Utopia Talk / Politics / Q To Americans

hoER Member	Wed Aug 26 16:57:52 Whats that law called about allowing both political sides to speak out on radio in theusa? started in the 50's and ended...?
Madc0w Member	Wed Aug 26 17:01:18 Fairness doctrine?
hoER Member	Wed Aug 26 17:01:35 Thanks
Y2A Member	Wed Aug 26 17:03:21 it's not coming back. it is something the tards bring up time and time again to scare their sheep like they do with fag marriage and other cute shit.
licker Sports Mod	Wed Aug 26 17:18:23 stupid democrats trying to scare the sheep
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 17:27:49 Essay: The Durbin Amendment â?? The New â??Fairnessâ?? Doctrine with a Kicker By Seton Motley (Bio | Archive) February 27, 2009 - 20:49 ET Law may allow preemptive, premature rescission of broadcast licenses NewsBusters.org | Media Research Center By Any Other Name Still Stings Yesterday by a whopping 87-11 vote, the Senate added as a rider to the passed DC voting rights bill the Broadcaster Freedom Act (BFA). The BFA, if also passed by the House and signed by the President, would kill once and for all the Censorship Doctrine -- also mis-known as the "Fairness" Doctrine. Much Conservative celebration ensued. However, the revelry is misplaced and premature. It means only that the Left means to destroy Conservative and Christian talk radio by other means. Because another rider was added via a party-line 57-41 vote. Written by Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, S.160's Purpose is "To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest." Hello, new "Fairness" Doctrine - the regulatory enforcement of "diversity" of radio station ownership, and localism as defined by the "public interest." Liberal censors are now travelling alternative routes to reach their original destination - silencing political speech on the airwaves. This is an alternative assault on the radio industry to affect the Leftâ??s desired ideological outcome. One tremendous problem with this amendment, with the Censorship Doctrine itself and in fact with virtually every aspect of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s broadcast licensing requirements is that they are all completely nebulous. President Barack Obama's FCC can interpret these regulations in any direction it wishes, which more than likely bodes poorly for free speech on the radio. And the worst part of the Durbin Amendment is the possibility that Obama's FCC may now be empowered to prematurely pull the broadcast licenses of radio stations they deem as failing to meet these new "Fairness" Doctrine-esque guidelines. Several lawyers who do this for a living see this rider's wording as amorphous enough to allow for this interpretation. This would be absolutely devastating to talk radio. Stations currently carrying Conservative and Christian talk would be perpetually under the FCC gun - never knowing when the regulatory hammer would fall and crush their businesses. They would feel tremendous pressure to change formats so as to be able to stay on the air. And no one would be able to justify the enormous expense of getting into talk radio if their lifeline - their broadcast license - could be pulled capriciously at any time. These licenses would then be awarded to more "diverse" owners who show a greater desire in meeting the Obama FCC's definition of the "local" and "public interest." You know, ACORN activists and MoveOn.org hosts who couldn't cut the mustard on National Public or Pacifica Radio. This is an alternative assault on the radio industry to affect the Left's desired ideological outcome. By making it untenable for stations to conduct the business of talk radio, the liberal censors will succeed in again silencing political speech on the airwaves - just as if the "Fairness" Doctrine itself were reinstated. Thus is the new "Fairness" Doctrine born. In the real world, the public interest is best served by what the public is interested in. Conservative and Christian talk radio survives and thrives because people listen, and Liberal talk fails because they don't. But none of this matters in this brave new "diverse" world. Liberals never liked the free market with it's equality of opportunity. They have always preferred an equality of outcome - where shows that have listeners are forced to share the airwaves with those that don't. The Durbin Amendment solves the Left's "Fairness" Doctrine dilemma. It gets them what they want - radio free of Conservative and Christian talk - without the political baggage of carrying the "Fairness" Doctrine name. For them, a rose by any other name still smells as sweet if it serves to silence the opposition. â??Seton Motley is Director of Communications for the Media Research Center. http://new...t-new-fairness-doctrine-kicker
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 17:35:43 CNSNews.com Top Senate Republican Fears FCC's 'Diversity' Chief May Use 'Back Door' to Regulate Talk Radio Tuesday, August 18, 2009 By Matt Cover Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) (CNSNews.com) â?? In a letter sent last week to the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Sen. Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa) said he is concerned that the FCC's new "diversity" director, Mark Lloyd, may seek to regulate talk radio through the "back door." Grassley, who expressed his concerns in a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on Friday, said he was concerned that the new diversity chief would implement a back-door return of the â??Fairness Doctrine,â?? a now-defunct policy which mandated that broadcasters devote equal airtime to both sides of controversial issues. A return to the Fairness Doctrine would spell the end of opinionated talk radio. â??Taken together, these statements represent a view that the FCC needs to expand its regulatory arm further into the commercial radio market,â?? Grassley wrote. â??I am concerned that despite his statements that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary, Mr. Lloyd supports a backdoor method of furthering the goals of the Fairness Doctrine by other means.â?? Grassley said he â??strongly disagreedâ?? that government needs to regulate radio any further, saying that greater government involvement would not provide for a greater diversity of views on the airwaves. â??Simply put, I strongly disagree with Mr. Lloyd,â?? said Grassley. â??I do not believe that more regulation, more taxes or fines, or increased government intervention in the commercial radio market will serve the public interest or further the goals of diversifying the marketplace.â?? Grassleyâ??s concerns arise from an paper Lloyd co-authored for the liberal Center for American Progress entitled, â??The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.â?? In this paper, Lloyd and his fellow co-authors laid out what they say are the â??structural problemsâ?? of the nationâ??s radio regulatory system that they believe explains the success of conservative talk radio. The authors said these problems should remedied by increased government involvement. â??Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system,â?? the report said, â??particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules, including the requirement of local participation in management.â?? Lloyd and his co-authors rejected the idea that the Fairness Doctrine alone could solve these problems, arguing that the Doctrine must be part of a more sweeping regulatory effort aimed at curbing the influence of todayâ??s political talkers. â??[T]he Fairness Doctrine was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure fair discussion of important issues,â?? the report stated. â??The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders [about whether a stationâ??s license should be renewed],â?? it added. The report recommended that the government implement ownership caps, limit license terms, allow local interest groups to lobby against a broadcaster, and fine those station owners who â??failâ?? to meet these requirements, with the funds going to support their public broadcasting competitors. â??[A]ny effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs,â?? the authors wrote. â??We suggest three ways to accomplish this: Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations,â?? the report read. â??Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing. Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.â?? Lloyd explained these requirements in a companion piece he wrote for CAPâ??s Web site entitled, â??Forget the Fairness Doctrine.â?? There, Lloyd summed up his approach to regulating talk radio. â??Equal opportunity employment policies. Local engagement. License challenges,â?? he wrote. Explaining the fees broadcasters might face, he wrote that â??commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay. In other words, if they donâ??t want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their [new] license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community.â?? During his Senate confirmation hearings, Genachowski rejected the idea that the FCC should be policing political speech. â??I donâ??t think the FCC should be involved in censorship of content based on political speech or opinion,â?? he told the Senate Commerce Committee. Grassley told CNSNews.com that he wants Genachowski to keep his word and refrain from implementing Lloydâ??s ideas. â??I took the new Chairman at his word when he told me prior to his Senate confirmation that he wouldnâ??t support any effort to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,â?? the senator said. â??Mr. Lloydâ??s writings imply that the FCC can use power it already has to implement the goals of the Fairness Doctrine without actually reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.â?? â??These writings and the appointment of Mr. Lloyd to Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC could contradict the assurance I got from Chairman Genachowski,â?? said Grassley. â??I expect Chairman Genachowski to keep his word and affirmatively state on the record that heâ??ll oppose the Fairness Doctrine, or any other regulatory efforts that could achieve the goals of the Fairness Doctrine.â?? Calls to the FCC for comment were not returned before this story went to press. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/52633
hoER Member	Wed Aug 26 17:37:47 Just need that for an article I have to write. mods can delete if they want.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 17:39:42 Want more? Does anyone recall the thead of a few weeks ago where there is a plan afoot to tax radio station 100% of their operating budget and giving the tax to NPR? Want me to dig that up? Yeah, the Fairness Doctrine is defunct, but The FCC Diversity plan is much, much worse. It is designed to take away Conservative and Christian Radio.
hoER Member	Wed Aug 26 17:41:08 "Want more? " You dont think I read your junk, do you? lol, come on Rod...
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 17:44:33 Then you really don't want to know the truth do you? Thought not.
hoER Member	Wed Aug 26 17:47:49 Listen dumbfuck, I knew more about it than you've posted before I wrote this thread, (because I know the junk you've posted without reading it - its posted by you), the name just escaped me. Now buzz off to your garbage flame threads, little neo-fascist troll, thanks.
Madc0w Member	Wed Aug 26 17:48:58 The truth is a horrible thing to tell people.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 17:55:14 This is insane. The "Chief Diversity Officer" in question, Mark Lloyd, is calling for the gross operating budget for every private radio station each year to be the fee (tax) they pay for their broadcast license for the year, with the monies going to the always liberal public stations. With whom they then must compete for listeners. Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd is - from all we have read and are reading - virulently anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation. He is a frightening guy to have having any power at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). And yet that is exactly where he currently stands, astride the private radio industry he loathes like a Socialist Colossus. This excellent article by Cover is but the tip of the iceberg on this guy; there will be much more to follow as we continue to wade through his deeply disturbing writings. For instance, we have his farcical book on order. When Vice President Joe Biden warned us to gird our loins, he apparently meant for us to do so in preparation for his Administration. http://new...private-broadcasters-fund-publ
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 17:57:01 hoER, that's worse. It is bad enough to not know. But, to know the truth and try to hide it is evil.
hoER Member	Wed Aug 26 17:59:01 I havent voiced any opinion either way, you fucking retard, apart from the well recognized fact that you generally have been posting junk for years that is a waste of time reading. Now: fuck off please.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 18:12:30 hoER (alias Hot Rod), You said you knew all about what I posted "Listen dumbfuck, I knew more about it than you've posted before I wrote this thread..." And you tried to kill the thread before that. "Just need that for an article I have to write. mods can delete if they want." Sounds like you are trying to silence dissent, just like the FCC Diversity plan. I can only assume you have stated an opinion and that you are very much in favor of the plan to silence Conservative and Christian Radio.
Rugian Member	Wed Aug 26 18:14:31 Where IS the *DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE* that says that Obama is going to *BRING BACK* the *FAIRNESS DOCTRINE* I do not *SEE ANY*
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 18:18:44 He is not going to. No one said he was.
cthulhu Member	Wed Aug 26 18:58:55 Taxing them their entire gross operating budget? LOL! that's kind of funny, only because I don't live in the states. I wonder how long till the only thing a radio station is allowed to play without getting their licence pulled is Obama speeches?
Daemon97384 Member	Sun Feb 05 00:42:25 serve reach many final feel free voice ?
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: