Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (29190)	2/17/2009 11:40:47 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

It's ironic how, in the name of fairness, liberals want to control speech content. Once again, there is nothing liberal about today's liberals. A new version of the Fairness Doctrine Betsy's Page We're going to see some sort of Fairness Doctrine this year. Henry Waxman is on the case. But they're not going to try to implement the Fairness Doctrine of old that mandated equal presentation of issues. Ed Morrissey notes that Obama spokesmen are no longer issuing the categorical denial of the President's interest in imposing the Fairness Doctrine as Obama has been clear in stating during the campaign. And as The American Spectator reports, there are already talks going on between the staff of the outgoing chairman of the FCC and Henry Waxman's staff. The focus now will be less on that equal time to other views, but instead on local boards that will determine that stations present local views. That would limit how much time could be devoted to nationally syndicated shows like Rush or Sean, an area where conservatives dominate. But that is not the limit to Waxman's ambitions. Somehow, he'd also like to regulate content on the Internet. <<< 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. Waxman and the FCC staff are also said to be looking at ways to ease the "consumer complaint" process, which could also be used along with the advisory boards. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. "Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information," says on committee staffer. "We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities." "This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about," says Democrat committee member. "The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure." Also involved in "brainstorming" on "Fairness Doctrine and online monitoring has been the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which has published studies pressing for the Fairness Doctrine, as well as the radical MoveOn.org, which has been speaking to committee staff about policies that would allow them to use their five to six million person database to mobilize complaints against radio, TV or online entities they perceive to be limiting free speech or limiting opinion. >>> The local advisory boards might sound benign in comparison with some sort of strict mandate about balanced coverage. But the inclusion of liberal groups in working with the staff in writing the bill indicates what would happen. They would be sure to get members on each local board and then inundate local radio and tv stations with complaints. Liberals used to complain when conservatives allowed conservative interest groups to help craft bills, but now the shoe is on the other foot and they're happy to invite their groups to the table to help write their bills. This focus on the Internet is bizarre. How do they think that any sort of American law could control content on the Internet. The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down all attempts to control obscenity on the Internet. How are they going to write any sort of regulation that would achieve their goal of achieving balance on the Internet? And with sites like Huffington Post and Daily Kos, where would they get off arguing that there is any stifling of views on the Internet? There is a case right now before the Court that will determine the power of the FCC to regulate the use of "fleeting obscenities" that could be an indicator of how this Court looks at the power of the FCC to regulate content. The real danger is in this localism weapon to try to water down content on the radio and the TV. And it could probably be imposed through control of the FCC if the three Democratic appointees could agree on new regulations that would require such advisory councils. And then, this would become a battle fought out in every community as ideologues work to try, in the name of local control, to reduce the time that local radio stations devote to conservative talk radio. Rather than fighting costly appeals of licensing regulations, many radio stations might decide to just do away with the whole fight over programming conservative talk radio and instead just play music. It's ironic how, in the name of fairness, liberals want to control speech content. Once again, there is nothing liberal about today's liberals. betsyspage.blogspot.com

To: Sully- who wrote (29190)	2/17/2009 12:41:48 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

47% Oppose Fairness Doctrine, But 51% Think Congress Likely To Bring It Back Rasmussen Reports Sunday, February 15, 2009 Just 38% of U.S. voters think that the government should require all radio stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary. Forty-seven percent (47%) oppose government-imposed political balance on radio stations, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure which course is better. These findings are a dramatic nine-point drop-off in support for the Fairness Doctrine from a survey last August when 47% said the government should require all radio and television stations to offer balanced political commentary. Only 26% of voters believe conservatives have an unfair advantage in the media, the argument several senior congressional Democrats use in pushing for the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. Sixty-four percent (64%) disagree. Most (52%) liberals say conservatives have an unfair advantage, while 79% of conservatives and 64% of moderates disagree. Even a majority of Democratic voters (53%) say that conservatives do not have an unfair advantage in the media. Seventy-four percent (74%) of voters overall say it is possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media with the Internet, cable networks, satellite radio, newspapers, radio and TV available. Just 19% disagree. But 51% say it is at least somewhat likely that the Democratic- controlled Congress will restore the Fairness Doctrine, which requires holders of broadcast licenses to present balanced political coverage of important issues, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission. Fourteen percent (14%) believe it is Very Likely. Thirty-seven percent (37%) say Congress is unlikely to restore the Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC abolished in 1987, arguing that it was unconstitutional and no longer necessary given the variety of media outlets available to Americans. Six percent (6%) say it is not at all likely to be restored. Political liberals complain that conservative opinion unfairly dominates talk radio. Conservatives counter that liberal opinion dominates most other media outlets and that liberal talk radio has failed in the commercial marketplace. In a survey just before Election Day in November, 68% of voters said reporters covering a political campaign try to help the candidate they want to win, and 51% thought they were trying to help Democratic candidate Barack Obama in 2008. Only seven percent (7%) said reporters were trying to help Republican candidate John McCain. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Republicans oppose government- mandated political balance on all radio stations, while the plurality of Democrats (49%) support it. Voters not affiliated with either major party also are opposed by a two-to-one margin. Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters overall say they have followed recent news stories about proposals to restore the Fairness Doctrine, including 28% who have followed them Very Closely. Conservatives are following news about the Fairness Doctrine more closely than liberals and moderates. Americans in other surveys have complained about what they view as a lack of balance in the media. Earlier this month, a majority said the news media make global warming appear worse than it really is. In mid-November, 46% said most reporters and media outlets paint a worse picture of the economy than the facts warrant. In October of last year, 74% said the media report more on negative campaigning than the issues. Two months earlier, 55% of voters said media bias was a bigger problem in politics today than big campaign contributions. rasmussenreports.com _politics/47_oppose_fairness_doctrine_but_51_think_congress_lik ely_to_bring_it_back

To: Sully- who wrote (29190)	2/18/2009 8:11:26 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival A White House spokesman tells FOXNews.com President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine. FOXNews.com President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday. The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. "As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com. That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine. "I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC ... and the president to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now," Axelrod told FOX News Sunday over the weekend when asked about the president's position. The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent Democratic senators have called for the policies to be reinstated. Conservative talk show hosts, who see the doctrine as an attempt to impose liberal viewpoints on their shows, largely oppose any move to bring it back. Fueling discussion, a report in the American Spectator this week said aides to Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, Calif., met last week with staff for the Federal Communications Commission to discuss ways to enact Fairness Doctrine policies. The report said Waxman was also interested in applying those standards to the Internet, which drew ridicule from supporters and opponents of the doctrine. Both the FCC and Waxman's office denied the report. The Fairness Doctrine was adopted in 1949 and held that broadcasters were obligated to provide opposing points of views on controversial issues of national importance. It was halted under the Reagan administration. FOXNews.com's Judson Berger contributed to this report. foxnews.com

To: Sully- who wrote (29190)	2/21/2009 1:29:17 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Rush Limbaugh supplies the questions for Obama's next press conference Betsy's Page Now that President Obama's spokesman has said that the President opposes any reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, it's time to pin him down on any of the other guises that Democrats will cloak their desire to decrease the amount of conservative talk radio out there. Rush Limbaugh has a column in today's Wall Street Journal with questions for the President as well as the argument of why we should not be imposing any sort of disguised government limits on the content of talk radio. First, let's find out if the President will oppose not only the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine in its old form, but in the new form of "local control." <<< 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? >>> Today, we have access to more opinions than we could possibly read in a lifetime of listening to AM radio, cable TV, satellite radio, internet radio, blogs, you name it. <<< 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. >>> We are not living in a universe where access to political speech is scarce. Let's be sure that the government doesn't attempt to impose its own limitations on the very type of speech whose protection our Founding Fathers thought was the most essential to a free society. UPDATE: Senators will get a chance to show how they come down on free speech when Senator DeMint, fast becoming one of my favorite senators, tries to attach an amendment opposing any reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, to the D.C. Voting Rights Act. I think we know how that vote will come out in the Democrat-dominated Senate. Still, it will be good to get them all on record, especially in light of President Obama's supposed opposition. And Allahpundit is exactly right that DeMint should include language on local control since when they come for talk radio, they'll have some other Orwellian name than Fairness Doctrine. betsyspage.blogspot.com

To: Sully- who wrote (29190)	3/27/2009 4:52:45 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

'Fairness' Rule Should Include NPR And PBS By L. BRENT BOZELL Investor's Business Daily Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:20 PM PT There's a huge hole in all of the public discussion about the reimposition of a "Fairness Doctrine" or a return to "localism" on the talk-radio format: What about National Public Radio (NPR)? Liberals would like to "crush Rush" and his conservative compatriots by demanding each station balance its lineup ideologically. But since when has NPR ever felt any pressure to be balanced, even when a majority of taxpayers being forced to subsidize it are center-right? Why no Fairness Doctrine attention to NPR? It is because those preaching "fairness" on the radio are hypocrites. Conservatives argue that the media's liberal bias drives people to talk radio for an opposing viewpoint. Limbaugh jokes: "I am the balance." But new numbers from NPR suggest its ratings may be nearly as imposing as Limbaugh's: The cumulative audience for its daily news programs — "Morning Edition" and its evening counterpart, "All Things Considered" — has risen to 20.9 million per week. It's not just news that's drawing listeners in. Talk-radio programs increasingly have become part of the nationally distributed NPR diet. Indeed, NPR's developing talk-show lineup was an obvious factor in the commercial failure of competing liberal networks like Air America. One could argue that NPR's audience gains came directly in response to liberal desires to vent about Team Bush. Radio shows like "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" were a regular forum for Bush-bashing authors and experts, especially on the War on Terror and the liberation of Iraq. Gross was memorably upbraided by NPR's ombudsman in 2003 for showing great hostility to Bill O'Reilly, in stark contrast to her giggly rapport with liberal Al Franken. Now NPR is touting that "Fresh Air" was NPR's "first non-drive-time show in public radio to better 5 million weekly listeners" on over 300 stations. NPR also sounded thrilled at the news that its afternoon show "Talk of the Nation" showed "remarkable gains," up 21% to 3.5 million listeners weekly. On Inauguration Day, that show featured NPR Baghdad Bureau Chief Lourdes Garcia-Navarro reporting that Iraqis wished good riddance to President Bush and hoped for change under Barack Obama. She said she had yet to find a single Iraqi who was grateful for the American defeat of Saddam Hussein. She asked many Iraqis: "Did this invasion, do you feel, give you a better life? And across the board, I didn't find one Iraqi who said to me, actually, I'm glad this happened." Only on NPR does one hear journalism that calmly suspends logic. The other talk show that NPR publicists touted was "Tell Me More," hosted by Michel Martin, a former reporter for ABC. Martin recently told NPR listeners she is far too similar to Michelle Obama to feel objectively about her, and she thinks Rush Limbaugh is racist, and explains thusly: "Some people hate the federal government because they can't get past the fact that the government switched sides from being a weapon in the violent oppression of black and sometimes brown people, to being one of the tools creating opportunity for them, as well as other people." NPR regularly airs liberal commentators (like former CBS reporter Daniel Schorr), and its idea of a conservative is David Brooks of the New York Times. A few weeks ago, in one of their regular evening political roundtables with liberal columnist E.J. Dionne, "All Things Considered" anchor Robert Siegel asked Brooks if he, as a moderate, was comfortable with Obama: "Are you getting more or less comfortable or more or less moderate?" Brooks replied candidly: "I'm getting less comfortable. I don't know about my gross ideological disposition these days." Neither do conservatives, and yet Brooks is the man who's supposed to represent us. Public broadcasting has been incredibly hostile to anyone who would dare to police it for fairness and balance. Conservatives ought not forget what happened to Kenneth Tomlinson, the former board chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Fur flew when liberals discovered Tomlinson had conducted a private study to determine if PBS and NPR shows tilted to the left. An inspector general's report suggested Tomlinson somehow had violated CPB bylaws, and he was forced to resign. Liberal congressman John Dingell insisted Tomlinson had "inserted politics" into public broadcasting, and yes, feel free to insert a laugh track at this point. It's only "inserting politics" when anyone bothers to object to the everyday liberal politics of NPR and PBS. Ever since Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the nation's taxpayer-funded news outlets have operated free of any real fear that someone would disturb their pattern of putting their big broadcasting thumb on the scale of liberalism. If NPR's drawing a Limbaugh-sized audience, isn't it time someone started asking why a "Fairness Doctrine" shouldn't apply to them? • Bozell is president of the Media Research Center. Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc ibdeditorials.com

To: Sully- who wrote (29190)	4/30/2009 8:06:34 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Hat Tip to Tim Fowler: Federal Felony To Use Blogs, the Web, Etc. To Cause Substantial Emotional Distress Through "Severe, Repeated, and Hostile" Speech? Eugene Volokh April 30, 2009 at 4:07pm That's what a House of Representatives bill, proposed by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez and 14 others, would do. Here's the relevant text: <<< Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.... ["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; ... ["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages. >>> 1. I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone) about what a hypocrite / campaign promise breaker / fool / etc. he would be if he voted the other way. I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior" -- unless, of course, my statements aren't seen as "severe," a term that is entirely undefined and unclear. Result: I am a felon, unless somehow my "behavior" isn't "severe." 2. A newspaper reporter or editorialist tries to do the same, in columns that are posted on the newspaper's Web site. Result: Felony, unless somehow my "behavior" isn't severe. 3. The politician votes the wrong way. I think that's an evil, tyrannical vote, so I repeatedly and harshly condemn the politician on my blog, hoping that he'll get very upset (and rightly so, since I think he deserves to feel ashamed of himself, and loathed by others). I am transmitting a communication with the the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means (a blog) "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." (I might also be said to be intending to "harass" -- who knows, given how vague the term is? -- but the result is the same even if we set that aside.) Result: I am a felon, subject to the usual utter uncertainty about what "severe" means. 4. A company delivers me shoddy goods, and refuses to refund my money. I e-mail it several times, threatening to sue if they don't give me a refund, and I use "hostile" language. I am transmitting a communication with the intent to coerce, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: I am a felon, if my behavior is "severe." 5. Several people use blogs or Web-based newspaper articles to organize a boycott of a company, hoping to get it to change some policy they disapprove of. They are transmitting communications with the intent to coerce, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: Those people are a felon. (Isn't threatening a company with possible massive losses "severe"? But again, who knows?) 6. John cheats on Mary. Mary wants John to feel like the scumbag that he is, so she sends him two hostile messages telling him how much he's hurt her, how much she now hates him, and how bad he should feel. She doesn't threaten him with violence (there are separate laws barring that, and this law would apply even in the absence of a threat). She is transmitting communications with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: Mary is a felon, again if her behavior is "severe." The examples could be multiplied pretty much indefinitely. The law, if enacted, would clearly be facially overbroad (and probably unconstitutionally vague), and would thus be struck down on its face under the First Amendment. But beyond that, surely even the law's supporters don't really want to cover all this speech. What are Rep. Linda Sanchez and the others thinking here? Are they just taking the view that "criminalize it all, let the prosecutors sort it out"? Even if that's so, won't their work amount to nothing, if the law is struck down as facially overbroad -- as I'm pretty certain it would be? Or are they just trying to score political points here with their constituents, with little regard to whether the law will actually do any good? I try to focus my posts mostly on what people do, not on their motives, but here the drafting is so shoddy that I just wonder why this happened. volokh.com

To: Sully- who wrote (29190)	4/30/2009 8:58:48 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Fight for Free Speech is On! By Brian Jennings on obama Big Hollywood There have been several new developments regarding the battle to regulate free speech on your radio. First, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas provided a definitive statement about how the court might view restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. Accordng to WorldNetDaily, Justice Thomas called the policy “problematic” and a “deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.” He is right. That’s why Democrats are going through the FCC backdoor to regulate broadcasters in a stealth manner with measures that would accomplish their goals of snuffing out conservative talk and thus conservative values in America. They are smart enough to know the “old” Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t stand up in court. So, the first step in the process begins May 7th when the FCC will start conducting hearings to “redistribute media ownership” in America. The theme of redistributing wealth continues. The other major development is news about new FCC appointments coming soon. According to Radio & Records, the new appointments are imminent. It appears Obama will nominate Mignon Clyburn from South Carolina as one of his Democrat appointments along with Julius Genachowski as Chairman. Ms. Clyburn has a newspaper background, so hopefully she will have some sympathies for conservative talk radio, but I doubt it. She also has a strong public service background and has been vetted by Obama. Newspapers have always held a low opinion of conservative talk radio. Watch for the hammer to come down. Part of the Democratic plan is to establish “programming advisory boards” for stations. These nazi-like boards would serve one purpose - promote fear among broadcast license holders and threaten them if they don’t adhere to their programming wishes. Tyranny. Here’s what my friend and colleague Roger Hedgecock had to say about when he talked to WND: <<< “Talk about a chilling effect on free speech, this will be an Arctic blast of restraint on opinion based on the threat to take the license away.” >>> Hedgecock also told WND: <<< “I think the FCC is on the cusp of enacting regulations that would fundamentally alter the traditional American assumption that we have the right to share and debate political opinions,” he said. “I believe the strategy is to make the current state of compliant journalism that prevails in the mainstream media the norm as well on the Internet and in talk radio,” he said. >>> There is no journalism in America. Wednesday night’s compliant news gathering at the White House was a joke. Obama controls the media and it’s a massive dupe of the American public. As Rush Limbaugh said this morning, “I never thought I would say I long for the days of Sam Donaldson.” Hedgecock who holds forth at KOGO in San Diego and in national syndication, also says, <<< “I think in the next 90 days we will see the imposition of the local advisory boards. They will immediately become complaint departments staffed by the left on all local and nationally syndicated talk programs,” Hedgecock warned. >>> If you value conservative talk in America, it’s time to speak up. A number of my conservative talk colleagues have come together to form UnFairAir.org. This site is a rallying cry for the protection of free speech on the radio. Please check it out. If you value conservative talk, now is the time to pay attention. Brian Jenning’s book Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio will be in bookstores next Tuesday, May 5th. This book is the collective voice of talk radio hosts and managers speaking out against speech regulation on the nation’s airwaves as well as the many attempts to muzzle conservative talk in America. bighollywood.breitbart.com

To: Sully- who wrote (29190)	5/27/2009 5:00:50 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Obama’s Latest Assault on Conservative Talk By Brian Jennings on talk radio Big Hollywood There is no question the Obama administration and most Democrats thinks conservative talk radio is something that should be eliminated from the “new” American culture. We documented that in the book Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio. Now, the administration is stepping up its subtle attack on conservative talk radio stations. In 2008, Arbitron, which measures radio audiences nationwide, began rolling out its latest measurement technology called the “Portable People Meter,” or PPM. It’s a pager-device that automatically registers what someone is listening to at any moment. It’s the measurement of real time listening as opposed to the “old” system that required a listener to recall and write down once a week the stations they could remember they heard. Most radio executives feel this system is the future for radio audience measurement. When the New York ratings came out last fall, it showed conservative talk radio was even stronger than previously noted under the old audience measurement system and that minority radio stations were not as popular. Well, you know the rest of the story. The Obama administration, along with the City of New York, and other minority interests cried foul. Then, the FCC stepped in and announced it would investigate the new Arbitron system. After all, it cannot allow conservative talk radio to improve its already strong position on American airwaves! Several things are playing out that conservatives need to be aware of. First, the Fairness Doctrine appears dead on arrival. Democrats finally figured out re-imposition would be unconstitutional. So, they are going through the backdoor to “clarify the public interest obligations” of broadcasters as stated by Obama and the Democrats in their 2008 party platform. The FCC on May 7th began hearings to “diversify” media ownership in America. The only way to do that is to take a broadcast license away from a current owner and give it to a minority. Democrats can’t understand that such a “redistribution of wealth” is a form of censorship of another point of view. And, of the 31 members of the advisory committee appointed by the FCC, it was hard to find one that represents conservative interests. There is no one to represent Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, or Lars Larson in these on-going hearings. Secondly, the FCC will reduce the broadcast license renewal term from eight to three years. Big brother at work looking over the shoulder of media. But, back to the Arbitron measurement issue. Seattle has always been a strong talk market for radio. But, in the first month of the new PPM methodology, talk radio tanked. Any correlation to the FCC/Obama concerns that PPM does not represent minority interests? Time will tell, but the Seattle ratings don’t reflect the trends for talk radio nationwide under the new audience measurement system. Newstalk leader, KIRO switched to an FM frequency which always creates some confusion in early ratings. Hopefully, subsequent Seattle PPM ratings will reflect the strength of talk radio in America. Expect the Democrat controlled FCC to meddle where it should not because as acting FCC Commissioner Michael Copps told CNSNews.com earlier this year, “If markets cannot produce what society really cares about, like a media that reflects the true diversity and spirit of our country, then government has a legitimate role to play.” Such a totalitarian statement leaves no question that liberals want to re-define talk radio in America. It eliminates the ability of the free market to choose what it wants to hear by forcing the intent of regulated balance of the Fairness Doctrine. We must be aware of what is happening under our noses because the tactic of the new administration is to get it done before we can raise the red flags. Brian Jennings is a 40-year talk radio programming executive and author of Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio. bighollywood.breitbart.com

To: Sully- who wrote (29190)	5/28/2010 1:48:45 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The FCC's Covert Mission to 'Balance' Broadcast Media Ownership By Chuck Rogér American Thinker Should Americans be concerned about a Federal Communications Commission official having once suggested that if government doesn't help minorities reduce white ownership of broadcast media, then only violence would assure the protection of minorities' civil rights [1]? In the little-noticed 2007 publication "The Erosion of Civil Rights," Mark Lloyd attempted to make a case for Washington controlling media ownership. At the time, Lloyd -- now FCC Chief Diversity Officer -- was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Lloyd's contribution, "Civil Rights and Communications Policy-2006," is saturated with straw man arguments. Ideologues use two predominant straw man templates. Type I declares the existence of nonexistent problems in order to draw implications that bolster ideological talking points. Type II offers imagined evidence against imagined problems to strengthen talking points. Mark Lloyd depended on Type I straw men in "Civil Rights and Communications Policy-2006." He wrote, "Communications policy determines who gets to speak to whom, how soon and at what cost." Bad policy "enhances one group's ability to communicate and limits another group," violates the limited group's civil rights, and "perpetuates the stereotypes one group holds about the other." There is no proof of a "communications policy" that either benefits or hurts certain "groups," and yet Lloyd stated the contention as fact. Indeed, there's no proof that Americans communicate according to any "policy" at all. The very idea of government-controlled communications violates the First Amendment. Lloyd's follow-on points depend on the reader not noticing the hocus-pocus. But all the magic in the world cannot assign value to specifics based on worthless generalities. Lloyd offered three gems. <<< If a white teacher believes it will be difficult to teach a brown child, her expectations for that child will be limited. If a white police officer believes black men to be threatening, he will tend to shoot first. If a white citizen believes women of color are lazy, he will be less inclined to support laws that aid the poor. >>> Essentially admitting the flimsiness of the claims, Lloyd then fell back on an old, reliable "The evidence to support these assertions is compelling." But no relevant evidence was revealed. Instead, revealed was an obsession with white-bashing. Lloyd's racial divisiveness presaged the dramatic rise in liberals' use of the practice since Barack Obama became president. Insistent on viewing the world through a divisive lens, Lloyd complained that because of an "important and unique role in community discourse," broadcasters must "act as a public trustee, providing free over the air service for the public good of all segments of their community of license." Operative phrase: "all segments." Never has American government forced an industry to donate a product "for the public good." Yet Lloyd wants to force broadcasters to forgo profits in order to serve the needs of racially and ethnically segregated markets. Lloyd pushed the same kind of anti-free market, First Amendment-ignoring heavy-handedness in a more well-known 2007 Center for American Progress report, "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio." In the report, Lloyd called for legalizing racial discrimination by placing "caps" on white ownership of radio stations. But in Lloyd's mind, serving segregated markets is only half the battle. To make life truly fair, government must force affirmative action in broadcast industry employment and ownership. Returning to Lloyd's "Civil Rights and Communications Policy-2006," we find the czar-to-be using yet another straw man to demand the reenergizing of a 1970s "battle for rules to promote minority ownership." The justification is that white ownership hurts minorities. Lack of proof for the claim exposes Lloyd's prescription as ideologically motivated hysterics. Hysterics inspire various degrees of action. In the case of the communications industry, Lloyd wanted the FCC to investigate using "race-based measures to advance equal employment opportunity regulations and efforts to increase minority ownership[.]" Lloyd now works for a government agency that could force a fix for the "diversity problem." To be sure, the FCC is in the process of acting on Mark Lloyd's recommendations from both 2007 Center for American Progress documents discussed here. A new FCC program will "assess whether all Americans have access to vibrant, diverse sources of news and information[.]" Look for "diverse sources" to translate into "diverse" industry ownership. Obama's FCC, intent on diversifying talk radio, could be aiming to marginalize administration opponents. For camouflage, the FCC bent the truth in a reply to a CNS News FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for records of communications "to and from" FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that contained references to conservative media personalities. The FCC denied the existence of communications fitting the specified parameters, but CNSNews.com reports that in the fall of 2009, the left-wing So We Might See Coalition sent a letter to FCC Chairman Genachowski concerning "hate speech in the media" by personalities like Rush Limbaugh. And the withholding of evidence of media tampering doesn't end with the CNS episode. FCC Administrative Law Chief Joel Kaufman, the official whose letter didn't report the existence of the CNS-requested document, also responded to a Judicial Watch FOIA request for information on Lloyd's staffing and budget. Kaufman claimed that the FCC "could locate no records" showing anyone hired "specifically to support [Lloyd] in his work" and that Lloyd "has no separate budget for operation and administration." The mushiness surrounding Lloyd's mission makes another portion of the FCC response to the Judicial Watch FOIA request more curious still. Kaufman's letter containing the "no records" claim states that the FCC <<< ... did locate internal briefing materials for the Chairman concerning "media ownership" that we are withholding in their entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5,5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5). FOIA Exemption 5 permits the withholding of materials in order to encourage open, frank discussions on matters of policy between subordinates and superiors. >>> The FCC has basically admitted to a plan to conceal from Americans the content of "media ownership" discussions that are occurring. Mark Lloyd may fulfill a dream expressed in 2007. The Diversity Czar can now work to correct "the structural imbalance of political talk radio" without worrying about bothersome interference from the American people. A writer, physicist, and former high tech executive, Chuck Rogér invites you to visit his website, chuckroger.com. E-mail Chuck at swampcactus@chuckroger.com. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Mark Lloyd's exact words: "Absent a repeat of the dramatic injustices that reached Americans on their television screens in the 60s it will be difficult, if not impossible, to advance a civil rights agenda on any front in the current communications environment." From chapter titled, "Civil Rights and Communications Policy-2006" in "The Erosion of Civil Rights," Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights and Center for American Progress, 2007, p.87. .

To: Sully- who wrote (29190)	6/4/2010 1:31:58 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Five ways Obama may tax you to pay for the government's 'reinvention of journalism' By: Mark Tapscott Editorial Page Editor 06/03/10 4:26 PM EDT Bureaucrats at the Federal Trade Commission have just released a new "staff study" containing a host of recommendations on how the federal government can put itself at the center of the "reinvention of journalism" campaign now gathering momentum on the Left. Translated, "reinvention of journalism" is codespeak for "Repeal the First Amendment's prohibition on Congress doing anything to abridge the freedom of the independent press to find and report all of the facts about what politicians, bureaucrats and their allies in the private sector are doing, are planning on doing, did in the past, or are thinking about doing to the rest of us and with our tax dollars. My column on the FTC's staff study in Tuesday's edition of The Washington Examiner has attracted a fair amount of attention, but I am far from the only journalist who has been watching this pernicious project develop at the FTC and elsewhere in the nation's capital. Dan Gainor, the Boone Pickens Fellow and vice president for business and culture at the Media Research Center, has been tracking the project, studying its documents, and analyzing the content and likely consequences of the FTC reinventing journalism project. Gainor, a former desk editor and columnist for The Baltimore Examiner and before that, the Washington Times, is an experienced journalist who has covered government and politicians for years. He knows horse puckey when he sees it. Among the things he has found is the FTC staff study includes five new taxes the federal government could use to create a new fund it would then dole out to favored media organizations. Of course, any media organization that accepts one penny of government "aid" thereby loses the right to call itself an independent media outlet because, as anybody who knows anything about federal aid can attest, when bureaucrats fund something, they use that funding as the pretext to regulate and control it. Here's Gainor's key graphs: <<< "Of course, anything coming out of the Obama administration is also automatically about taxes. This working paper mentions some form of the word 'tax' 95 times in 47 pages. If government wants to make the media dependent on it for cash, it has to tax us to do so. "The paper listed five possible new taxes to pay for a 'Citizenship Media Fund.' Those include a $4 billion tax on consumer electronics like your TV or iPod; a $5-6 billion advertising tax; and a tax on both ISP and cell phone bills. "It also listed a host of other possible solutions for the problems that impact journalism – everything but the free market. That concept is foreign to the same administration that seized control of Wall Street, Detroit and our health care system." >>> You can read the rest of Dan's column here. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (29190)	6/14/2010 9:18:45 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Putting the Watchdogs on the Payroll By Theodore Dawes American Thinker The internet is the best mechanism ever invented for the distribution and promotion of baseless conspiracy theories. But it is also a matchless device for distributing information on true, and truly disturbing, developments. Case in point: the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)'s recently released discussion draft on "reinventing" journalism. Those who have read the 35-page document are mostly left agog by its absurd reach and its dangerous suggestions. Among the items under discussion: Enhanced postal subsidies for newspapers, which already have their own uniquely cheap postage rates. Tax credits for organizations with journalists on the payroll. The formation of a new journalism cadre within AmeriCorps. The estimated $35 billion required to keep traditional journalism afloat would be raised via several mechanisms, including a check-off box on tax returns. Those who are sympathetic to the industry's plight -- nationwide, they must number in the dozens -- could send a portion of their tax return to ameliorate the woes of the nation's MSM. As the report states,"If desired, this proposal could be structured to apply to commercial, as well as non-profit, news entities." No plan is complete unless it calls for new taxes, and the discussion includes some doozies, including substantial new taxes on news aggregators on the web. Critics have quickly dubbed this plan the "Drudge Tax," but it would also impose new taxes on others, including Digg and the Huffington Post. The paper also floats a proposal to add a five-percent tax on consumer electronics, producing an estimated $4 billion annually. These funds would be distributed by the FTC. The report also suggests that a "Fund for Local News" could be created using existing and new fees imposed by the FCC "on telecom users, television and radio broadcast licensees, or Internet service providers." These funds would be distributed directly to newspapers and other media outlets by state panels. If written into law, this program would make the government a partner with each participating newspaper. I'm not prone to hyperbole, but I frankly cannot imagine a greater, more odious conflict of interest than this one. As a journalist of thirty years standing, I wish I had an ounce of faith that publishers would reject the money, but I don't. After all, newspapers exist to make money, and they will quickly convince themselves they can enjoy the government largesse and remain independent in thought and spirit. You know, just like they do now with their biggest advertisers. The fundamental issues that led to the collapse of the newspaper industry are still in play, so this is surely a patch -- a brief and very expensive putting-off of the inevitable. Unfortunately, those in the Obama administration don't seem to understand even the simplest economic concepts, including this one: Newspapers, like car companies, suffer when they don't provide the purchasing public with what the latter want. And newspapers, by dint of their twentieth-century technology, cannot give consumers what they want. Many critics of the nation's newspapers suggest the liberal bias that suffuses most is a leading cause of the declining fortunes of the major newspapers. That's just one issue newspapers are tackling, and in the larger scheme, it's an insignificant one. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby states the dynamic more accurately. Regarding the idea that liberal bias is cooking the news goose, he says, "I wish that were true ... because then newspaper companies would know what it would take to recover: a reorienting of their editorial views from left to center-right and the recruitment of editors and writers with a more conservative outlook." In support of his theory, Jacoby notes that recently failed newspapers include some right-of-center publications, while many left-of-center newspapers are thriving -- or at least surviving. Jacoby's words could be seen as self-serving -- after all, he works for one of the nation's most transparently left-leaning newspapers. But his column is lent credibility by including what so many others in the media deny, as Jacoby readily admits that most newspapers do in fact exhibit a liberal bias. <<< I wish the lack of ideological diversity that tends to characterize most major newspapers -- the reflexive support for Democrats, the distaste for religion and the military, the cheerleading for liberal enthusiasms from gun control to gay marriage -- really did explain the industry's present woes. >>> Jacoby is exactly right. Newspapers are dying not because of their liberal bias, but rather because they rely on obsolete technology. In the age of the internet, publishing a daily print newspaper is the marketing equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight. Even if their former circulation numbers were maintained, the big newspapers would still be in serious trouble, because classified advertising -- their bread and butter -- is moving to the web, particularly Craigslist. Craigslist is free and effective, and the results are telling: The gross receipts for classified ads for the American newspaper industry have declined from $19.6 billion in 2000 to an estimated $6.0 billion in 2009. Politicians have long used tax dollars to purchase political leverage. From that perspective, going into business with the ailing newspaper industry would hardly be unique. George Will recently provided an excellent example, noting the federal portion of education spending on kindergarten through twelfth grade has doubled since 2000 to 15 percent. This has left Democrats "in a relationship of co-dependency with teachers unions." The majority of Americans agree that we need schools, but how many would be happy to support the obsolete technology of print newspapers? Despite the clumsiness and greed of their unions, teachers retain some measure of respect, but journalists rank with lawyers and telemarketers. The FTC can put a gloss on this, calling it an attempt to find solutions to what they see as "emerging gaps in news coverage," but few members of the public are likely to mistake the bottom line: This document suggests the government should be doling out billions of taxpayer dollars to the self-described watchdogs of government. You will not likely see that fact stated so plainly in the newspapers, but that's okay. The internet is a matchless device for distributing information on true, and truly disturbing, developments. Theodore Dawes is a freelance writer in Mobile, Alabama. .

To: Sully- who wrote (29190)	6/14/2010 11:13:43 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

Meet the Neo-Marxist behind Obama FTC's campaign for 'reinventing journalism" By: Mark Tapscott Editorial Page Editor 06/11/10 8:13 PM EDT What is the most spectacularly mis-named far left activist group in America? Hands down winner is Free Press, the organizational vehicle for the Neo-Marxist American college professor who cheered Hugo Chavez when the Venzuelan thug strangled the free press in that suffering nation. Robert McChesney founded Free Press eight years ago and has been in the forefront of a proliferating movement on the far left to do to the U.S. media what Chavez and other left-wing dictators always do, which is take over the news media and convert it to propaganda outlets for their dictatorial regimes. If you doubt me, check out these quotes from McChesney culled by The Daily Caller's Mike Riggs: “Only government can implement policies and subsidies to provide an institutional framework for quality journalism.” “The news is not a commercial product. It is a public good, necessary for a self-governing society. Once we accept this, we can talk about the kind of media policies and subsidies we want.” “In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.” Nobody can seriously believe that a guy who thinks like that will have an iota of respect for the First Amendment and this country's cherished freedom of the press. I've been reporting and writing for several weeks about the FTC's "Reinventing Journalism" campaign, which is the Obama administration's initiative for nationalizing the news media, much as was done to General Motors and Chrysler were. As I reported last week, and continued this week, a "draft discussion "paper allegedly prepared by FTC staff is the current focus of the effort. Riggs makes a convincing case for the proposition that McChesney's fingerprints are all over the FTC staff working paper. And, as the three quote above make clear, that ought to stir worry, anger and resolve in everybody who believes a democratic republic must have an independent press to hold the feet of elected and appointed government officials to the fire of accountability. Quite frankly, what McChesney and the Reinventing Journalism crowd are seeking to do to the First Amendment and the free press makes the Alien & Sedition Acts pale by comparison. Journalists had better wake up before its too late and start a tea party movement in the newsroom. The danger of the FTC effort is already clear to the vast majority of Americans, as seen in a new Rasmussen Report survey that found 85 percent of those surveyed oppose the idea of government "assistance" for the news media. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (29190)	12/22/2010 3:40:06 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

DeMint vows to reverse FCC's 'Internet takeover' By: Mark Tapscott Editorial Page Editor 12/21/10 2:33 PM Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, says Federal Communications Commission should be renamed the "Fabricating a Crisis Commission," following a vote by the panel's three Democrats to approve proposed rules that amount to a hostile takeover of the Internet by a government agency acting illegally. The proposal - misleadingly described by proponents as an attempt to insure "net neutrality" by guaranteeing equal access to the Internet - was introduced a year ago by Julius Genachowski, President Obama's appointee as FCC chairman. A federal court has ruled that the commission has no authority to regulate the Internet, and a bipartisan group of senators and representives warned Genechowski not to attempt to impose a regulatory regime on the Internet earlier this year. The move's legality was even questioned by FCC Commissioner Michael Copp, one of the Democrats who voted today with Genachowski, saying he considered voting against the proposal because it lacks a sufficiently defensible legal basis to survive a court challenge promised by major Internet Service Providers like Verizon, Microsoft, and AT&T. But legal challenges by industry are likely to be much less of a problem for the Genachowski-led takeover than efforts in Congress to stop the FCC in its tracks. That's clearly what DeMint has in mind, as he said in his statement released today following the FCC action: <<< “The Obama Administration has ignored evidence that this federal takeover will hang a millstone of regulatory and legal uncertainty around the neck of a vibrant sector of our economy. "Proceeding on its own liberal whims rather than facts, this FCC has chosen to grant itself broad authority to limit how businesses can bring the internet to consumers in faster and more innovative ways. “Americans loudly demanded a more limited federal government this November, but the Obama Administration has dedicated itself to expanding centralized government planning. Today, unelected bureaucrats rammed through an internet takeover, even after Congress and courts warned them not to. “To keep the internet economy thriving, this decision must be reversed. Regulatory reform will be a top priority for Republicans in the next Congress, and I intend to prevent the FCC or any government agency from unilaterally burdening our recovering economy with baseless regulation. "In order to provide the stability businesses need to grow, I will work with my fellow senators to see passage of my FCC Act, which would ensure that the FCC can only use its rulemaking powers where there is clear evidence of a harmful market failure, as well as the REINS Act, which would add the accountability of a Congressional vote before any government agency’s proposed major regulations may be finalized.” >>> If the FCC plan somehow manages to survive, it will almost certainly do for First Amendment liberties and the Internet what it did for them in regulating broadcast television and radio. Former CBS News president Fred Friendly's landmark book, "The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment," describes in great detail how the Kennedy and Johnson administrations used the FCC to silence conservative critics. Read more at the Washington Examiner: