The Quiet Conservative May 17, 2008
Silencing Dissent: Killing the Broadcaster Freedom Act
One of the biggest stumbling blocks in the march to socialism in this country has been freedom of
speech. The right of an individual to speak his mind has deterred the state from directing the course
of the nation, rather than the citizen. Our founding principles were that the government was
answerable to the people, not the people subservient to the government. The most egregious
example of the free market of ideas in speech has been talk radio, and so it has been the medium
most hated by those on the left. Talk radio gives a voice to everyone. People can call in and have
their opinions debated on the radio instantaneously. This has allowed Rush Limbaugh to dominate
the airwaves. This has allowed Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly to flourish by
interacting with people nationwide.
In 1987 the FCC revoked the Fairness Doctrine. This old rule had mandated broadcasters to provide
equal time on the air for contrasting viewpoints when they involved public issues. Prior to 1987
stations had to allow equal opportunity to opposing opinions or face complaints to the FCC. Those
complaints could endanger their license. Rather than risk this assault by special interests it was easier
to not have talk radio as a format for politics. In August of 1987 the FCC abolished the rule and
broadcasters were freed from the fear of political attacks on their ability to operate as a business.
Since that time talk radio has exploded in popularity, but only with conservatives. In the free market
of ideas liberal talk radio has been a complete bust. When liberal ideas and policies were promoted
they were quickly torn apart by people who pointed out their flaws. Liberalism doesn't stand up to
direct scrutiny. It only succeeds when only one side is presented. In areas of media publication, talk
radio is unique. When you watch television the news is presented in the format decided upon by the
broadcasters. The same is true of newspapers. They print news or opinion and that is what you get,
a one way exchange of information. Liberals who control these venues do not have to worry about
being challenged directly. However, in talk radio there is an immediate and ongoing interaction with
the public. If a host states an opinion within seconds he could be challenged by a caller. There is no
monopoly on information. So liberalism cannot flourish. It is important to note that when liberals
talk nostalgically about the Fairness Doctrine, they only mean the radio, they do not mean network
television, PBS, or newspapers where their liberal bias is ignored.
Air America was launched in 2004 by progressives with the promise of being the answer to the
“right wing” domination of the talk radio medium. Lauded in all the other media formats, which
liberals dominate without accountability, it had immense free publicity for its launch. Those other
media formats wished to find an antidote for the ongoing questioning of their perceived authority. To
their horror, Air America immediately floundered. With little to offer but attacks on those on the
right, it lost steam quickly. You can listen to only so much venom before you start to question the
need to hear more.
Radio lives and dies by ratings. Ratings equate to the money a broadcaster can charge advertisers for
time on air. If a show has very high ratings advertisers will pay more to reach more people. If no
one is listening then advertisers will not spend money to reach only a few people. The unpopular
programs die as the radio station replaces the failures with something that has more popular appeal.
Air America, despite the coronation by the other liberal outlets, despite the major hype by the other
liberal media, didn't pull the ratings. It failed in the arena of ideas and it failed because people were
not interested. They weren't listening. Quickly falling into financial straights Air America became
involved in scandals such as bounced checks, court actions, and siphoned money taken from an inner
city children's charity in a shady loan deal. The ownership of the sinking progressive flag ship
changed hands like a hot potato.
Air America still exists today in limited markets, but it lives because it is owned and operated by
wealthy individuals who bought it. They have kept it on not because the market demands it, but in
spite of it. The owners can keep it going because they have the discretionary income to push their
views regardless if people listen or not.
So, with failing to gain access to the market based on the merit of the programming and the merit of
the message, progressives are attempting to crush conservative talk radio through other means. If
they cannot compete, they will instead make sure they can crush the outlet of traditional American
free speech. Liberals are trying to revive the Fairness Doctrine once again. If they can get the
Fairness Doctrine passed, they put a chilling effect on radio broadcasts across the nation. Do you
want to listen to Rush Limbaugh? If you do, the station must broadcast equal time to Al Franken or
his equal or your local progressive can file complaints with the FCC attacking the license of the
station. Does it matter to the progressive if Al gets the air time? No, not really. No one would listen
to him. The progressive knows that. It's already been tried on Air America. Instead, the progressive
doesn't believe this lack of ratings is because America rejects the message. The progressive believes
you just aren't smart enough to understand his message. Plus the intent isn't to gain access for
leftists, it is to deny access to traditional views.
The stations are aware of the legal danger of these operatives and cannot afford to lose three hours
of ad revenue in the black hole of socialist/communist advocacy. It would be better for them to
move to a different format and avoid the controversy. The stations have to make a profit after all.
The progressive’s goal then succeeds. The aim isn't to have equal time; the aim is to crush the voice
of dissent. The progressive wants to kill talk radio because it is conservative by nature. The
Fairness Doctrine is the weapon they intend to use.
Who, exactly, are these enemies of free speech and individual rights? Who doesn't believe in the
free market of ideas? Who would use unscrupulous tactics to advance their agenda and mask it in
terms of fairness? You can guess. It won’t be hard. Who doesn't believe in the individual, limited
government, and free speech? Who wants the government to be the source of everything from your
health care to your ability to make profits in business? Who wants to decide when those profits
become 'excessive'? Who is in favor of cradle to the grave entitlements at the expense of individual
achievement? Who wants equality of outcomes instead of equality of opportunity? Who has the
philosophy of soak the rich? Who has as a core belief- "From each according to his ability to each
according to his need?" Who believes- "We will take things from you on behalf of the common
good?".Who thinks the government should be in charge of your life? See the prior columns on
11/24/2006 and 5/10/2007 for a hint.
There is opposition to the reinstatement of The Fairness Doctrine and the killing of talk radio. There
is an effort to keep radio free. In 2007, H.R. 2905- known as “Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007”
was introduced by Representative Mike Pence (R-In) in Congress. Section 3 of the bill has the
following text:
‘‘SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.
‘Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the
Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, or other requirements, the
Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard,
or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in
part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public
importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, as repealed in General Fairness
Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).’’.
The act would prevent the chilling attack on talk radio. Therefore the Democratic leadership in
Congress quickly shunted it to committee to prevent it from being acted on. By shelving the act time
can run out on the 1110th Congress and perhaps under a new progressive, Democratically controlled
House, Senate, and Presidency, the Fairness Doctrine can be brought back and talk radio can be
crushed. Then it would be possible to move on to the Internet and crush dissent there also. China
has evolved a great model for controlling Internet news access. It might be possible for progressives
to institute that here also. Then people would only have prepackaged outlets of information dictated
by the left as information sources. With an all Democrat lineup the FCC can be packed with people
who would reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine on the radio and Internet without having to answer to the
people. Socialists love to make change without input by the electorate. It is why they fight so hard
for activist judges who ignore the law.
While the freedom bill is held hostage in committee at this time, there is a mechanism for bringing it
to the floor of the House for an up and down vote. That effort is called a discharge petition. With
218 signatures on the petition the act will be released to the full floor for a vote. If the bill is voted
on, then members will be accountable for their votes to prevent this form of censorship or allow it to
be implemented by a leftist controlled national government. 218 signatures are needed to succeed in
the discharge petition and 28 signatures are still needed. In Kansas two congressmen have signed
the petition to allow the bill to come to the floor. Congressman Tiahrt (R) and Congressman Moran
(R) have signed the discharge petition. Congressman Moore (D) and Congressman Boyda (D) have
not. So the question becomes, how do two Kansas Congressional representatives justify not wanting
freedom for you to hear on the radio what you want to hear, and call in and discuss topics you want
to discuss? Tiahrt and Moran stand for freedom, why don't Moore and Boyda?
Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to be heard in that speech beyond
the sound of your own voice is under assault by the left. Call Congressman Moore and
Congresswoman Boyda and ask them to sign the discharge petition today. Otherwise, soon you
might turn on the radio and find nothing but music and sports. Then you will have nothing left but
the Internet until that is censored too. And, yes, that is exactly what they propose. The left has the
intent to extend this doctrine to "new digital technologies." under the same guise. By declaring
censorship "fairness" and demanding equal access, not just radio can be crushed.
The danger of the Internet to socialism is that anyone can get online. The Internet is an even bigger
danger to state control than the radio. Totalitarian mentalities despise uncontrolled information
exchanges as that allows dissent. So understand talk radio isn't the only target. If Congresswoman
Boyda and Congressman Moore will not stand up for free speech on the radio, will they draw the line
at allowing you to access the Internet? Ask your representative to sign the discharge petition now
and to vote for broadcaster freedom. Or start picking out your favorite music stations on the radio as
talk will be gone, along with all unapproved content from the web.