Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Desertdog on January 27, 2009, 10:14:17 PM

Title: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Desertdog on January 27, 2009, 10:14:17 PM: Sounds like censorship to me. How can we make them shut down NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and all the rest of the leftwing news and other left wing forms of speech if they shut down the right wing shows. Where are our lawyers?? I think we still have a freedom of speech and assembly left, but I am beginning towonder.

White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Posted agenda issues warning about new 'obligation' review
By Bob Unruh

The White House is promising new reviews of the "obligations" to the government by broadcasters who "occupy the nation's spectrum" just as the president has targeted conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh for a public attack, raising concerns over the possible restoration of the "Fairness Doctrine," a policy that failed as unneeded and unconstitutional two decades ago.

Paul Ibrahim of NorthStarWriters.com cited Obama's warning to congressional Republicans that "you can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done" in suggesting the president has become the "driving force" behind a new "systematic" plan to "intimidate and demonize Obama's opponents."

That such a campaign was launched only days after Obama's inauguration is "tremendously perturbing," he wrote.

"Welcome to the politics of hope 'n' change. Obama's startling attempt to hang Limbaugh's scalp on the wall is a warning that the new ruler does not want unity – he demands it," Ibrahim wrote.

On Obama's agenda, according to his White House website, is the goal to "encourage diversity in media ownership."

Obama elaborates on the site that his aim is to "encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum."

The plan apparently aligns with longstanding Democratic suggestions to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine."

The policy was abandoned in 1987 under President Reagan when there were 75 radio talk shows in the U.S. Reagan opposed the policy because it required broadcast TV and radio programs to air "opposing views" on political issues, which had the practical effect of virtually eliminating opinion programs.

Since abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine, the number of radio talk shows has risen to more than 3,000.

WND founder and editor Joseph Farah long has warned about Democrats' plans to revive restrictions on the airwaves.

"If the Democrats and their me-too Republican allies are successful at sacking talk radio, there will be no stopping them," Farah warned. "Broadcast will be first. Then they will go after the Internet with taxes and new regulations and hate-crimes laws. And when they succeed at muzzling dissenting voices there, they will even turn to print. Remember, we are dealing with a neo-fascist mentality here."

Many fear the Fairness Doctrine would drive talk radio hosts – like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage – out of business.

During the presidential campaign, spokesman Michael Ortiz indicated Obama thought the debate was "a distraction."

But author Brad O'Leary examined Obama's legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race and came to a different conclusion.

"Barack Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of [his] campaign," said O'Leary. "His presidency, combined with supermajorities for Democrats in Congress, would almost certainly bring back the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' and allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., affirmed her support to Human Events reporter John Gizzi for a "Fairness" policy, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told radio host Jim Villanucci, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum]."

Ibrahim noted the president's public verbal condemnation of Limbaugh makes clear his "rejection" of the old "Bush" politics.

"You see, President Bush did not launch assaults on private citizens, nor did he ever label anyone as 'unpatriotic' for disagreeing with him. Thus, Obama and his friends are now effecting the change they promised. Welcome to their 'new' politics," he wrote.

The National Review's Byron York said Obama's criticism of Limbaugh makes it appear he considers the talk host "the true leader of the Republican opposition."

York said Limbaugh responded that Obama was trying to make the arguments about the radio show instead of Obama's actual plans.

"To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective," Limbaugh told York. "Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts.

"I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing 'eternal' power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy," Limbaugh continued. "If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle."

Limbaugh added: "One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals: 'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.'"

Michael G. Franc, writing on the National Review's "The Corner" blog, noted that attorney general nominee Eric Holder also has refused to commit to opposing to Fairness Doctrine.

Obama's choice to head his FCC transition team, Democrat Henry Rivera, added to fear in media circles that the Fairness Doctrine might return to silence conservative talk radio.

Brian Maloney of the blog The Radio Equalizer said in his post "Meet Talk's Executioner" he believes Rivera will use his position to bring back the law for that very purpose.

Rivera, according to Maloney, "is expected to lead the push to dismantle commercial talk radio that is favored by a number of Democratic Party senators. Rivera will play a pivotal role in preventing critics from having a public voice during Obama's tenure in office."
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: john828 on January 27, 2009, 10:17:02 PM: ok, I am ignorant, please educate me: what exactly is this Fairness doctrine?
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: zahc on January 27, 2009, 10:21:27 PM: Google is you friend.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: john828 on January 27, 2009, 10:56:26 PM: thank you for not supporting my laziness.

Quote
Google is you friend.

Actually, most of my friends have forsaken me, and just yesterday, my dog farted in my general direction. Be all that as it may, I will try Google again and see if it will be as cooperative as my last six girlfriends.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Boomhauer on January 28, 2009, 12:33:35 AM: Here's one...http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/em368.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/em368.cfm)

Another...http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/fairness.html (http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/fairness.html)

And yet another...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine)

And, don't make the mistake of thinking that NBC/CBS/ABC and their ilk would ever have to have a right-wing guy like Rush or whoever on their show...the news channels supporting the Dems are always fair and balanced...
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Jocassee on January 28, 2009, 08:00:07 AM: Quote
clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters

Alinsky would be proud. That may be the single best bit of NewSpeak to come out of the entire Obama saga.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: El Tejon on January 28, 2009, 08:03:08 AM: Don't worry, there's plenty more to come. =D
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Waitone on January 28, 2009, 08:15:00 AM: Throw a blanket over talk radio then move on to roping the internet. And don't say it can't be done. Canada is implementing a dry run as we speak.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Jamisjockey on January 28, 2009, 08:21:25 AM: Quote from: Waitone on January 28, 2009, 08:15:00 AM
Throw a blanket over talk radio then move on to roping the internet. And don't say it can't be done. Canada is implementing a dry run as we speak.
Canada? Look at China, they are past the dry run stage, with help from American companies to boot.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: buzz_knox on January 28, 2009, 08:43:22 AM: Didn't Biden say during the campaign that they were going to change what we listen to if they won?

Guess they are going to keep at least one campaign promise.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: charby on January 28, 2009, 08:46:12 AM: I think this would be pretty easy to defeat in court.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: HankB on January 28, 2009, 08:54:06 AM: Quote from: Charby on January 28, 2009, 08:46:12 AM
I think this would be pretty easy to defeat in court.
Barack Hussein Obama will be appointing not just SCOTUS justices, but appeals and other court judges, too.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: buzz_knox on January 28, 2009, 08:58:52 AM: Quote from: Charby on January 28, 2009, 08:46:12 AM
I think this would be pretty easy to defeat in court.

The Fairness Doctrine survived more than a few court challenges, based on the principle that the feds had the authority to regulate what was said on airwaves "owned" by the government and licensed for use by broadcasters. If Obama goes down the "improving diversity" route, it's even more likely to survive.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Manedwolf on January 28, 2009, 09:10:01 AM: They can have my podcast when they pry it from my cold, dead-battery...ipod... Wait...
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: castle key on January 28, 2009, 10:31:43 AM: Quote from: john828 on January 27, 2009, 10:17:02 PM
ok, I am ignorant, please educate me: what exactly is this Fairness doctrine?

This "Fairness Doctrine" is a great example of how you can put a pleasant sounding label on a bunch of BS and get a huge majority of the sheeple to support something they know nothing about.

We need to close the "fairness doctrine loophole" and do away with "assault speech."
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Boomhauer on January 28, 2009, 10:38:23 AM: Quote from: Waitone on January 28, 2009, 08:15:00 AM
Throw a blanket over talk radio then move on to roping the internet. And don't say it can't be done. Canada is implementing a dry run as we speak.

Don't forget Australia....
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: RevDisk on January 28, 2009, 10:43:56 AM: Quote from: Waitone on January 28, 2009, 08:15:00 AM
Throw a blanket over talk radio then move on to roping the internet. And don't say it can't be done. Canada is implementing a dry run as we speak.

