Democrats Look to Muzzle Conservative Radio

[phuloi]

Friday, February 6, 2009 10:36 AM

By: Jim Meyers



Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow says she wants hearings on “accountability” in radio, suggesting Democrats are eying a return of the Fairness Doctrine.


During an interview with Stabenow, syndicated radio host Bill Press said conservatives should not be the only voices heard on talk radio and asked the Michigan lawmaker: “So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?”


Stabenow responded: “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.


“Our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.”


Press — former chairman of the California Democratic Party — asked: “Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?”


Stabenow said: “I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s going to happen.”


Originally instituted in 1949 by the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters using the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views. The FCC repealed the measure in 1987.


Since talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and liberal talk radio draws few listeners, the “equal time” provision would likely force many radio stations to pull popular conservative hosts from the air rather than air low-rated liberal hosts.


Michael Calderone of Politico.com, commenting on Stabenow’s remarks, wrote: “Although Obama has been publicly opposed to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, conservative radio has talked nonstop about the fear of it returning (or perhaps something like it with another name) while there’s a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress.”


Bill Press wrote on his Web site: “I’m not a big fan of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. But if station owners won’t act on their own to offer a mix of voices on the radio, this Congress and this new administration will find a way to force them to do so. And the sooner, the better.”



© 2009 Newsmax.

[darrels joy]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/1...ness-doctrine/

[SuperScout]

It's really simple, boys and girls: Da Dims can't stand dissent or opposition or any impediment to their socialization of America. They are getting to be as bad as the Stalinists, another group of paranoid schizoids; Stalin dealt with his opposition a bit more violently, but I firmly believe that Da Dims are keeping that card in the deck, just in case.

Da Dims never bothered to ask themselves why liberal talk radio was such a colossal failure, but the answer is really simple: nobody wanted to pay for the crap that they were spewing. don't you remember - in one instance, they actually stole money from a charitable fund, to pay for Air America!

The liberals are enemies of free America, as they hate our liberties. If in doubt, just compare and contrast the differences of liberasls and conservatives with these simple concepts as written in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...."

1. Life:
a. liberals - abortion on demand, up to and including partial-birth abortion.
b. conservatives - respect for life, which we believe begins with conception.

2. Liberty:
a. liberals - more and tighter rules and regulations, higher taxes, less freedom, more government interference in daily lives.
b. conservatives - less government control and interference, lower taxes.

3. Pursuit of Happiness:
a. liberals - disclosing military secrets that endanger our warriors and country, yellow-belly approach to warfighting if fighting at all, coddling criminals and enemy combatants, disparaging our warriors.
b. conservatives - none of the above.

America deserves better.

[Keith_Hixson]

Change the rules.
Might be a good idea. Then we'd have to have two anchors, one conservative and one liberal so we could have balanced news media. But of course the liberals would change the rules if fairness came down to network news.

Keith

[phuloi]

We`ve conceeded the fact that the MSM are in the liberal tank but it`s not about that. The issue here is muzzling conservative talk radio, which has a huge audience. They(libs) launched counter-measures and failed miserably with Air America, broadcasting foul-mouthed bomb throwers in the vein of Al Franken, etc.
Stifling opposing veiws in the "FREE" media rings with tones of totaltarianism. Be aware, my friends.

[phuloi]

Jerry Brown Joins Looney Fairness Doctrine Friends



A reference to the so-called Fairness Doctrine has dribbled out the pie-hole of longtime Dem lib Jerry Brown.



California’s former governor, who also happens to be Oakland’s ex- mayor and the Golden State’s current reigning attorney general, shared some thoughts about the speech squashing doctrine while appearing on the top-rated nationally syndicated talk radio show of Michael Savage.



Adding his daffy ideas to the cocksure liberal chorus, which includes Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Tom Harkin and ex-prez Bill Clinton, Brown puked out his most outrageous statement to date.



“Well, a little state control wouldn't hurt anybody,” Mr. Moonbeam mouthed.



The pesky little legal official then defended his use of totalitarian language by explaining that the state control over speech would merely be “an attempt to balance, not to censor.”

[phuloi]

Axelrod Says Obama to Discuss Fairness Doctrine

Monday, February 16, 2009 3:54 PM

By: Dave Eberhart




An Obama senior adviser has indicated that the administration is mulling whether the controversial Fairness Doctrine will get a new lease on life, according to a report in Broadcasting and Cable.


The now defunct Fairness Doctrine, if revived, could be used by a liberal administration to silence Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other radio talk show hosts, as well as much of the new alternative media. The doctrine required broadcasters to report both sides of controversial issues. The Federal Communications Commission dropped it in 1987.


Asked by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" whether he would rule out reimposing the doctrine, White House senior adviser David Axelrod responded: “I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, and the president to discuss, so I don’t have an answer for you now.”


This soft position is a departure from a much more definitive posture on the doctrine touted during the Obama campaign in June 2008:


“Senator Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to Broadcasting and Cable at that time.


“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” Ortiz said.

The specter of a return to the doctrine has enjoyed renewed visibility over the last couple of weeks as leading Democrats have been discussing it more and more.


Last week on a radio show, former President Bill Clinton announced that in his opinion something needed to be done to balance broadcasting.


“Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side,” Clinton said, “because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.”


Clinton targeted the “blatant drumbeat” against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, saying it doesn’t reflect economic reality, according to Broadcasting and Cable.









© 2009 Newsmax.

[phuloi]

Sen. Stabenow’s ‘Outrageous Conflict of Interest’ on Fairness Doctrine

It’s been reported that Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow wants hearings on “accountability” in radio, suggesting Democrats are eyeing a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

What’s not been widely reported is that the Michigan lawmaker is married to a media executive with ties to left-wing radio.

During a recent interview with syndicated radio-host Bill Press, Stabenow said: “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the 'fairness standard,' whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.”

She didn’t mention that her husband Tom Athans is the co-founder and former CEO of Democracy Radio, which supported “progressive” talk radio, and was executive vice president for programming at left-wing Air America.

Columnist Camille Paglia recently wrote: “Debbie Stabenow, who has been in the aggressive forefront of the campaign to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, is married to Tom Athans, who works extensively with left-wing radio organizations and was once the executive vice-president of Air America, the liberal radio syndicate that, despite massive publicity from major media, has failed miserably to win a national audience.

“Stabenow's outrageous conflict of interest has of course been largely ignored by the prestige press, which should have been demanding that she recuse herself from all political involvement with this issue.”

Originally instituted in 1949 by the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters using the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views. The FCC repealed the measure in 1987.

Since talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and liberal talk radio draws few listeners, the “equal time” provision would likely force many radio stations to pull popular conservative hosts from the air rather than air low-rated liberal hosts.

“I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows,” Paglia opined.

“Government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism.”

[darrels joy]

Citing 'Diversity,' Obama Admin Sides with Leftist Grievance Group and Investigates More Accurate Arbitron Ratings System


By Seton Motley (Bio | Archive)
May 19, 2009 - 17:24 ET

• 
• 

The Upside Down Ratings World of NABOB

On April 9 we wrote of an asinine assertion made about the new Arbitron radio ratings system by soon to be transferred Democratic Federal Communications Committee (FCC) Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein. Well now President Barack Obama has put the imprimatur of his FCC and Administration on Adelstein's addled notion.

Since the inception of tracking those who listen to Guglielmo Marconi's marvelous invention, Arbitron had relied on a personal pen-and-paper diary system and the journal-keepers' honor and memory as to what they had listened and for how long they had done so. The potential for misremembering and book-cooking was simply staggering.

So Arbitron came up with a pager-esque device called the Portable People Meter (PPM). This gadget automatically tracks to where the radio dial is tuned, thereby virtually eliminating human error and the ability to cheat.

