{"id":4169,"date":"2009-02-09T09:10:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-09T14:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=4169"},"modified":"2012-01-06T14:13:35","modified_gmt":"2012-01-06T20:13:35","slug":"there-will-be-blood-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=4169","title":{"rendered":"Getting Off The Pot"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>When the subject of the &#8220;Fairness&#8221; Doctrine comes up, Democrats respond &#8220;Obama&#8217;s said he won&#8217;t for it&#8221;.\u00a0 It&#8217;s both correct and irrelevant; Obama doesn&#8217;t need to do a thing; the cynical among us believe he knows that full well, and that he&#8217;s got henchpeople to do that hyperpartisan, not-so-hopey-changey work for him.<\/p>\n<p>And t<a href=\"http:\/\/www.wnd.com\/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&#038;pageId=88113\">hey are doing it<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Another Democratic U.S. senator has gone on record as supporting the reinstatement of the so-called &#8220;Fairness Doctrine,&#8221; adding, &#8220;I feel like that&#8217;s gonna happen.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called &#8220;Fairness Doctrine&#8221;: &#8220;I think it&#8217;s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it&#8217;s called the Fairness Standard, whether it&#8217;s called something else \u2013 I absolutely think it&#8217;s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Did you catch that?<\/p>\n<p>We need &#8220;Accountability&#8221; and &#8220;Standards&#8221; for <em>free speech<\/em>?<\/p>\n<p>Can you imagine if, at any point in the past eight years, <em>any <\/em>Republican had suggested we needed &#8220;standards&#8221; for <em>any <\/em>First Amendment liberty?\u00a0 He&#8217;d have been tarred and feathered&#8230;no, he or she&#8217;d have been pilloried in the media, and quietly shuffled off the stage.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, no Republican suggested doing any such thing to the civil rights of Americans in the past eight years.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Asked by Press if she could be counted on to push for hearings in the Senate this year &#8220;to bring these (radio station) owners in and hold them accountable,&#8221; Stabenow replied: &#8220;I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that&#8217;s gonna happen. Yep.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I have felt that the Democrats were going to use Obama&#8217;s anointment and coronation as an excuse for overreach; in their decades on the intellectual margin, they have become brittle, shrill, dogmatic&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>&#8230;and I guess, given these proposals, &#8220;authoritarian&#8221;:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8220;For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country,&#8221; Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told Albuquerque radio station KKOB last year. &#8220;I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It was not.\u00a0 It was dreary, monochrome, and <em>nobody cared<\/em>, because nobody listened to it.<\/p>\n<p>And yes &#8211; behind the shaking heads and the solemn assurances, the Dems <em>have been <\/em>lining up behind the proposals.<\/p>\n<p>And, lest we forget, the Dems don&#8217;t need Obama, <em>or <\/em>Congress, <em>or <\/em>the title &#8220;The Fairness Doctrine&#8221; to ram this piece of garbage through:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee whose term runs through June, however, warned that Democrats may be adopting a stealthier approach to shutting down conservatives on talk radio.<\/p>\n<p>In a speech to the Media Institute in Washington last week, Multichannel News reports, McDowell suggested there are efforts to implement the controversial policy without using the red-flagged &#8220;Fairness Doctrine&#8221; label.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;That&#8217;s just Marketing 101,&#8221; McDowell explained. &#8220;If your brand is controversial, make it a new brand.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Instead, McDowell alleged, Democrats will try to disguise their efforts in the name of localism, diversity or network neutrality.<\/p>\n<p>McDowell further suggested that the FCC may already be gearing up to enforce the &#8220;Fairness Doctrine&#8221; through community advisory boards that help determine local programming. While radio stations use the boards on a voluntary basis now, McDowell warned if the advisory panels become mandatory, &#8220;Would not such a policy be akin to a re-imposition of the Doctrine, albeit under a different name and sales pitch?&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I warned you about this months ago. The Dems have been preparing the ground for this fight for quite some time.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>And while Republicans&#8217; prediction of &#8220;Fairness Doctrine&#8221; legislation remains unfulfilled and highly speculative, a WND investigation has revealed that McDowell and Walden aren&#8217;t just fear-mongering, as some have suggested. A think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama&#8217;s transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on talk radio using language that has since been parroted by both the Obama campaign and the new administration&#8217;s White House website.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>In June of 2007, Podesta&#8217;s Center for American Progress released a report titled &#8220;The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,&#8221; detailing the conservative viewpoint&#8217;s dominance on the airwaves and proposing steps for leveling the playing field.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I <a href=\"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=962\">worked this report over <\/a>when it came out. Please read that piece &#8211; it&#8217;s one of the better pieces I&#8217;ve written.<\/p>\n<p>To borrow a phrase from Reagan, we do have a time for choosing, here.\u00a0 After eight years of whinging endlessly about Americans&#8217; civil liberties that were never in the faintest shred of danger, we now face a genuine threat to the First Amendment, intended <em>purely <\/em>to stifle debate in this country.<\/p>\n<p>Part of me hopes the Democrats try.\u00a0 They&#8217;ve overreached badly in Obama&#8217;s first two weeks; this would be the mother lode.<br \/>\n(Coming soon &#8211; Fairness Doctrine FAQ)<\/p>\n<blockquote \/>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>When the subject of the &#8220;Fairness&#8221; Doctrine comes up, Democrats respond &#8220;Obama&#8217;s said he won&#8217;t for it&#8221;.\u00a0 It&#8217;s both correct and irrelevant; Obama doesn&#8217;t need to do a thing; the cynical among us believe he knows that full well, and that he&#8217;s got henchpeople to do that hyperpartisan, not-so-hopey-changey work for him. And they are [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[51,71],"tags":[65],"class_list":["post-4169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-liberal-tyranny","category-talk-radio","tag-fairness-doctrine"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4169","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4169"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4169\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25433,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4169\/revisions\/25433"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}