGS for their endorsement.
    More Whitewater rafting than swift boating, if you ask me.
    But that’s the act of people who are panicked. And, it’s gonna get worse.
    However, in time we may find most Americans just appalled. And, then? That could change the way people vote, ahead.
    I’m actually reminded, here, of the Dudullah guy, telling us that the terrorists are planning something bigger and better than what happened in London. And, Glasgow.
    Well. I thought that just exposed the lie that all terrorists are poor people. Nope. There’s something about the muslems that wants to conquer the world on threats. Personally, I think Dudullah has a small penis. And, he can’t compensate.
    I think hillary’s no place close to being popular enough to get elected.
    And, I think the Bonkeys are now just a zoo.
    With one silly routine shown after another.
    “Fairness doctrine?” Let me tell you this. Bush has good reason to find and use his veto pen. IF this eyesore gets to his desk.
    YOu’d be surprised; but in politics, just like in prize-fighting. Your opponent gives ya chances to drive your fists home. Just don’t waste energy flailing about. When your opponent is in the ring with ya, let me quote da’ mastah! Dance like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
    Heck, Seinfeld’s movie THE BEE is coming in November! Now, that’s something worth looking forward to. The antics of the Ma & Pa Kettle Show on the other hand, is worth wasting your time of day.
    “Fairness Doctrine” calls is the enemy being stupid.

  61. Posted by: gaffo at July 13, 2007 10:04 PM
    ***********************
    HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW!!!!
    I LOVE IT WHEN THE DIM LIBERAL SOCIALISTS TELL US THAT TALKING LIKE AND QUOTING OUR FOUNDING FATHERS MAKES US “LIKE NAZIS” – when we take a tough stand on issues that are way beyond the English taxing our tea WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
    And you don’t like us DEFENDING OUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, OBJECTING TO “THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE” BEING USED TO SILENCE US AND OUR VOICE – OUR INPUT TO HOW TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT, GOVT POLICIES CHOSEN, DECISIONS MADE AS TO THE DEFINITION OF WHAT OUR NATIONS CONSIDERS “CORRECT” AND PROPER – OR NOT!
    And YOU call ME A NAZI???
    HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW!!!!!

  62. For five minutes.
    Posted by: Captain Ed at July 13, 2007 10:50 PM
    *************************
    WAHL, thar ya go, Capt. YOU having FIVE MINUTES on NPR is EQUAL to thousands of hours of DIM LIBERALS time on the NPR, ain’t it? Because you had EQUAL AUDIENCE SHARES, obviously. You had millions of listeners for 5 minutes, it took them THOUSANDS of hours to get the same number of LIBERAL LISTENERS for THEIR SIDE.
    That IS how it works, ain’t it, Capt.???

  63. gaffo says “WE ARE NOT AT WAR.”
    Since WE ARE NOT AT WAR, then Bush DIDN’T lie to get us into one, right? Or if he did, nobody really believed him.
    Congress will be happy to know that WE ARE NOT AT WAR, because that means that more than half of them DIDN’T actually vote to send the troops into combat. They can stop trying to rationalize and repudiate their vote of a few years ago and get on with the business of… um… well, whatever it is that Congress does. Lately, it seems to be a whole lot of nothing (which is fine with me!).
    You can also tell the Benedict Arnolds out there that, since WE ARE NOT AT WAR, they can stop screaming hysterically that they support the troops. No need to keep up the pretense if the troops aren’t actually at war.
    Please send an e-mail to the Pentagon and ask them to forward this earthshattering news to the troops in Iraq and A-stan. They’ll be pleased to know that, even though people are trying to kill them, WE ARE NOT AT WAR.
    Oh, and you can ask your fellow libs to stop cackling over the prospect of more Gold Star Mothers. Can’t have Gold Star Mothers when WE ARE NOT AT WAR.
    The undisputed fact that WE ARE NOT AT WAR should also make it much easier for Grand Admiral Reid, Field Marshall al-Murtha and Commissar Pelosi to cut funding for the troops in Iraq because, if WE ARE NOT AT WAR, then there’s no problem bringing all the troops home immediately so that no more of them will die in freak accidents when cars and people mysteriously explode next to them. After all, they can’t be dying in combat because WE ARE NOT AT WAR.
    Are the Iraqis at war, by the way? What about al Qaeda? Lot of bullets flying around; SOMEBODY must be at war.
    I’m just glad to know that we have it on definitive authority that WE ARE NOT AT WAR.
    On another note…
    Cap’n Ed, the fact that you were a guest for five minutes on NPR demonstrates how unbiased and fair it truly is! Nay, it’s outright CONSERVATIVE. I mean, as far as liberals are concerned, that is.

