Democrats Will “Aggressively Persue” Fairness Doctrine

The Democrats, according to the American Spectator, are going to aggressively persue the Fairness Doctrine.

The decision to press for re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine now seems to have developed for two reasons. “First, [Democrats] failed on the radio airwaves with Air America, no one wanted to listen,” says a senior adviser to Pelosi. “Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don’t want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008.”

So basically, the Democrats admit that the goal of this bill is to eliminate any voice opposed to them. They’re also directly targeting Fred Thompson because of his role as an actor and his radio commentaries on ABC radio.

Who are the first targets of this purge:

According to another Democrat leadership aide, Pelosi and her team are focused on several targets in the fight, including Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network. In fact, Kucinich’s staff has begun investigating Salem, one of the fastest growing radio networks in the country, which features such popular — and highly rated — conservative hosts as Bill Bennett and Michael Medved, and Christian hosts such as Dr. Richard Land.

Basically, Commissars Pelosi and Kucinich are going after Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network for having impure thoughts.

I don’t know guys, what part of the First Amendment don’t you get.

h/t: QandO.

I’m one of the original co-founders of The Liberty Papers all the way back in 2005. Since then, I wound up doing this blogging thing professionally. Now I’m running the site now. You can find my other work at The and Rare. You can also find me over at the R Street Institute.
  • Mertens

    The Fairness Doctrine will be vetoed by GWB this time around.

    If Hillary gets in in ’08, we’re doomed.

    Go Fred!

  • Patricia

    “First, [Democrats] failed on the radio airwaves with Air America, no one wanted to listen,” says a senior adviser to Pelosi.

    Suuuuuuure, a “senior advisor to Pelosi” said that.

    The fact is, babe, that Air America personalities (like Randi Rhodes) beat conservative talk radio personalities (like Rush Limbaugh) in every market.

    When listeners are given a choice, they choose liberal discussions, because they get facts and information that help to inform them about all of the ramifications about the issues affecting their lives.

    We need an informed electorate. Conservatives, in their wisdom, failed to perceive the mistake that a Bush-Cheney administration would be. Conservatives wouldn’t hear (and wouldn’t allow anyone else to hear) contradictory information about Bush-Cheney. After 7 years of a failed administration whose policies are driving America over a cliff, conservatives still have a hard time admitting what a colossal mistake they made and want to choose who shall replace Bush-Cheney on 1/20/09.

    “I dunt thin so, Loosey!”

  • tarran


    This is interesting – are you saying that Air America was so badly managed that it couldn’t turn a profit despite attracting larger audiences than the commercially successful “conservative” talk-radio?

    I can’t abide by socialism, wether right wing or left wing, so I avoid political radio. I had just assumed Air America’s failure had to do with poor product.

  • Patricia

    are you saying that Air America was so badly managed that it couldn’t turn a profit despite attracting larger audiences than the commercially successful “conservative” talk-radio?

    You’re confusing (at least) two different things.

    First there is the actual radio station Air America (or what people think “radio” means: a radio station or studio, one physical location or plant where on-air personalities/producers/engineers go to produce their radio program). Then there are the radio stations (like a 5000 watt station in Barstow) and/or networks (like many radio or radio and TV stations across the country owned by a media company, such as Clear Channel or CBS or Salem). And then there are the (liberal) programs themselves that are produced for and identified as “Air America” radio shows, but are syndicated, individually, to stations (like those owned by Clear Channel). And then there is the syndicator itself, like Air America syndicates programs it produces to other radio networks.

