Last Saturday, I called into King’s and Michael’s show like I usually do. During the first hour, Michael said that his perspective on campaigns was to “never bring a knife to a gun fight”, a position that I wholeheartedly subscribe to. In fact, when I called, I said that “We can be sure that the DFL is bringing ‘a gun’ to the campaign so let’s adopt this slogan: ‘It’s time to break out the double-barrels’”. This Hill magazine article is another reminder that Democrats are trying to silence us in a variety of ways so it’s time to break out the double-barrels. This time, our target is the (un)Fairness Doctrine.

House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

They say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October.

But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

First of all, the statement that “Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits…” is utter nonsense. What conservatives are upset about is that (a) the (Un)Fairness Doctrine is a violation of the First Amendment, (b) it’s based on a report that presumes a number of questionable conclusions, all of which can easily be contested. As usual, Captain Ed’s got the details on it:

Forcing radio stations to start “balancing” their content won’t mean that listeners will have to hear liberal talk radio. Many of them will tune out altogether. Just the notion of having to force people to listen to the liberal arguments on talk radio shows a certain amount of desperation on the part of Durbin and Feinstein, to say nothing of the implications of government dictating who gets to speak, and when.

That brings us to the most absurd point of all: NPR. The government owns and operates its own radio stations in every market of the nation. In fact, they have over 300 stations nationwide. Do they practice a Fairness Doctrine there? No. The spectrum of hosts and shows at NPR range from centrist to very liberal. If Durbin and Feinstein want to impose a Fairness Doctrine on radio broadcasts, let them start with NPR first.

The truth is that conservative talk radio and the Right blogosphere is a balance to the liberal’s indoctrination centers otherwise known as MSNBC, CBS, CNN, the NY Times and the LA Times. Another thing that we won’t let get glossed over is the fact that truly public-funded talk radio is essentially devoid of balanced programming.

It’s time that we told liberals that they can’t run roughshod over the First Amendment anymore because we take that type of thing damn personal. It’s time we told the American people that liberals like Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin want to silence their critics by essentially stripping out important First Amendment protections. I don’t think that the American people will approve of the Democrats’ tampering with our Constitutional protections.

The good news is that Mike Pence is fighting back:

Rep. Mike Pence (R), who worked as a syndicated talk radio host in Indiana before winning election to the House, is the main sponsor of the legislation. He is working with Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), a radio station owner, on the bill.

“A liberal think tank recently condemned what they called a massive imbalance on the airwaves,” said Pence. “I think a case is being made for government control of the use of the airwaves. The legislation we’re preparing is aimed at preventing that
from happening.”

Here’s the text of Pence’s floor speech:

“Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech.

“Congress must take action to ensure that this archaic remnant of a bygone era of American radio does not return. There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine.

“During my years in radio and television, I developed a great respect for a free and independent press. Since being in Congress, I have been the recipient of praise and criticism from broadcast media, but it has not changed my fundamental belief that a free and independent press must be vigorously defended by those who love liberty. It is with this in mind that I will introduce the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

“The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints in controversial issues of public importance. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. This legislation ensures true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves, and I would encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support this bill.

“John F. Kennedy stated, ‘We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.’”

Let’s examine Dick Durbin’s statement a little closer:

“I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

I’d actually agree with Durbin’s statement. The argument that I’d make is that the American people won’t “hear both sides of the story” without conservative talk radio. They certainly didn’t hear “both sides of the story” on the NSA intercept program through the Agenda Media. They didn’t hear “both sides of the story” of Plamegate through the Agenda Media. They certainly didn’t hear “both sides of the story” about the provisions in the Kennedy-McCain-NCLR immigration (un)reform bill through the Agenda Media.

People like Hugh Hewitt and Ed Morrissey read the legislation, then posted the details on their blogs. After posting that information on their blogs, they then talked about it on their radio programs, Ed on his BTR show, Hugh on his talk show.

I didn’t see the NY Times or MSNBC do that. In fact, I’d bet big money that you’ll never see them do that. During a number of my conversations with a friend in South Dakota, I’ve observed that “a free nation can’t sustain itself without the free flow of accurate information.” It’s obvious that the main reason why the Right Blogosphere took off is because the NY Times, CBS, NPR and the AP weren’t fulfilling that responsibility. Had they done their jobs, the Right Blogosphere wouldn’t exist to the extent that it does.

I can’t think of a better way to sum this discussion up than with Mike Pence’s words:

“Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio has emerged as a dynamic forum for public debate and an asset to the nation,” Pence wrote in his prepared remarks. “Unfortunately, in the name of fairness, there has been much talk in recent days about the need to level the playing field of radio broadcasting by restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves.”

Technorati Tags: Fairness Doctrine, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, First Amendment, Censorship, Rush Limbaugh, Conservative Talk Radio, Mike Pence, Hugh Hewitt, NY Times

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. IF THEY ARE GOING TO PROMOTE FAIRNESS THEN THEY SHOULD START WITH TELEVISON AND NEWSPAPERS. THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY BIASED TOWARD THE LIBERAL POINT OF VIEW, BUT ME THINKS THAT, THAT WON’T HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY ONLY HEAR AND SEE WHAT THEY WANT. I BELIEVE THEY CALL IT SELECTIVE. THEY DON’T REALLY CARE IF IT IS FAIR AS LONG AS THEY HAVE AN ADVANTAGE AND THEY CAN PUSH THEIR AGENDAS TO THE FOREFRONT.

   Comment by RICHARD DAUGHERTY — June 27, 2007 @ 12:45 pm

2. How many different ways can it be said? If liberals had anything worth listening to, they’d have an audience worthy of sponsorship of the talk show.

   Now, if there are so many libs and tin-foil hats out there that can’t get their lib fix every hour of every day, my guess is it’s because they’re all listening to Rush and Michael and Lars and…

   Comment by Carlos — June 28, 2007 @ 7:42 am