  64. You guys DID hear about Oakland City telling a ladies Christian group that they could not advertise their prayer meetings focusing on the natural family and family values on the city community board online – last week – because their words constituted discrimination against homosexuals – and thus constituted HATE SPEECH. The same board had been accepting postings for meetings and events for homosexual groups and a few other type groups that would oppose the Christian postings, as well.
    But the Christian group was the only one told they could not post there, anymore. AND SPECIFICALLY WHY:
    http://mattjohnston.blogspot.com/2007/06/george-f-will-on-marriage-as-hate.html
    Monday, June 25, 2007
    George F. Will On “Marriage as Hate Speech” Case from California
    A couple of weeks ago, I made mention of the story of a group of city employees in California who posted a flier about a Christian group who were sued because their superiors thought their flier about marriage and natural family was homophobic and hate speech. Yesterday, George Will wrote about the case.

    Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values. That sentence is inflammatory, perhaps even a hate crime.
    At least it is in Oakland, Calif.

    This shutdown of our Free Speech rights is NOT some fluff piece we can dismiss out of hand, because it is so apparantly preposterous.

  65. “Please tell me who the conservative counterpoints are to Dan Schorr, Nina Totenberg, Steve Inskeep, Juan Williams, and Mara Liason, just to name a few? These are regulars – where are their conservative counterpoints?”
    Sherlock is right here. I stand corrected by him.
    I retract my statement that NPR is not biased toward the Left.
    Thank you for pointing out the obvious which I failed to concider.

  66. no draft, no rationing, no sacrifice, no Congressional Declairation of War
    =
    No War.
    more like a damn foobal game than a fight for National survival
    again, no rationing, no draft, no call for any sacrifice.
    yellow stickers on your SUV – like a football sticker only a ribbom. maybe another bumber sticker “support our troops”
    See – I’m a Patriot!! I have my SUV stickers!!
    no bubba – no war.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    you start the Draft, ration stuff and get Congress of Declair War – THEN we will be at War.

    what we have now is an UnConstitutional travesty – one I do not recognize/support nor acknowledge.

  67. Posted by: docjim505 at July 13, 2007 11:17 PM
    *****************
    EXCELLENT POST! I LOVE IT!!
    MEGA DITTOS!!!
    heheheheheh

  68. Ah yes, NPR’s infamous “balance”
    NPR PROGRESSIVE: Bush is the worst president ever!
    NPR “CONSERVATIVE”: He’s tied with Polk.

  69. most Newspapers? LOL, not around here! – Five newspapers (Washington Post, San Cronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Boston Herold – and MARGINALY New York Time (which with its Neocon control oped is almost “Conservative” now)
    Normally I wouldn’t get into it with someone like gaffo–anyone who thinks the New York Times op-ed page is “neocon” has got to be a both a Communist and an anti-Semite–but let’s try these on as possible additions to his list of “liberal” newspapers:
    Minneapolis Star-Tribune
    St. Louis Post-Dispatch
    Miami Herald
    Boston Globe (the Herald’s the conservative one, twit)
    Los Angeles Times
    Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    Louisville Courier-Journal
    San Francisco Chronicle (that’s probably what the twit means by “San Cronicle,” but it can’t hurt to clarify)
    Capital Times (Madison, WI)
    The Oregonian (Portland)
    Arizona Republic (Phoenix)
    Austin Statesman
    Orlando Sentinel
    Newark Star-Ledger
    Philadelphia Inquirer
    Detroit Free Press
    Baltimore Sun
    Cleveland Plain-Dealer
    San Diego Union-Tribune
    Raleigh News & Observer
    I’m sure I’ve missed one or two. Y’all feel free to provide your own.