Obviously, this is far more accurate way to establish who is listening to whom, right? If you do find this to be a self-evident truth, you are not a master of the obvious, you are - according to the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters (NABOB) - a racist bigot.

How so? Because the ratings under the new regime revealed that the numbers for hip-hop, urban and other racial minority stations had long been incorrectly inflated (and conversely the listenership of talk radio had long been underreported).

And this, you see, is not the better results of technological advancement, this is racism.



With these lower numbers comes lower advertising revenue, the lifeblood of the radio business. So the bleeding must somehow be stopped, even if the reality of the situation can not.



So President Obama is now on the case. In the name of media "Diversity," he has ordered an FCC inquiry into the matter.
Excerpts from the FCC's official Notice of Inquiry:

In this Notice of Inquiry ("NOI"), we seek comment on issues relating to the commercial use of a radio audience measurement device, developed by Arbitron, Inc. ("Arbitron"), known as the portable people meter, or "PPM."#

Broadcasters, media organizations, and others have raised concerns about the use of the PPM and its potential impact on audience ratings of stations that air programming targeted to minority audiences, and consequently, on the financial viability of those stations.

They claim that the current PPM methodology undercounts and misrepresents the number and loyalty of minority radio listeners. They assert that, because audience ratings affect advertising revenues, undercounting minority audiences could negatively affect the ability of these stations to compete for advertising revenues and to continue to offer local service to minority audiences.

NABOB is one of the "broadcasters, media organizations and others" who "have raised concerns about the use of the PPM." They have, of course, quickly banded together in a new organization - the PPM Coalition (PPMC), although it was NABOB alone that got Adelstein to file his initial complaint. And to the PPMC Obama quickly genuflected, King of Saud-style.

This new grievance gaggle is made up of groups with names quite reminiscent of the un-diverse FCC "Diversity" Committee that convened on May 7:

• National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters (NABOB)
• Spanish Radio Association
• Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
• American Hispanic Advertising Association
• Border Media Partners
• Entravision Communications Corporation
• ICBC Broadcast Holdings, Inc.
• Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc.
• Univision Communications Inc.

The PPMC is claiming that the abjectly poor, downtrodden and forgotten minorities "undercounted and misrepresented" in this new methodology only have cell phones and not land lines, and therefore are missed by the Arbitron PPM placement process.

PPMC alleges that the PPM sample is deficient because only five to six percent of the PPM sample is comprised of cell-phone-only households, while a significant and growing percentage of young adults and Hispanics and African-Americans live in cell-phone-only households. PPMC asserts that 19.3 percent of Hispanic households and 18.3 percent of African-American households are cell-phone-only, whereas 12.9 percent of non-Hispanic white households are cell-phone-only.

Last time I checked, cell phones were FAR more expensive than land lines, so how this PPMC claim fits into the "abjectly poor, downtrodden and forgotten minority" narrative escapes me.

The PPMC is also claiming that ethnic minorities are less inclined to participate in PPM surveys. This also makes very little sense. Were ethnic minorities more likely to studiously keep an Arbitron handwritten diary than they are now to carry around an unobtrusive PPM? Hardly likely.

That Obama's FCC has picked up and made official this pseudo-intellectual twaddle - and assigned the Agency that determines the fate of every broadcaster in America the task of its investigation - isn't very heartening to those of us still enamored with the First Amendment.

As we've already seen in myriad other areas - federal spending, banking and auto manufacturing to name but a few - timidity is not an Obama characteristic. If he is willing to take on this most ridiculous of claims in the name of media "Diversity," we are naturally left to think that there is nearly nothing he WON'T do to ensure that the broadcast world is remade in the manner he thinks it should be.

Yet another Change for which we had not Hoped.

—Seton Motley is Director of Communications for the Media Research Center.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-m...p-investigates