I'd personally put my faith in millions of hackers over a federal IT project.

In the mother of all ironies, the US government has sponsored privacy programs like TOR and such. Mainly for use by dissenters in China. Just as useful here in the states.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 28, 2009, 10:51:15 AM: Quote from: RevDisk on January 28, 2009, 10:43:56 AM
I'd personally put my faith in millions of hackers over a federal IT project.

I don't doubt that a clever man could circumvent most of the restrictions the Feds would put in place. But why should I have to? Also, there are lots of worthwhile people I'd like to read and communicate with on the web, but many of them probably aren't willing or able to circumvent any restrictions.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: RevDisk on January 28, 2009, 10:54:08 AM: Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 28, 2009, 10:51:15 AM
I don't doubt that a clever man could circumvent most of the restrictions the Feds would put in place. But why should I have to? Also, there are lots of worthwhile people I'd like to read and communicate with on the web, but many of them probably aren't willing or able to circumvent any restrictions.

Ever notice that really nasty government IT projects have a tendency of not working?

One, the most talented IT folks, especially hackers, generally have a dislike of Big Brother ism.
Two, there are oh so many ways to cripple an IT project that look like normal bugs.

Something to chew on.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: K Frame on January 28, 2009, 01:36:25 PM: All of this means one thing, and one thing alone...

The Democrats, for years, haven't been able to get any traction going with liberal talk shows. Conservatives virtually rule the airways, and they're pissed and whining about it.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: makattak on January 28, 2009, 01:43:23 PM: Quote from: Mike Irwin on January 28, 2009, 01:36:25 PM
All of this means one thing, and one thing alone...

The Democrats, for years, haven't been able to get any traction going with liberal talk shows. Conservatives virtually rule the airways, and they're pissed and whining about it.

Well it's simple. The Democrats think that the Republicans have an unfair advantage with these talk shows who are obviously pro-conservative.

They honestly don't think that the rest of the media is blatantly pro-liberal. They think they are "middle of the road."
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Manedwolf on January 28, 2009, 03:42:19 PM: Quote from: Mike Irwin on January 28, 2009, 01:36:25 PM
All of this means one thing, and one thing alone...

The Democrats, for years, haven't been able to get any traction going with liberal talk shows. Conservatives virtually rule the airways, and they're pissed and whining about it.

Well, yes. Satellite was a glaring example, and still is. Side by side channels, one button press away, no regional issues of reception. Perfectly level playing field.

People chose Right over Left by something like 9 to 1. They HATE that fact.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: seeker_two on January 28, 2009, 04:08:38 PM: It looks like the Dems are moving past the Fairness Doctrine and implementing the One-ness Doctrine...in honor of his One-ness, of course.... :angel:

Time to dust off the old printing presses and shortwave radios....
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Werewolf on January 28, 2009, 04:11:22 PM: The ULTIMATE GOAL - HEED YE SHEEP AND FOLLOW THE ANNOINTED ONE

(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.cox.net%2Fwerewolf1326%2Fimages%2Fobey_dees.jpg&hash=e4191ab7601df0302fc3ab479921d97c4cdc684c)
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: charby on January 28, 2009, 04:19:38 PM: Something tells me they noticed how much the media beat up on President Bush and they don't want the same to happen to President Obama.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: buzz_knox on January 28, 2009, 04:26:26 PM: Quote from: Charby on January 28, 2009, 04:19:38 PM
Something tells me they noticed how much the media beat up on President Bush and they don't want the same to happen to President Obama.

That's why the Obama Truth Squads are still functioning, and media outlets and journalists unfavorable to Obama are not being allowed access.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: longeyes on January 28, 2009, 04:34:31 PM: Savage said y'day he's moving his show to the Internet if they come at him with the Fairness Doctrine or "local content" or whatever.

That's what most conservative talk people will do, and their listeners will adapt or they won't.

The future of everything we believe in is underground and on the margins. The sooner we face that reality the better we can prepare and defend ourselves.

The Left is out for blood. We have to keep that in mind.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Werewolf on January 28, 2009, 07:20:09 PM: Quote from: buzz_knox on January 28, 2009, 04:26:26 PM
That's why the Obama Truth Squads are still functioning, and media outlets and journalists unfavorable to Obama are not being allowed access.

No access...

That's about the dumbest thing obama's people could do. It'll just piss off those banned and eventually snowball into the MSM coming down on the obamaites for being anti-1st amendment
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Werewolf on January 28, 2009, 07:20:43 PM: Quote from: buzz_knox on January 28, 2009, 04:26:26 PM
That's why the Obama Truth Squads are still functioning, and media outlets and journalists unfavorable to Obama are not being allowed access.

No access...

That's about the dumbest thing obama's people could do. It'll just piss off those banned and eventually snowball into the MSM coming down on the obamaites for being anti-1st amendment
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Manedwolf on January 28, 2009, 07:27:29 PM: Quote from: Werewolf on January 28, 2009, 07:20:09 PM
No access...

That's about the dumbest thing obama's people could do. It'll just piss off those banned and eventually snowball into the MSM coming down on the obamaites for being anti-1st amendment

Nope.

Most of The Willing Masses will just watch whatever is put in front of them and accept it as truth.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Waitone on January 28, 2009, 08:04:09 PM: Internet and satellite are not viable refuges. Federales exercise no control because congress has not acted to gain control.

Whatsoever congress giveth, congress taketh away. Long live congress.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Harold Tuttle on January 28, 2009, 09:23:17 PM: (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium1.uploadit.org%2FdocZox%2F%2F1984theone.jpg&hash=ea97eb6a507f5cfcc57d197fad29f662122f9d9f)
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Nitrogen on January 28, 2009, 09:25:20 PM: Jeez, this place is becoming as bad as DU was from 2000-2007
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Manedwolf on January 28, 2009, 09:40:37 PM: Quote from: Nitrogen on January 28, 2009, 09:25:20 PM
Jeez, this place is becoming as bad as DU was from 2000-2007

Maybe that's because the equivalent of Intolerable Acts are flying out of the White House within the first few days, they just confirmed someone who screwed up Turbotax (they said) as Treasury, and are going to confirm a total antigun AG as well, and just blew nearly a trillion dollars to social welfare programs with no return? (The Senate will pass it, it's already a done deal.)

It hasn't even been a few WEEKS yet and the "change" is already one f-up after another.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: longeyes on January 28, 2009, 10:04:13 PM: No, in the long run satellite and Internet are probably NOT viable refuges, that's true. I think we all know here what the only "viable refuge" really is.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: buzz_knox on January 29, 2009, 09:26:54 AM: Quote from: Nitrogen on January 28, 2009, 09:25:20 PM
Jeez, this place is becoming as bad as DU was from 2000-2007

DU didn't have tangible evidence to support their statements. We do. Or, are you unaware of the Dems call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine, the public statements by the Truth Squads that they would remain operation, Chris Matthews talking about the role of the media in the campaign to insure Obama was successful, etc?
Title: deleted
Post by: Don't care on January 31, 2009, 03:12:51 PM: .
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Nitrogen on January 31, 2009, 09:25:13 PM: Quote from: buzz_knox on January 29, 2009, 09:26:54 AM
DU didn't have tangible evidence to support their statements. We do. Or, are you unaware of the Dems call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine, the public statements by the Truth Squads that they would remain operation, Chris Matthews talking about the role of the media in the campaign to insure Obama was successful, etc?

There's plenty of the same quality of evidence that Bush committed war crimes, conspired to wiretap without a warrant, and fire prosecutors that wouldn't push the cases his administration wanted.
I could also point out how the media was in the tank for GWB during the 2000 and 2004 elections, too; but such things would be met with the same laughter that I'd be met with if I spoke up for a case for Israel in the middle east, or the real meaning of the constitution, including the 2nd amendment at DU.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: De Selby on January 31, 2009, 10:25:36 PM: Gotta love those predictions about how Obama is going to screw up his media management and get the press against him.

A guy named Barack Obama gets himself elected over a Vietnam veteran named McCain who spent time in a North Vietnamese torture camp is not going to make many missteps in terms of public relations.

He is probably the greatest public relations expert in the world today, bar none.

That doesn't mean he has great policies-but that isn't really relevant to an election back home.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Nitrogen on January 31, 2009, 10:36:11 PM: Quote from: shootinstudent on January 31, 2009, 10:25:36 PM
Gotta love those predictions about how Obama is going to screw up his media management and get the press against him.

A guy named Barack Obama gets himself elected over a Vietnam veteran named McCain who spent time in a North Vietnamese torture camp is not going to make many missteps in terms of public relations.

He is probably the greatest public relations expert in the world today, bar none.

That doesn't mean he has great policies-but that isn't really relevant to an election back home.

It didn't hurt that the Vietnam Vet ran the worst campaign EVER, now did it? I sorta like that Obama guy, but I think his victory was due to many people being sick and tired of the party in power's corruption exploding all over itself, and due to the horrible campaign run by McCain. All Obama had to do was stay on message and not screw up. He does that well. Hopefully he can govern the country as well as he runs a campaign. I hope (shut up) that he can.

(Yeah, I know the democrats are no better. We'll see that.)
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: De Selby on January 31, 2009, 11:10:54 PM: Nitro,

You're forgetting the part where he blindsided the Clintons. And, even with the worst campaign ever, it is no small feat for a guy from chicago with that name to beat one of the oldest and most recognised "maverick" names in America.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: lone_gunman on February 01, 2009, 09:14:02 AM: Quote
they just confirmed someone who screwed up Turbotax (they said) as Treasury, and are going to confirm a total antigun AG as well, and just blew nearly a trillion dollars to social welfare programs with no return?

Didn't Bush authorize an only slightly smaller bailout?

And I still am not sure how Alberto Gonzalez is any different from Eric Holder.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Bigjake on February 01, 2009, 12:29:09 PM: Quote from: Manedwolf on January 28, 2009, 07:27:29 PM
Nope.

Most of The Willing Masses will just watch whatever is put in front of them and accept it as truth.

Orwell, baby.

Only a matter of time til' the boob tube starts talking TO you.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Manedwolf on February 01, 2009, 12:33:26 PM: Quote from: Bigjake on February 01, 2009, 12:29:09 PM
Orwell, baby.

Only a matter of time til' the boob tube starts talking TO you.

Targeted ads based on the viewer's habits and overall consumer profile (gleaned from everything from credit card purchases to even cellphone GPS tracking in and out of merchants) have had marketers drooling for years. I would expect that as that's phased in, the Dems will be all over it for targeted political advertising as well.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: Werewolf on February 01, 2009, 03:15:57 PM: Quote
Targeted ads based on the viewer's habits and overall consumer profile (gleaned from everything from credit card purchases to even cellphone GPS tracking in and out of merchants) have had marketers drooling for years.

Amazon.Com already does this. The emails I get from them suggesting what I might like to buy next are usually dead on. They know what I like and target that. A few years ago they were wrong about half the time. NOW? Well lets just say they know me better than I do - at least when it comes to books, movies and games.

Of course they're basing their recommendations off of my purchase history but it isn't a great leap to imagine that if all the businesses in the USA pooled their databases on individual consumer purchasing habits that targeted ads to individuals with either satellite or cable TV couldn't be done. Cox digital cable at least seems to be TCP/IP based so targetting ads to individual consumers would be fairly easy even now.
Title: Re: White House plan puts bull's-eye on talk shows
Post by: RoadKingLarry on February 03, 2009, 02:11:07 PM: Quote
It didn't hurt that the Vietnam Vet ran the worst campaign EVER,

Actually I think that distinction goes to Dole but McCain comes in a very close second.