  70. My mind is still boggling at the thought that the New York Times is “almost conservative.” Maybe gaffo means that they allow Brooks and Safire to write op-eds? When your a lefty elitist, any dissent makes you part of the “other,” which is conservative in this context. Perhaps he thinks everything to the right of Mother Jones and the Guardian is “centrist.” Rolling Stone is centrist!

  71. Tell them it must apply to Television which has even more limited bandwidth, and certainly to NPR and PBS, receiving government sponsorship.

  72. You can add the St. Petersburg Times, Tampa Tribune, Miami Herald, and Jacksonville to that lib list as well. That pretty well cover the state of Florida.

  73. The courts decided years ago, that there is a penumbra to the constitution that over rides the Congress shall make no law provision.
    That is, if congress decides that there is a substantial govt interest in something, then the constitution shall be waived.
    How else do you think they get to declare that it is illegal to put forth an ad that mentions a candidates name in the last 30 days before an election?
    I’ve read the constitution through (it doesn’t take long) several times, and for the life of me, I can’t find the phrase “substantial govt interest” anywhere in the thing. But the SC swears that it is there, and it trumps anything else in the constition.

  74. I like the way our local libs try to deflect attention from their own power grab, by trying to tie yet another issue that has nothing to do with Iraq, to Iraq.

  75. How were frequencies regulated in the decades before the FCC was invented?
    By using the concept of ownership.
    The first company to use a particular frequency in a particular area, was granted legal ownership of that frequency in that area.
    The courts were used to enforce property rights.
    Unfortunately the politically powerfull did not like this arrangement. It gave them no control over who was permitted to own radio stations. It gave them no ability to extract massive campaign contributions for the priviledge of owning a radio station.
    So they invented the concept of public (ie govt) ownership of the airwaves, and then created the FCC to ensure that the campaign contributions would continue non-stop.
    I also love the our local lib moonbats wail about a few stations having a lot of listeners.
    God forbid, the people should be allowed to listen to whomever they want, instead of whomever the liberals want them to hear.

  76. The problem with the argument of those who support the notion of “public airways” is that the frequencies may be limited, but there are nearly an infinite ways to fill them up.
    Additionally, even in crowded cities like NYC and LA, the airwaves are nowhere close to being filled up.
    If you examine the people and groups behind the push for the FCC in the first place, you will find people who’s principal concern was not the public well being, but in promoting govt power, and their own access to other people’s money.

  77. The idea that the “market” isn’t providing access to all viewpoints is equivalent to the greenies complaint that the “market” wasn’t providing enough alternative fueled vehicles.
    The fact that people didn’t want to buy said vehicles was never a consideration. After all, if the people were smart in the first place, they would all be liberals already.
    So the only solution is to use govt to wipe out the defective market, and replace it with something that is guarenteed to produce what the liberal wants produced.

  78. you have to remember,
    when you are as far out on the left wing as Mr. Shipley is, everything appears right wing.

  79. Anytime you find a lefty who claims that the NYT is right wing, then you know you have found someone who has wandered so far out on the left wing, that he has fallen off completely.

  80. you have to remember that liberals define an intelligent conservative, as one who is agreeing with them on the question at hand.

  81. on talk radio there is no accountability. most conservative talk show hosts screen their calls carefully to exclude challenges. it allows levels of unaccountable repetition not possible in any other medium. much of it’s audience is also semi-captive. sure, you can always change the station or turn it off. but in many parts of the country there are no alternatives for those who are interested in current events or politics and want to get it while working or driving and before going home to relax and fight the family for the remote.
    How broadcast licensees meet their responsibility of fair discussion of important public issues has varied considerably over 80 years of federal regulation. But the image of eager federal bureaucrats peering over the shoulders of all of America’s radio talk show hosts with a stopwatch in hand is as absurd as it is impractical.
    political talk would grow up as primarily a preserve of conservatives. When talk radio started in the early 1960s, the U.S. was still in the fading shadow of McCarthyism; it was still dangerous to be associated with left-leaning politics, while conservative, staunchly anti-Communist views were always safe. American broadcasting predating Joe McCarthy had a tradition of tolerance for even extreme right-wing views. Radio haters, racists and redbaiters such as Father Charles Coughlin, Gerald L.K. Smith and Walter Winchell were thriving on U.S. airwaves well before talk radio

Comments are closed.