There is no "Fairness Doctrine" in sight.
What we will get is much worse.
“This isn’t just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven’t heard about,” says Democrat committee member. “The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we’ve established that broadband networks — the Internet — are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure.” --Washington Prowler
(Perhaps the most intriguing nugget is that reference to 'the Internet' as a 'critical national infrastructure.')
As to radio stations:
...Congress will restrict how many stations a company can own in a market. They’ll also require advisory boards for each station and make it easier to address consumer complaints against stations.
One of the requirements will be diversity of ideas on the air, so if a company is just broadcasting Rush Limbaugh on all stations in a state, consumers can file complaints. Likewise, the advisory boards’ demands will have to be adhered to by the stations.
If the stations’ advisory boards are filled with liberals who demand Rush Limbaugh be taken off the air, the station will have to comply in order to keep its license.
All very neatly packaged. Clear Channel is certainly in the 10-ring, given the number of stations it owns. And Journal Communications can't be far down the list.
HT: RedState
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online
Are they going to force Firefox to take me to Daily Kos before I can access Ace of Spades? Force YouTube to show me a Sean Penn vid before I can watch Zo? Jail anyone who starts up a service that doesn't do these things?
Where does it say that "one of the requirements will be diversity on the air"?
Actually what you're describing sounds like a brilliant solution. I don't want the FD back. I want a limit on ownership, and an avenue for listener complaints. The airwaves belong to US. And if private orgs aren't using them in a way that serves us, we should regulate them. In this case, a limit on how many you can own and in what market, thus ensuring that a small number of people can't control the media for several million people in the same geographical area.
The airwaves belong to US. And if private orgs aren't using them in a way that serves us, we should regulate them.
What part of the First Amendment makes no sense to you?
The Constitution belongs to the US, and it's explicitly clear:
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXPRESSION THEREOF, OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS...
I don't know about you, but "no law" means no law, no regulation, nothing that prohibits speech.
Not even in the name of "fairness".
And, it's funny how you lament a "small number of people" controlling the airwaves when Fox, Rush, etc. are some of the HIGHEST rated shows in the nation. Which means more people listen to them than, say, Air America.
But the Air America crowd gets to make the rules.
BS.
Dad, I believe it's called localism. Another leftist ism that takes away any dissent the left doesn't agree with. Of course, they don't see it as a Free Speech issue.
"Of course, they don't see it as a Free Speech issue."
Rationalization. It's a powerful state of mind.
I suspect some on the left will argue that if one person says they are offended by free speech it must be stopped. Kind of like their school mascot cleansing program.
Post a Comment