There is much confusion among the public about efforts in Washington to muzzle talk radio.
I get e-mails daily from people who ask me what the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” would actually do – how it would actually work.
The answer to that question is simple: No one knows.
Legislation targeting talk radio for extinction has not yet been introduced in Congress. In fact, it may never be introduced. And, if it is, it is unlikely to be called the “Fairness Doctrine” because the name has outlived its usefulness to those who seek to stifle free speech and freedom of the press in America.
Nevertheless, you can be sure those attempting to achieve these goals will make their move soon.
It may come in the form of a new regulation by the Federal Communications Commission – bypassing the need for Democrats in Congress and in the White House to defend their attacks on the First Amendment.
Or, it may come in the form of legislation dressed up in new clothes and makeup – with lofty new objectives like achieving media diversity, accountability and balance.
It is also likely that new efforts will come packaged with new enforcement mechanisms – and this is where it really gets interesting.
You may have noticed that Democrats have what seems like an abundance of angry citizens and non-citizens on whom they can call to hold rallies, form picket lines, shout angry slogans, write letters, form committees, organize pressure groups, etc. Some of these people will be funded to the tune of billions of dollars thanks to the so-called “economic stimulus” bill signed into law by Barack Obama Tuesday.
I suggest Democrats, in their efforts to gut the First Amendment, will use these ne’er-do-well, miscreant, low-life, semi-professional agitators to help them accomplish their mission.
Any new effort to target talk radio will almost assuredly come in the form of so-called “community advisory committees” that will be established in every major market in the U.S. and most smaller ones as well. These committees will be stacked with activists from ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) – a group with direct ties to Obama and partisan Democrat thuggery. (ACORN is budgeted for billions in handouts in the so-called “economic stimulus” bill. The only thing it will stimulate with that fortune in taxpayer largesse is fraud, deceit and chicanery.)
These community panels will monitor talk radio in each market and file complaints with the FCC demanding more “fairness” and “balance” and “community service programming.” They will demand less of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage and the hundreds of local talk hosts who buck the Obama party line.
In turn, the FCC will send letters to the radio stations facing federal license renewals, as all radio stations do periodically. Many stations will decide they don’t want the hassles. They would rather play hip-hop music than program talk that threatens their licenses.
And that’s the way the death of free speech in America will begin.
We don’t have to speculate as to whether radio stations will cave into pressure from the federal government to conform. We already know because of history. The so-called “Fairness Doctrine” was an FCC regulation from the 1940s through 1987. It had a chilling effect on free speech in America for a generation.
In 1987, just before President Ronald Reagan’s FCC appointments killed the archaic, unconstitutional regulation, there were a grand total of 75 talk programs in the entire country – local and national. In 22 years since, that number has grown to 3,500.
This is pretty much all the background you need to argue against the plans of this administration and this Congress.
Do you really think there is less diversity of opinion on the airwaves today with those startling numbers?
But, aside from the practical question of results, more fundamental questions need to be asked by every American: Do we still cherish and value the rights of free speech and free press today? Does the Constitution mean what it says in the First Amendment – that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”? Do you want to live in a land in which the government serves as the policeman over what can be said and what can’t be said, what represents truth and what represents a lie, who is being “fair” and who is not?
