Censoring Conservative Radio
By James Miller
The Washington Times | Friday, November 07, 2008

One of life's most interesting, often jolting, experiences is to find
out that well-intentioned action can have serious, unintended
consequences.

So it is with many public policy initiatives.

For example, in an effort to broaden home ownership, Congress forced
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to securitize mortgages from too many high-
risk, low-income owners. The result was a collapse of confidence in
these two institutions, triggering tragic failures in the financial
services industry and a collapse of the stock market. Now, many people
are losing their homes, a large number of employees in the financial
services sector are out of a job, most retirement 401(k)s are worth
much less than before, and taxpayers are stuck with huge liabilities.

The so-called Fairness Doctrine is another such a case.

It seems plausible, even fair, that people should be afforded an
opportunity to receive communication about both (or several) sides of
controversial issues. No one contends with the right of people to
propound any side of any issue. That's the First Amendment. The rub
comes when government, in the name of fairness, tries to force some
providers of information to present "balanced" views.

The so-called Fairness Doctrine was initiated by the Federal
Communications Commission in 1967, but was ended by President Reagan's
FCC in 1987. The doctrine required broadcasters to deal with
controversial issues of public importance, but to do so in a way that
provided contrasting points of view. Note that the doctrine applied
only to radio and TV broadcasters. It did not apply to newspapers or
magazines, nor would it have applied to blogs and other personal
electronic communications.

The consequences of the so-called Fairness Doctrine are well-
documented. When it was imposed, public discussion and debate about
controversial issues over the air waves dried up. When the doctrine
was ended, the reverse ensued. Now some broadcasts present various
sides of issues, but we also have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Gordon
Liddy and others on the right, and Air America, Thom Hartmann, Bill
Press and others on the left. With the so-called Fairness Doctrine we
had virtually no broadcast communication about controversial issues.
Without the doctrine, we have a thriving, wholesome discussion and
debate.

In effect, the so-called Fairness Doctrine amounts to what my friend,
Barbara Comstock, has labeled the Censorship Doctrine!

Why does the Censorship Doctrine work that way?

The reason is quite simple: broadcasters are so intimidated by the
FCC, in fear that their licenses won't be renewed, they eschew
anything controversial. So, you get news, music, comedy and drama -
just as long as there is no controversy. Those looking for information
and debate over public policies are simply out of luck.

Put yourself in the position of the broadcaster: your very existence
is dependent on the FCC's renewing your license every few years. And
the FCC says you must offer "balanced" programming. What does this
mean?

If you have a call-in show and do your best to "balance" the
discussion, what do you do when the callers are all conservative? Or
all liberal? What if you have a personality emceeing a show who has a
strong point of view and you invite experts on to present the "other
side" and no experts are available? And will you choose the "right"
experts? What if the FCC says you should have chosen different
experts? What if an issue you think is not controversial turns out to
be the subject of protest to the FCC? For the broadcaster, discretion
is the better part of valor. A mandate to present issues in a
"balanced" way turns out to be censorship!

Right now, there is increasing interest in imposing such a Censorship
Doctrine. Although polls show that the public favors balanced
presentations, most do not realize that in the interest of getting the
"other side" they will get neither. Some in Congress also support the
imposition of a Censorship Doctrine. Perhaps they think it would
result in balanced presentation of controversial issues. But one must
suspect that their real motive is to censor public criticism of their
policies.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...C-0CD647F30882

On Nov 7, 3:54 pm, wrote:
Censoring Conservative Radio
By James Miller
The Washington Times | Friday, November 07, 2008

One of life's most interesting, often jolting, experiences is to find
out that well-intentioned action can have serious, unintended
consequences.

So it is with many public policy initiatives.

For example, in an effort to broaden home ownership, Congress forced
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to securitize mortgages from too many high-
risk, low-income owners. The result was a collapse of confidence in
these two institutions, triggering tragic failures in the financial
services industry and a collapse of the stock market. Now, many people
are losing their homes, a large number of employees in the financial
services sector are out of a job, most retirement 401(k)s are worth
much less than before, and taxpayers are stuck with huge liabilities.

The so-called Fairness Doctrine is another such a case.

It seems plausible, even fair, that people should be afforded an
opportunity to receive communication about both (or several) sides of
controversial issues. No one contends with the right of people to
propound any side of any issue. That's the First Amendment. The rub
comes when government, in the name of fairness, tries to force some
providers of information to present "balanced" views.

The so-called Fairness Doctrine was initiated by the Federal
Communications Commission in 1967, but was ended by President Reagan's
FCC in 1987. The doctrine required broadcasters to deal with
controversial issues of public importance, but to do so in a way that
provided contrasting points of view. Note that the doctrine applied
only to radio and TV broadcasters. It did not apply to newspapers or
magazines, nor would it have applied to blogs and other personal
electronic communications.

The consequences of the so-called Fairness Doctrine are well-
documented. When it was imposed, public discussion and debate about
controversial issues over the air waves dried up. When the doctrine
was ended, the reverse ensued. Now some broadcasts present various
sides of issues, but we also have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Gordon
Liddy and others on the right, and Air America, Thom Hartmann, Bill
Press and others on the left. With the so-called Fairness Doctrine we
had virtually no broadcast communication about controversial issues.
Without the doctrine, we have a thriving, wholesome discussion and
debate.

In effect, the so-called Fairness Doctrine amounts to what my friend,
Barbara Comstock, has labeled the Censorship Doctrine!

Why does the Censorship Doctrine work that way?

The reason is quite simple: broadcasters are so intimidated by the
FCC, in fear that their licenses won't be renewed, they eschew
anything controversial. So, you get news, music, comedy and drama -
just as long as there is no controversy. Those looking for information
and debate over public policies are simply out of luck.

Put yourself in the position of the broadcaster: your very existence
is dependent on the FCC's renewing your license every few years. And
the FCC says you must offer "balanced" programming. What does this
mean?

If you have a call-in show and do your best to "balance" the
discussion, what do you do when the callers are all conservative? Or
all liberal? What if you have a personality emceeing a show who has a
strong point of view and you invite experts on to present the "other
side" and no experts are available? And will you choose the "right"
experts? What if the FCC says you should have chosen different
experts? What if an issue you think is not controversial turns out to
be the subject of protest to the FCC? For the broadcaster, discretion
is the better part of valor. A mandate to present issues in a
"balanced" way turns out to be censorship!

Right now, there is increasing interest in imposing such a Censorship
Doctrine. Although polls show that the public favors balanced
presentations, most do not realize that in the interest of getting the
"other side" they will get neither. Some in Congress also support the
imposition of a Censorship Doctrine. Perhaps they think it would
result in balanced presentation of controversial issues. But one must
suspect that their real motive is to censor public criticism of their
policies.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...05267-B173-4B5...

It would be a huge mistake to attempt to re-introduce the Fairness
Doctrine.

There are *many* reasons it would be a mistake, but perhaps the best
argument is that the media of today is not the "media of shortage" of
yesterday. There are plenty of channels over which to run programming
from almost any viewpoint. Perhaps it will surprise some detractors,
but where there is no shortage, there need be no rationing, so let the
free market decide.

As long as nobody is using their mouthpiece to incite violence or
vandalism or other civic harm, it's actually good for extreme
viewpoints to be aired. They tend to be self-discrediting in the long
run.

Also, trying to ban free speech that isn't actually inciting criminal
behavior, is IMHO un-American.

For what it's worth, I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is a serious
priority for the President-elect. The only people I hear speak of it
are AM talkers on the right and left.

In article
,
wrote:

Censoring Conservative Radio
By James Miller
The Washington Times | Friday, November 07, 2008

One of life's most interesting, often jolting, experiences is to find

SNIP

First off fair use of part of an article not the whole damn thing.

Second, we can read the Times for ourselves so write you own material.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California