Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

We should embrace the Fairness Doctrine?

Many of the points below have been made here by me and commenters, but this is a good way to tie all the points together. From Bruce Chapman:

Liberals are hailing a report that calls for federal regulations to end the “structural imbalance in political talk radio.” Two think tanks, the Center for American Progress and the Free Press, complain that more than 90 percent of the programs on talk radio feature conservative hosts and themes while only 10 percent are “progressive.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has promised to examine the report’s recommendations for possible legislation and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., says flatly, “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.”

That really is a good, old-fashioned attitude, all right. But under the so-called Fairness Doctrine that the Federal Communications Commission pursued until 1987, many broadcasters observed that government regulation actually stifled the free market in opinion and effectively politics to little-watched schedules on Sunday mornings. It was known informally as “the public affairs ghetto.” Stations presented only as much public debate as they needed to secure renewal of their public licenses.

But the new think tank study insists that talk radio is “imbalanced” and that the imbalance is due largely to the preferences of large radio conglomerates that are run by middle-aged white men. They demand that the government step in and break up the big radio chains and require as much progressive programming as conservative.

At this point Republicans, perhaps surprisingly, are rubbing their hands and hoping for a fight on the Fairness Doctrine. They think the threats from liberal legislators will backfire, helping to unite and activate the nation’s 50 million or so talk radio listeners, most of them conservatives, and get them to the polls.

But the right could be making a mistake. Instead of opposing a new “Fairness Doctrine,” perhaps conservatives should embrace it — providing, that is, that the new policy is extended to all media, not just talk radio. (Do I notice some “progressives” throwing down their papers in disgust?)

Let’s start with that most public of federal broadcast entities, National Public Radio. Increasingly, its sponsors range from foundations with an ideological ax to grind to law firms and national teachers unions. Conservatives find that stories they care about just don’t make it onto NPR schedules. When the rare conservative gets invited to participate on an NPR issues panel, somehow there are two or three liberals facing him, with a liberal host recognizing the speakers.

Next, the new Fairness Doctrine should apply to television, including not just PBS, but also CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC, as well as the FOX channel. When newscasters seek legally required balance on a given issue, let’s see if they can be persuaded to find the most articulate conservative — not the most egregious and unpopular — to reply to the liberal voice.

In addition to cable broadcasting, the new Fairness Doctrine also should reach into the press. I know print media have always been exempt, but, hey, judicial precedents change. Newspapers and news magazines not only use the public mails to ship some of their goods (often at subsidized rates), but they also run their delivery trucks over public roads and park their corner coin-boxes on public sidewalks. The current philosophy of government seems to be, if it moves, the government has a say in it, so why should newspapers get away with sitting in aloof Olympian judgment on everyone else?

It is never going to happen, you say. Well, OK, but let’s just open up the fairness issue as wide as possible and see where the debate takes us.

It should be exciting, especially when we have congressional hearings that extend the concept of political and cultural “fairness” still further — to Hollywood.

Or maybe the left would be smart to drop the matter altogether.

“Smart” and “left” should rarely go in the same sentence, Bruce.

Advertisement

July 12, 2007 - Posted by | Fairness Doctrine, hypocrisy, media bias

3 Comments »

  1. ZERO TOLERANCE LAWS NEED BANNING

    BY LISA RICHARDS
    June 19, 2007

    Throughout the United States, public schools along with public buildings have “Zero Tolerance” polices states and local governments claim protect American children and adults; in reality they hurt, destroy and divide.

    Many public schools forbid students from kindergarten through college years from wearing the cross. The reason; it might greatly offend Muslims and Atheists. It is however quite acceptable for Arab Muslim terrorists to massacre 3,000 innocent Americans, and it is an absolute that Atheists destroy the Christian religious foundations of the United States; to do so is more than the standard adequate; it’s magnanimously broad-minded and progressive.

    Dragging the Ten Commandments out of public buildings while firing judges who support God’s laws is the mandate of enlightened advancement making room for naked statues of Jesus covered in dung considered viable art. Anything reading “Thou shalt not murder,” “steal,” “commit adultery,” “lie,” “take the Lord’s name in vain,” etc, is the provoking of impertinent hate toward liars, thieves and murderers who deserve respect.

    Keeping and reelecting judges on the bench who free child molesters and killers are necessary policies if the law is to maintain fairness and equality for violent offenders.

    Welcome to the age of “Zero-Tolerance Laws” and the end of sanity and morality.

    Case in point; during 2007 Flag Week, Students in California were allowed to make displays supporting the troops in Iraq; there was one condition to being allowed entrance to school grounds with the displays; students had to cut off the extremely tiny and very fake weapons on toy soldiers and tanks.