    It is a fact that when put on head-to-head, in the same market, against shows like Limbaugh’s (and he’s the top-rated among the conservative radio hosts), Air America’s shows (some, not all) got better ratings. In markets where Randi Rhodes is up against Limbaugh (typically in metropolitan areas, like Miami) , she leaves him in the dust. And if you thought about that for longer than the Limbaugh dismissive soundbyte, you’d realize it’s true. We live and work and drive in earshot of the radio, just as conservatives do. Why wouldn’t we listen to the radio as conservatives do? If conservatives wouldn’t listen to liberal programs (and you say that you “avoid political radio,” why would liberals ‘prefer’ listening to conservative radio? Does that make any sense to you at all? I’ve heard conservatives say that when they have claimed, as you have, that Air America “failed because people don’t like listening to liberal radio,” and the logic eludes me. Have you ever heard that liberals like Limbaugh? Why would we listen to him if we don’t have to? Like in the car when the entire market is owned by conservative syndicates so that the choice for hearing a live conversation while driving is between Limbaugh or Hannity or Mike Gallagher or Dave Gold or Michael Savage, etc. Do conservatives believe that liberals like being aggravated? Do conservatives prefer aggravation? Again, you say you don’t listen, “can’t abide socialism,” so why would we prefer to listen to someone we can’t abide?

    Liberals buy and consume products, just as conservatives do. We are just as susceptible to advertising as you are. We spend equally, if not a little more than, what conservatives spend.

    The problems that Air America (the original ‘parent’ company) has had (and, they’re still alive and still kicking) isn’t “the liberal content,” but rather a constellation of problems having to do with 1) Company mismanagement, young amateurs (like Evan Cohen, who some might and could legitimately call a crook) undertook this enterprise, a start-up requiring skills, savvy and a greater financial cushion that was beyond the people who undertook this project, 2) Particularly challenged by an industry that isn’t set up for or governed by free market forces (contrary to what Conservative radio critics tell their listeners), 3) Other monopolistic practices in the industry (Armed Forces Radio shutting out Air America programs because of “political content” but broadcasting Limbaugh, for example) during a presidential administration that’s been working on every front to consolidate it’s own power, Republican power, deregulate and transfer public property to corporations, and prevent the populist government that Air America programs celebrate.

    You say you “avoid political radio” so you wouldn’t know that Air America has some great programs. They are only political in that all of life is political. Without exception (ok, maybe exclude Mike Malloy, which can be described as the liberal’s Limbaugh), the programs on Air America are (and were) very interesting, informative, funny and entertaining. You get some good solid, “the whole story,” interviews and discussions.

  • tarran

    If all of life is indeed political, than we are close to collapse. Rothbard’s review of Franz Oppenheimer’s The State explains it well:

    In essence, he said, there are only two ways for men to acquire wealth. The first method is by producing a good or a service and voluntarily exchanging that good for the product of somebody else. This is the method of exchange, the method of the free market; it’s creative and expands production; it is not a zero-sum game because production expands and both parties to the exchange benefit. Oppenheimer called this method the “economic means” for the acquisition of wealth.
    The second method is seizing another person’s property without his consent, i.e., by robbery, exploitation, looting. When you seize someone’s prop­erty without his consent, then you are benefiting at his expense, at the expense of the producer; here is truly a zero-sum “game”–not much of a “game,” by the way, from the point of view of the victim. Instead of expanding production, this method of robbery clearly hobbles and restricts production.So in addition to being immoral while peaceful exchange is moral, the method of robbery hobbles production because it is parasitic upon the effort of the producers.
    With brilliant astuteness, Oppenheimer called this method of obtaining wealth “the political means.” And then he went on to define the state, or government, as “the organization of the political means,” i.e., the regularization, legiti­mation, and permanent establishment of the political means for the acquisition of wealth.
    In other words, the state is organized theft, organized robbery, organized exploitation. And this essential nature of the state is high­lighted by the fact that the state ever rests upon the crucial instrument of taxation.

    A society where there is no security, where anything I make can be taken away from me, a society of graspers instead of makers would be both unpleasant to live in and doomed to collapse. Like a tree whose innards have been eaten away by disease and insects who exudes an appearance of strength and solidity until one day a wind or a bit of snow overwhelms it and it collapses in a shower of punk and rot, such a society is doomed to disintegration.