Fairness Doctrine & The 1st Amendment
Karen Bune
Victimology Contributor
Officer.com
Perhaps Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) is so elated over President-Elect Barack Obama’s victory that he cannot think clearly let alone recognize how ridiculous his comparative thought about the Fairness Doctrine even equates with pornography. “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to limit pornography on the air. I am for that…But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent,” said Schumer.
There is no comparison between the two let alone any justification for such a claim. It is apparent Sen. Schumer is grasping at straws with his reasoning in trying to sell the idea of reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine onto the American scene. “The ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is anything but ‘fair’ and we should call it what it is—a ‘free speech quota’ and an attack on the First Amendment,” says Chris Berry, President and General Manager of DC’s 630 WMAL radio station.
Those who advocate the return of this doctrine are attempting to bring forth a dangerous intrusion into freedom of the press and control free speech. Though advocates of this idea may contend it offers balance in reporting and broadcasting, they should also realize that it is an infringement on the tenets of democracy that allow the exercise of unrestricted freedom of speech
Attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine are merely self serving efforts with the intent to stifle talk radio including hosts such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and others throughout the country, who may be saying things that others don’t want to hear or don’t necessarily agree with. It is a first step to shutting them up and, ultimately, trying to shut them down.
Efforts to squash dialogue and impose limits by dictating freedom of expression are contrary to the tenets this country stands for and are a disservice to the foundation of democracy. Sen. Schumer, House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and others on their bandwagon will find a tremendous backlash emerge if they so much as begin rolling the ball down this alley of manipulative control and political dominance.
Very good article; good points, perfect length, clear, concise and well presented.
Good article Karen. The Democrats want this Fairness Doctrine, which essentially is Government censure of media. An alternate solution on radio was to have a liberal radio program such as Air America. The problem has always been with these Democrat (actually better defined as liberal) has been that they are all gloom and doom and are a bore and a drag to listen to. Consequently, these shows have no listeners.
These shows could take lessons from the Rush Limbaugh Show. Limbaugh claims 20 million listeners a day. The callers to his show frequently identify themselves as Democrats, or liberals, or other titles they call themselves. Limbaugh listens to each and every one. He never hangs up, never belittles the caller, and simply listens to them then discusses whatever they have to talk about on air. Plus, unlike the gloom/doom/hatred liberal radio shows, Limbaugh is quite humorous to listen to. He predicts things, uses music in various ways, always humorous, and the people that listen to him do it because they simply enjoy his show.
The liberals could learn a lot from listening to Limbaugh if no one else.
Other shows I listen to that are conservative are the Sean Hannity radio show, the Tammy Bruce radio show, and the Dave Ramsey radio show. Hannity and Bruce are well know, but they are similar to Limbaugh in their uses of humor, and avid descriptions of the way things are. Ramsey may not be thought of as conservative, but he is financially conser easy to listen too and has good advice. So my thought is the Government should stay out of this issue, as most everything else, and let the chips fall where they may. But with a liberal Government running the show, I doubt that will happen.
I DISAGREE. Further, I DEMAND that this website furnish me with a forum in which I can present my rebuttal. Oh … uh … nevermind.
There’s a difference between actual fairness and what the doctrine is trying to impose is that liberals CAN and DO get their message out. No one is stopping them. It’s their own fault, as Roger pointed out, that they’re boring and no one wants to listen to them. It’s completely unfair for the government or any entity to quash opinions they deem unpopular in the name of “fairness.” It’s censorship of the worst kind.
Great article.
What does this have to do with law enforcement? Perhaps you meant to post on a political web site. I thought this one was for law enforcement, not politics.
Andrew,
Blog articles do not necessarily have to pertain to law enforcement, and it is good for all of us to be well rounded on various topics. However, freedom of speech affects all of us and the impact of infringing upon the tents of that would have repercussions on those in the law enforcement and criminal justice arena as well as many other segments in our society.
In fact free speech is controlled in many ways (try yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater) and the Fairness Doctrine was successfully applied for over thirty years with no subsequent collapse of democracy (it didn’t impede Ronald Reagan’s political career in the slightest).
What we have happening now is large, corporate interests promoting large, corporate views because they own the forums which are capable of presenting those views. The airwaves are owned by the public, and not giving the public access is denying their 1st amendment rights.
I agreed with Bob M. Because corporate interests promote their own views, a lot of newspapers are going out of business because they were unable/unwillingly to do their jobs. If they were doing their jobs like they were suppose to, government and corporate corruption during the Reagan, and the two Bush administration would have been exposed a long time ago. Nowaday, people are turning to alternative news sources like the BBC, Democracy Now, etc. for news. Jon Stewart’s daily show is not a news organization; however, many people watch it because they learn about what is really happening in America that the media will not report or fail to report. Stewart also shows what a person said something about an event this week and then will show the same person said something a few years ago that was totally opposed regarding the same event.