    Apparently the student’s displays might actually allow for the children to declare and create warfare amongst them selves and kill each other.

    Ten years ago, 79 percent of public schools had the “Zero-Tolerance” laws against violence; 88 percent were for drugs, 91 percent for weapons and 94 percent were anti-firearms policies.

    The “Zero-Tolerance” for drugs is probably the most absurd; a child can be suspended for bringing Ibuprofin into school. In fact, recently, one Utah boy was suspended for giving his cousin a cold medicine pill both boys are presribed to take.

    You see, the five year-old may be a Timothy Leary stoner on the lose trying to get Mormons wasted.

    In Rhode Island, a five year-old kintergarten student was suspended for bringing a plastic pic-nic knife into class to cut his snack time cookies.

    Oh good grief, the child watched “Psycho” one too many times and now he thinks he can knife all the pretty, single blonde girls who remind him of his mother he keeps in the basement.

    Liberals like Al Sharpton are pushing for the word nigger to be banned from U.S. vocabulary. Only the phrase “N-word” will be allowed if Sharpton gets his way.

    In Sweden, a law was passed making it illegal to tell homosexual jokes. If one makes a funny about gays, one goes to prison. United States liberals want to pass “Zero-Tolerance” laws on homosexual jokes and harrassment toward gays.

    The above two are so assinine, drunk Hollywood bimbos could figure it out. No person with a smidge of decency would ever consider calling someone with black skin a nigger; it’s offensive and useless. As for homosexual jokes, most gays would have to be arrested under the zero-tolerance laws since it’s gays who are making all the jokes about themselves in TV shows and movies.

    “Zero-Tolerance” laws are a way to prevent every American from owning a gun to protect one’s self and family; it is a way to make illegal the telling of jokes about ancestry, race, religion and sex. “Zero-Tolerance” is another liberal attempt to control mankind under communistic-type rules punishable by imprisonment if broken. Rapists, murderers, child-molesters, human traffikers, drug dealers and any person invading the U.S. illegally need never follow the above rules; to do so would be intolerance toward criminals.

    Human beings are born with common sense; whether or not people choose to practice right versus wrong should not be punishment for the whole of humanity. Suspending children for bringing cold medicine or aspirine to school will not teach children not to do drugs; it will however teach the child that if they want to do something wrong and not get caught, never let anyone know what you’re doing. Be a liar and you can get away with whatever you want.

    God gave all humans brains with intelligence; how people use that intellect is up to people. Unless it’s the absolute need for self defense, every person knows its wrong to shoot or knife another human being. Every person knows its illegal and dangerous to use drugs; it’s a choice whether or not people decide right over wrong.

    Laws banning guns will never stop thugs from purchasing firearms and murdering the innocent; the lawful practice of the Second Amandment can, and has, time and again in the past, lessoned crime in the U.S.

    Banning gay jokes will not prevent homophobia; there will always be people who hate other people no matter what. Banning the word nigger will not stop the existence of the KKK or other white supremecist ignoramuses; laws against hate do not stop the presence of bad people; as long as the devil exists, so does evil. You can’t ban Satan; you’re supposed to resist him. Every person with a brain and decency knows that.

    The U.S. needs to worry more about stopping child pornography, child sex slave trade and traffiked women turned into prostitutes for strip clubs, porn movies and escort services who all claim the proffession is innocent. It’s not; it’s the destruction of humanity.

    The U.S. needs to start executing child molesters and violent killers, not try to imprison people who tell gay jokes.

    The federal government needs to crack down on the borders, closing them permenantly to stop illegal immigrants from entering the country. Many illegals have raped and murdered U.S. citizens only to walk free on the race card.

    The U.S. needs to start executing drug dealers, because their paraphernelia is a weapon of murder they use to make money. There is no difference between a hired assassine and a drug dealer; both are armed with guns; one uses the gun to murder, the other sells the drugs which cause overdosed deaths. Both people are murderers and both walk free because liberal judges and activists believe thugs are equal to the innocents they violate.

    If violent criminals would only tell gay jokes while calling blacks niggers, all criminals would be executed and America would be pretty much crime-free.

    Copyright 2007 Lisa Richards

    Comment by Lisa Richards | August 1, 2007

  2. More like the shut up and agree with us doctrine!

    Freethinkers are a problem for neo/would-be brown shirts!

    Comment by Chilerkle | September 26, 2007

  3. What part of “Congress shall make no law abridging…the freedom of speech” do you not understand? Fighting this battle on the grounds of equity rather than constitutionalism gives away the farm.

    qb

    Comment by queueball | November 6, 2008


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

« Previous | Next »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers