WASHINGTON - The Senate has barred federal regulators from reviving a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves.
The Senate vote on the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" was in part a response to conservative radio talk-show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.
The Federal Communications Commission implemented the doctrine in 1949, but stopped enforcing it in 1987 after deciding new sources of information and programming made it unnecessary.
President Barack Obama says he has no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans, led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), say they still need a guarantee the government would not establish new quotas or guidelines on programming.
~~ Jim Abrams - Associated Press Writer - 2/26/2009 2:35:00 PM, OneNewsNow.com
As Rush has often said, regardless of Mr. Obama's stated "intentions," we cannot count on a single promise made in order to ensure his election in November.
One of the most disturbing was his campaign's statements about reimposing the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." By this time, none but the most oblivious or willfully self-deluded can possibly believe that this "doctrine" is anything more than an underhanded, misdirection of an opportunity to impose censorship on those whose opinions do not meet the Democrat/Liberal's approval.
The attempt is typically liberal: both underhanded (supposed "fairness") and blatant in its misdirection of intent ("doctrine").
Why on earth should We the People be denied our choice of entertainment, for which we often pay additional charges (i.e., cable) because we choose to have a source that will provide us what we wish to listen to? Why should we -- or anyone else -- be forced to listen to or watch programming in which there is no interest nor desire to hear the message being given?
Why should I -- Conservative, Republican -- be forced to watch insipidness disguised as "news" as presented by CNN, MSNBC, etc., only because the liberal agenda has never gained a broad enough audience to support liberal TV or talk radio?? (Could this reflect a modicum of sense in liberals in general, in spite of themselves?!)
Is that not, in itself, clear enough of a message to the Liberal Agenda-makers: "There is not enough of a broad-based audience for your so-called "message" regardless the numbers who claim to be in agreement with you." At least, there certainly are not enough "true believers" who wish to put their money where their mouths are in order to support liberal programming by paying for advertising.
Geeze . . . I wonder why?!?
Since the Liberal Agenda makers recognize their lack of broad-based support, they wish to "level the playing field" of course by, as they interpret the term, merely destroying, or otherwise getting rid of, any possible opposition.
Any thinking person would recognize that each side -- liberal or conservative -- should win or lose on merit and merit alone. Liberals can't seem to abide by that definition of fairness, it appears. They, of course, would rather legislate fairness, much as they prefer to legislate everything else they want people to believe, accept, or, to chose, for a "change."
We should be infinitely grateful that there are elements in Congress who still retain the nerve and intestinal fortitude to stand up against gross power grabs -- and intentional destruction of a fundamental Constitutional right -- such as this "doctrine."
Let us all pray their strength and fortitude lasts at least for the next two years.
Copyright March 2009, MCzwz. All Rights Reserved.