Hey, you forgot to mention Savage, or is he too non-partisan?

Stacey,
I take it from your remark (which I interpret as sarcasm) that you are in favor of the Censorship Doctrine. Please expound. Are you? Why (or why not)?

Waiting with baited breath, I am...
Pete

I still want to see his birth certificate, Pete. First things first! There's no reason to hide it unless there's something to hide!

unclehomerr..

Pete,

Sarcastic? Almost certainly. :) My opinion on the Fairness Doctrine? I haven't looked at enough details to properly form one.

P.S. I'm a part-time Savage listener.


Unclehomerr,

"The truth about Obama's birth certificate." Web Link

Gah, when did pleastonweekly become freerepublic?
Never thought I would miss people complaining about Staples Ranch...

pete and his cohorts no longer are circulating the ludicrous, crafted attack emails, first focussed on Hillary when the extremists thought she would get nominated, then focussed on Obama (remember the one with the photo of him looking like a Muslim?). The attack machine effort using emails FAILED. Guess who is President now!

Now, not having gotten the message, pete has been put back to work along with his cohorts to move the attack to blogs like the PW and use them as a platform to make all sorts of outlandish charges.

This will be fun to watch how it takes our readers to get sick of it.

(Goebbels was the master of this art - "the bigger the lie, the more likely it is believed" was the operative fact back in the 30's. Just like the birth certificate BS from uncle homerrrrrrrrr.)

One of Obama's top aid's(don't recall the man's name - tall, heavy set guy)was ask if the present administration would pursue the "Fairness Doctrine". He stated the decision would be made by the FCC Chairman. That's not an "outlandish charge" - that was on the public airways for all that happen to be watching CNN to see and hear. I think it was Lou Dobbs that ask the question.

Jerry,

I was _just_ reading something about this!

"Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine" Web Link

Stacey,
Be careful. The link you referred to is old. With OBAMA, you have to learn that his remarks have an expiration date attached. He has appointed an FCC Chair because of his experience with the previous Fairness Doctrine. Obama is and always has been for this doctrine.

Having said that, I've got to offer a small apology to you. At first, I thought you were just a 'drive by' poster who would slip a couple one liners as a reply and then exit out to watch the reaction. However, you've convinced me that you do have substance, and take the time to stay current re: politics.

Now regarding your reference of factcheck.org. Have you taken the time to research this organization? It is largely funded by the once conservative Annenberg Foundation. If you scratch the surface of this organization, however, you'll find that conservative Walter Annenberg would likely roll over in his grave because this Foundation is quite leftwing now. There is a definite Obama link to the Annenberg Foundation and Factcheck.org. Obama has considerable influence and control over it. So be very careful in fully believing anything out of Annenberg and Factcheck.org.

Web Link

Pete

The gentleman I mentioned made the statement one day this week.

One could tell he didn't really wish to talk about the subject. If I remember correctly, he refered Dobbs to the FCC Chairman for an answer.

Pete,

I didn't find anything real incriminating about the Annenberg Public Policy Center in your weblink. Regardless, it is good to check out a source of information, but I find it bizarre to expect dismissal of content due to Obama and Bill Ayers having sat on a volunteer board connected to one of the Annenberg Foundation's other subsidiary organizations, if that's what you're implying. It's not much different from suggesting that we can't trust the Legislative Analyst's Office because the Analyst's wife voted for the other guy.

Comparatively, the information on factcheck.org is presented in a manner much more educational, much more neutral, much more referenced, and much more methodologically transparent than sources like the talking radio heads could ever hope to match. Moreover, I expect sites like factcheck.org to increase in number since newspapers and other journalistic outlets have largely abandoned their role as a source of such reliable information and become centers for infotainment.

Source evaluation is a big problem all across the Internet. Stories abound of how bloggers get sucked into repeating rumors as truth or worse yet, creating rumors (remember the one on CNN recently and even CNN didn't properly check the source?). There _are_ reliable sources out there waiting to be discovered by the discriminating reader. Source evaluation/criticism is a valuable skill the general public seems to have lost. Some questions to ask oneself are:
- Is the source highly respected and widely accepted?
- Is the source an advocate or disinterested third-party?
- What is the source's track record?
- Does the source explain their sources?
- Does the source explain their methodology?
- Is the source experienced in their field?
- Have results been contradicted or replicated?
- Is sampling random? Is there a control group?

Regarding the Fairness Doctrine...

I try to stick to the idea that we must know where we have been before we can know where we're going. To that end, I first need to get an idea of what the Fairness Doctrine is before coming to an understanding of why Pete is calling it a Censorship Doctrine (and if that name is even warranted.) I usually start at Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia), which, given Wikipedia's reputation, usually needs to be followed up by further research. Web Link After reading the Wikipedia page, the FCC Chairman's role in this becomes rather clear and unsurprising to me. The issue and decision currently is up to the FCC unless Congress decides to either take away that power from the FCC or codify the Fairness Doctrine into law. And this power by the FCC is apparently constitutionally correct at the moment given several Supreme Court rulings on the matter.

Stacey:
Though I don't have time to provide the full history and implications of the "Fairness" Doctrine, here are a few salient points...

- It applies to radio stations only (at this time)
- Owners of radio stations must provide a "balance" of all political party views (how on earth can this be done reliably...and who would 'judge' this?)
- If the radio stations do NOT provide a balance of views, then their broadcast license can be revoked.
- Because radio stations will not place themselves in the position to determine whether they are providing a "balance" they will drop all political talk from their airwaves.

- Outcome: We will have a ton of radio shows on "The best ways to make Cheese Souffle" and "Apple Turnovers"

The above is actually what happened when the Fairness Doctrine was imposed around 1949 to 1985 when Reagan repealed it on the basis that it hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Pete

Hi Pete, please provide a FULL history of the Fairness Doctrine. Also, what are the implications?

thx....Cholo

Cholo:
I encourage you to do research on your own regarding the "Fairness Doctrine". The implications are about as serious as it can get regarding a country's freedom. What do you think a Government can do when it controls the media? Study totalitarian regimes. Nazi Germany with Hitler, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and China, and Iran and on and on...

P

Cholo:
I hope you like radio programs on how to make the best...

"Cheese Muffins"
"Apple Turnovers"
"Pineapple UpsideDown Cakes"
etc.

...because that is about all that will replace all talk radio programs. No more hard-hitting programs attempting to question what is happening politically.

Pete

I'm going to admit that I have one of those lifetime non-commercial radio licenses back from my days on college radio. The government already censors broadcasters in the form of the indecency laws (i.e. one of the reasons Howard Stern went to Sirius was because of all the fines he kept getting, wardrobe malfunction, etc.)

I feel that one needs to understand how radio (actually all broadcast media) differs from newspapers. Newspapers are theoretically infinite. Broadcast media, on the other hand, pays relatively exorbitant fees to the government to utilize a part of the broadcast spectrum because the spectrum is considered to be public property. It isn't infinite like newspapers. For example, there is only one 99.5 FM, only one 1050 AM, etc. and only a limited number of available frequencies. So the government has a right to regulate usage of this public spectrum.

It is upon the above basis that the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine was upheld in a Supreme Court case, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). This case concluded that because the radio spectrum is publicly owned, the rights belong to the listener and not the broadcaster. The Court also warned though that if such regulation has a limiting effect on free speech then the constitutionality needs to be reviewed again. That's the fear being expressed by Pete.

What the argument basically comes down to is to who is doing the censoring. Will it be the government or will it be the broadcasters? Let's not forget about the broadcasters. For years now these media corporations been consolidating and independent radio has mostly disappeared just as we've seen happening in the newspaper industry. It would be disingenuous to believe that these mega-media corporations will put listener interests above their own and not censor opinions that do not bring in advertising dollars.

A quick comparison with websites... When posters cry free speech violation over their posts being edited or removed, they really have no right and I generally agree with this. The rights are owned by the owner and operator of the website, not the posters. Posters are free to set up their own website and assert their free speech rights. The Internet is theoretically infinite and not comparable to the nature of the usable spectrum. Listeners cannot do this simply on the radio spectrum because the government regulates its use! Because I agree with this principle as applied to websites, I guess I'm generally not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. Imagine if this website were not allowed to censor posts according to their Terms of Use. But due to the nature of access to the radio spectrum, does it make sense that some sort of access to the airwaves by alternate opinions needs to be pursued? Access is being determined by money. Perhaps there are other ways to ensure an equitable access to the public spectrum.

It is similar to the net neutrality issue. Since its inception, the Internet has operated with a certain level of net neutrality. But now telecom companies are testing the limits and want to apply extra charges to websites for access. Websites that can't afford to pay are in danger of being censored by these companies. So the discussion about net neutrality is also one about equitable access.

More on net neutrality... Foxnews.com has an article about the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine being applied to the Internet (Web Link and I found two things: 1) quote that basically reinforces what I wrote above and 2) the potential for an extreme misunderstanding of what net neutrality is.

"there is "no justification" for applying the doctrine to the Internet, or any other form of media -- since the doctrine was only meant to apply standards to the privileged holders of limited broadcast licenses. The Internet, by contrast, has infinite outlets for opinion."

Additionally there's a quote supposedly from a House energy committee staff member:

"Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views?"

This shows an extreme misunderstanding! Net neutrality is not about content on a website! It is about access. It is about operators of individual websites and other Internet services not having to pay a premium for access to readers. A site like Google already pays their upstream network providers for a network connection and bandwidth usage. Downstream companies that provide network connections to users like AT&T are seeking to further charge sites like Google for the privilege of Google traffic to flow to their users. Google is a large company that can certainly pay, but what about the little guy operating a website that suddenly becomes popular? The average user's access may end up being blocked if the site can't pay the downstream provider's fees.

Stacey's extensive posts above obviously exceed the ability of many readers to respond in kind.

But I find the mention of Fox news interesting. They are an example of radical right wing republican (rrr) propagandists using publicly owned airways to channel only their ideology while censoring the access of those who oppose.

For Stacy..

Sorry I took so long to reply to your 'birth certificate' post. Today's my birthday and friends took me to lunch...!

I read your link... and noticed the parseing in all the quotes. Read it again and see.

The biggest thing I noticed was the graphic of the 'blown up' certificate number.. shows a document heading of 'E BIRTH'.

This is the kind of official document issued when a baby is born at home, on a boat, in a taxi.. or in KENYA!

The people quoted are careful to not say they've seen a 'birth certificate'.. Look at your own. An original Birth Certificate names the hospital, the attending physician, the time and date, the names of the parents, and includes a footprint of the baby.

That's what I'm waiting to see....

unclehomerr..

The only thing I think that could be is.. 'CERTIFICATE OF LIV'E BIRTH'.

Correction.. I don't know how a line got moved? I don't drink!

The line under my sig. should appear after the line with 'E BIRTH'

Thanks..

unclehomerr..

And, Stacy - Re: Fairness Doctrine.

I can't wait to hear Hannity on FRESH AIR and Anne Coulter on MSNBC!! LOL!!

So it all boils down to money...if you don't have money to support your own web server and website in order to propagate your own opinions, then you can easily be shut out when your web host disagrees with what you put on your website. I wonder if one day we'll need licenses in order to "broadcast" on the Internet with websites like you need FCC licenses in order to broadcast over the radio waves (legally, that is).

It was announced on Fox News tonight that The Prez said today he opposes implimenting the Fairness Doctrine.

How about that - On Fox News, no less...

Wonder why Fox News is rated No.1 on the so-called "News Cable Channels" when we all know Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews and Ms. Maddow, on MSNBC, are so "fair and balanced"... Bet NPR and PBS are breathing easier now that they know they won't be required to provide equal access on Charlie Rose, Jim Lehrer and Bill(last name escapes me at this time)...

From what I've read, Obama and his band of socialist accomplices will be "repackaging" the Fairness Doctrine and will push it through under a different name. It is also likely to be clandestinely "attached" to another 1000 page "stimulus plan" that no one will have time to read before Obama signs it.

Yes, Obama = Change
i.e. Change from a democracy to a totalitaran form of govt.

PS...I see that "IT's FINALLY HERE NOW. INFLATION, thanks to Obama and the dems.

Pete,

I'm troubled by your opposition to cheese souffles and apple pie. Do you also hate moms, baseball, America, and freedom?

Make no mistake, people--Pete is trying to censor your access to wholesome, traditional radio broadcasts that support good old-fashioned American family values. We have a Constitutional right to have those programs, Pete!

Say no to Pete's censorship!!!

I'm against abortion and baseball... for - 2nd amendment and fiscal responsibility! Apple pie.. with French Vanilla or Butter Pecan ice cream. And a big fan of mom's....

Lorax:
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
I said apple TURNOVER SHOWS...NOT apple PIE SHOWS! Get it straight!!!

Thanks for the chuckle. I needed it.

Actually, here's more on the (un)Fairness Doctrine, if you're interested to read. Web Link

Looks like it will resurface in the near future when the democrats talk about the concept of "LOCALISM." Watch out for this term. It'll result in virtually the same outcome of censorship because radio stations will opt not to air ANY political program. The effect is that the public will be left in the dark about what is really going on in Government, unless you choose to believe only what they tell you.

Again, thanks for the chuckle.

Check out the term "Localism". I believe this is how they are going to get censorship through.

Interesting. The FCC website on Localism Proceedings has articles dating from 2007 and 2008. Even more interesting... Bush's Republican commissioner appointment, Kevin Martin, himself the subject of some political controversy, supports Localism. Here's his public statement: Web Link

I also found it interesting that Kevin Martin resigned on Jan. 20, 2009. The FCC's website states that appointments last for five years. Martin could have stayed until 2011.

Hot off the press! I see that Rush Limbaugh has a letter to Obama about the Fairness Doctrine in the Wall St. Journal today. (For those who do not like Rush, please at least read his article below.) Also, here is a link...Web Link


OPINIONFEBRUARY 20, 2009, 12:21 A.M. ET
Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free
As a former law professor, surely you understand the Bill of Rights.
By RUSH LIMBAUGH

Dear President Obama:

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.

After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."

Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.

Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.

I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.

The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.

We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.



Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

President Obama does not advocate bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, no matter how you spin it. The administration released a statement on Wednesday stating they do not support bringing back the Doctrine which was abolished by the FCC in 1987.

More on this topic from the American Congress for Truth website....
___

The so-called, and misnamed, “Fairness Doctrine,” is rearing its ugly head again.

The Fairness Doctrine is a throwback to the day when there were three broadcast channels on television. Its intent was to ensure that FCC-regulated TV and radio outlets provided both sides of the story in their news and commentary.

Those of us who remember how the three television networks controlled the flow of news and information recall how “well” the “Fairness Doctrine” worked. It was jettisoned during the Reagan Administration.

Certain members of Congress are clearly interested in reviving the Fairness Doctrine. Given the glut of information one can get today on any issue from virtually any political perspective, it’s hard to see why it’s necessary.

Unless they want to shut down “speech” they don’t like.

In the American Spectator piece below, we draw your attention to one particularly chilling paragraph:
One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see how such “advisory boards” would be on the front lines in enforcing political correctness – especially when it comes to the issue of Islam. Done, of course, in the name of providing “fair treatment” – or else lose your broadcast license.

If the Fairness Doctrine were revived, and with it anything that smacks of “advisory boards,” we’d be handing over the power to censor our TV and radio broadcasts to the Islamists who are intent on gagging all speech that dares to criticize Islam.

They already have a UN resolution calling on countries to prohibit “hate speech.” The British government cowers before their threats and deports Dutch MP Geert Wilders. Austrian officials convict an Austrian legislator for “defaming” Islam. Mark Steyn is dragged before the Canadian Human Rights Commission to answer Muslim charges about what he wrote in his book America Alone. And they already have much of the “establishment media” parroting their talking points and readily labeling as an “Islamophobe” anyone who criticizes Islam.

The Fairness Doctrine will be a nail in the coffin of free speech about Islam. It’s time to draw a line in the sand.


DOCTRINE AIR DEMOCRACY

Web Link

Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.

Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."

Copps will remain acting chairman of the FCC until President Obama's nominee, Julius Genachowski, is confirmed, and Copps has been told by the White House not create "problems" for the incoming chairman by committing to issues or policy development before the Obama pick arrives.

But Copps has been a supporter of putting in place policies that would allow the federal government to have greater oversight over the content that TV and radio stations broadcast to the public, and both the FCC and Waxman are looking to licensing and renewal of licensing as a means of enforcing "Fairness Doctrine" type policies without actually using the hot-button term "Fairness Doctrine."

One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.

To Obamacon, et. al:

Don't try to confuse the issue with facts and evidence. We all know that Rush Limbaugh is an unbiased and thoroughly reliable source, no matter what the actual facts are. Like emily just posted, little-known or completely obscure organizations like the American Congress for Truth are much more likely to give us the scoop on Obama's REAL policies. Besides, they have a WEB SITE. You don't think they'd be allowed to post something on the Internet if it wasn't true, do you?

So don't listen to what members of Obama's administration say--how would they know his policy decisions? The real inner circle of our president are people like Limbaugh and the American Congress for Truth. Besides, when directly asked about the policy, Obama said no, he does not support the Fairness Doctrine, and we all know "no" means "yes," right ladies?

My birth certificate does not have a footprint and does not say live birth on it, (and I am pretty sure it was a live birth), and I was born in a hospital in the midwest, (the midwest of the United States). It has a signature but you can't read it. The Doctor's name is not printed on the certificate. It has a raised seal but the original did not. It was added by the county after the United States became stricter about birth certificates. I actually had to reorder mine to get a passport.

I am pretty sure that documents are regulated by the state in which they are issued and I don't think each state uses the same criteria. At the time of Obama's birth, Hawaii had only been a state for a couple of years. If you have ever been to a Hawaiian hospital it does not resemble what we have here except in the most urban areas, especially over 40 years ago. That is probably true of a lot of hospitals in less densely populated areas during the mid 20th century.

Do you really think that the previous administration, in control of the FBI and CIA, really could not have uncovered the facts about this?
Would not have wanted to uncover the forgery if it was fact? That a Republican administration, supporting John McCain would not have worked to "expose" Obama if there was something to expose?

That is really unbelievable to me!

FACT CHECKER...

Check out the status of the investigations here. A member of 'the club' joined the fray today.

Web Link

unclehomerr..