President Bush: "Fairness Doctrine" unfair

Little-Acorn

New member
This marks a first: The first time a sitting President has directly addressed the fundamental flaws in the so-called "Fairness Doctrine".

I have little to add to the President's remarks, except to wish that his new-found aversion to censorship in the media had come to him before the misnamed "Campaign Finance Reform" act hit his desk, years ago. Signing that bill into law, wass his most egregious act as President.

---------------------------------------------

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/cont...ngton/entries/2008/03/11/bush_fairness_d.html

Bush: ‘Fairness Doctrine’ unfair

by Ken Herman
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 02:19 PM

In Nashville today, during a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, President Bush said there’s nothing fair about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that once required broadcasters to offer air time for competing ideologies.

The FCC got rid of it about 20 years ago. Now, some Democrats in Congress - long the target of popular conservative radio talk-show hosts - think it’s time to bring it back.

Perish the thought, Bush told the religious broadcasters in the following passage that ends with a veto promise.

“This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways - America’s airways - stay open to those who preach the ‘Good News.’ The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away.

”I mention this because there’s an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides. This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington’s definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don’t like.

“We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don’t agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don’t acknowledge that you are the balance … The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we’re strengthened by diversity of opinions.

“If Congress truly supports the free and open exchange of ideas, then there is a way they can demonstrate that right now. Republicans have drafted legislation that would ban reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have blocked action on this bill. So in response, nearly every Republican in the House has signed onto what’s called a ‘discharge petition,’ that would require Congress to hold an up or down vote on the ban. Supporters of this petition are only 24 signatures away.

“I do want to thank (Indiana Rep.) Mike Pence, who is with us today, and Congressman Greg Walden (of Oregon), for pressing this effort and defending the right for people to express themselves freely. And I urge other members to join in this discharge petition. But I’ll tell you this: If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, I’m going to veto it.”
 
Bush did so much worse things than sign McCain-Feingold...

Deficit spending, tax cuts without spending cuts, unnecessary conflicts, suppression of civil liberties.
 
As I said, President Bush's heart is (finally) in the right place about media censorship of political views. But it hasn't always been so - witness his signing of the so-called "Campaign Finance Refrorm Act", which implements exactly that.

So, in case he's considering a change of heart this time too, I wrote him this little note. I'm sure he's eager to get it. :)
_________________________

Dear Mr. President,

Just in case you change your mind yet again about vetoing the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", how about at least making it truly equitable? As long as we're dictating what people can and can't say or show, apply those restrictions to TV, movies, and newspapers as well.

For every Fonda-esque movie depicting industry as heartless, greedy monsters, there has to be one showing an industry moving into a blighted area and providing jobs, money, lower product prices, and increased prosperity for large segments of the population (something that happens far more often than the occasional Enron, in fact).

For every TV show displaying supposedly "conservative" people as ignorant clowns and buffoons, one must be produced showing conservatives accurately outlining their arguments and reasons why conservatism promotes the shrinking of overbearing government and the resulting freedom to follow your own wisdom, work for tangible rewards, take your lumps and learn from your mistakes, help and get help from your neighbors, and grow and modify your own business for your own (and, not coincidentally, your fellow men's) benefit.

For every newpaper story (and editorial, why stop your restrictions at the news pages?) screaming over the United States' "abject failures" in Iraq and other such places, there must be one describing the increased freedom (and citizen responsibility, the two are inseparable) of the people, the massive rebuilding and construction of infrastructure (schools, roads, water supplies, homes, stores, hospitals etc.) also done by the U.S. in those places, as well as the mounting rates of territory released back to the Iraqi citizens and armed forces - again, things that happen far more than IED explosions and terrorist sabotage of that infrastructure.

And that's just for starters. Since U.S. leftists are so interested in regulating what people can do or say on the airwaves (mimicking the pattern they established in other countries such as Cuba, the USSR, communist China etc.), the areas ripe for such regulation are virtually endless. This will take a massive government program, with bureaucracy to match, to watch, evaluate, and regulate all the media that can possibly present "unbalanced" views.

The above is just a sample of where this so-called "Fairness Doctrine" can go, Mr. President... just in case you're thinking of changing your mind about that veto.

Sincerely,
Little-Acorn
 
Bush did so much worse things than sign McCain-Feingold...

Deficit spending, tax cuts without spending cuts, unnecessary conflicts, suppression of civil liberties.
The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. The very reason I did not vote for him. And the "fix" for it doesn't help me want to vote for those other people either.
 
Back
Top