The Unconstitutional Fairness In Broadcasting Doctrine
Posted: Saturday, February 21, 2009
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
The current controversy concerning the so called Fairness in Broadcasting is not new. Not in the least. In fact, it may have in been considered for most of the existence of the United States, but we can know for a certainty that as far back as 1917, there were those who sought to control the media, which at that time was primarily newspapers. This subject is not primarily involved in governmental politics but a group who have sinister plans for securing complete control, not only of all forms of the media, but the promoting of what is referred to as the "New World Order". This group, which had it's beginning in the first half of the twentieth century were successful in securing control of our major media outlets and have maintained that control to this day.
Many feel the present revival of considering it is an effort to silence Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio shows, and that it will also lead to, or include, the same with television. There is much to find undesirable about this legislation under consideration, but the silencing of certain segments seems unlikely. For instance, Rush Limbaugh, rose to fame and thrived while it was in effect before. If the silencing of these people is the goal of those promoting it, they will certainly have to put it in a different form than it was earlier. Which, incidentally, would be difficult to pass by any congress who still holds our freedoms of speech as constitutional.
My personal feelings towards it is quite negative. If they are not attempting to squash conservative talk shows, then why do we need it at all? I see no reason for it whatsoever. The liberals have the same opportunity to put their agenda on the air as do the conservatives. That is fairness. Forcing a station to furnish (for free) equal time for an opposing party is not fairness. Some stations operate on a shoestring as it is, forcing free air time is placing an unfair burden upon them. Besides, that is part of what our freedoms are all about. Perhaps there are more conservative radio talk shows than liberal. Perhaps, but one thing for sure and for certain, there are far more liberal television networks and newspapers than conservative. So should we have a fairness in those media? If not, why not?
Another factor why it should not become a law is that many of these stations, whether liberal or conservative, have a loyal audience which they have developed and would be uninterested in the opposite views. Which could damage their solvency.
But the primary reason for my negative attitude towards this "doctrine" is because of those who promote it. It is not just Democrats, not at all. Nancy Pelosi, the democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, (the self-proclaimed "most powerful woman in the world"!!) (Take that, Hillary) is doing her best to promote it, but I'm not sure if she is a part of, or sympathetic towards, those who are quietly promoting a "New World Order". President Obama has said that he will not propose it.
In the past, many conservatives have supported the bill. Even arch conservatives such as former house speaker, Newt Gingrich and the late Jesse Helms. But the basic danger is that the group CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) has been slowly and steadily gaining control of all of our media and, worst of all, our governmental leaders. Their agenda is to control the World, not just the U.S.
Do you have aspirations to write? Check the opportunities to be published with Searchwarp, free! Click the link below
Register now as a SearchWarp.com Author
Do you have aspirations to write? Check the opportunities to be published with Searchwarp, free! Click the link below
Register now as a SearchWarp.com Author
This Article has been viewed 469 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (3 total)Great article, Joel--as usual--you've done your homework. Free speech is great until the orator loses focus of what is 'free speech' and what is demeaning 'slander'. And there will always be someone out to 'control the world.'Thanks for a great article.SandraHi Sandra, thanks for reading and commenting. I always appreciate your input.
Great Article as always, Joel. This is news to be. Is the FCC requring that all stations that have talk shows must have equal input from Democrats and Republicans? Is this somebody that is working its way up congress to the President. If something like this passes, its a huge step backwords for freedom of speech and freedom to run your business how you want it to.The freedom of speech part is obvious; If its a conservative talk show most people listening would be conservative; the radio station would lose many fans if they had to incude just as much liberal material.Also, from a business point of view, the owner of the radio station should put whatever he wants to on the air. It's his business. As long as their is no profanity, and no stealing of songs without permission to air them on air, than the radio stations should do whatever they want.Hi Greg, thank you for your comments. In answer to your questions, as of this moment the FCC is not asking for this equal time, the "Fairness Doctrtine" is not in effect. But Nancy P. and others are advocating it's reinstatement. I agree with you, it is non-constitutional. It is anti-American, and how anyone could possibly advocate it, is beyond my comprehension. I understand that John McCain was, or is, for it. One of the reasons I desperately hated to vote for him.I plan to write an expose' on the "Council on Foreign Relations" (CFR) soon. I may be assasinated for it but I'm going to do it. The information I have is already available, only not many read it.I'll read it; but if it really is sensitive information you have you should not post it; I do not want to see you do something that will even give you a remote chance of getting in trouble, or God forbid assassinated.Also, thats the same reason that no matter what, I do not talk about Aliens...Not to worry, everything I get is from the internet and is accessible to all. Just not many read those items. I posted the article yesterday.Gregory knows too much. Majestic 12 helicopters en route.:)
Interesting article!I can understand the necessity for some kind of "Fairness In Broadcasting" to apply to any state owned media (like the BBC in the UK) - but to try and force commercial media organisation to give equal time to all sides seems ridiculous and unnecessary.The danger comes from allowing any particular media group to become too powerful, stifling competition and stopping others being able to "break in" to the market.But that is something that should be dealt with via the normal business legislation in place to protect a competitive market and prevent monopolies abusing their position to sustain their monopoly. It should not be dealt with by forcing organisations to give equal treatment of all sides. Commercial companies can take sides if they want!Hi Ben and thanks for your comments. I agree whole heartedly. There is far too much government intervention in private businesses for no good reason. It is about to hit the fan, I believe. Representative DeMint from S.C. has a bill he is trying to get through soemhow that will ban the implementation of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". But if I know Nancy Pelosi, she will stop it some way. She has already said that we must get the Fairness Doctrine reinstated.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.