The Ultimate Deception: "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" & Silencing the American Media

On Sunday evening (06/16/08)I was watching the program, "Strategy Room," on Foxnews. There were the usual participants of political pundancy, Bret Baier (moderator/host), Kate Obenshein, Bob Beckel, and two faces that I had previously not seen on the program--one Democratic; one Republican.

About half-way through the program Bob Beckle questioned the legitimacy of reporters asking questions of political candidates concerning perspective rumors surrounding them in the midst of a campaign. This point arose out of the necessity of the Presidential campaign of Sen. Barack H. Obama (D-Ill.) to set up his own web-site (http://www.fightthesmears.com/) to stop the rumor mongering that had circulated during and after the democratic primary season.

Mr. Beckel had said, to paraphrase, ...
......that if reporters do not have any facts or evidence to support a question then those members of the press should NOT ask the question.

All I could do was gulp, and ask myself, "huh? Did Bob Beckel say what I thought he just said?"

I watched the program twice last Sunday evening to make sure that what I heard was correct; It was.

While I sometimes appreciate and enjoy Mr. Beckel's long political experience and his rather home-spun, down-to-earth humor, the fact that he would make such a declaratory statement requiring members of a free and open press to have "facts" before asking the question defeats the purpose for asking it, doesn't it?

I had always thought it was advantageous for reporters to ask candidates questions so that the person running for office would have the opportunity to set the record straight on an issue. Either deny it flat out, do a song 'n dance, put a spin on it, etc; Or simply say "no comment" and lets move on....If you disagree with me please feel free to let me know (Gritsfed@gmail.com).

Regrettably in this day and age of "gotcha politics" I can understand how political opportunists do not appreciate being confronted with the truth; While simultaneously recognizing that some unscrupulous reporters with a hidden cause might ask a "gotcha" question to just create a "buzz" while possibly diminishing a perspective office holder's reputation in doing so. In other words, a reporter with a murky agenda bringing something up to just create an illusion of improprioty.
(Does the attempted smear job against an honorable man like John McCain (R-Az) by the New York Times for wrongful allegation concerning a Washington lobbyist a few months ago ring a bell here?)

Senator McCain that very day was given the opportunity to stand before the press (and the nation) and clarify the record. He took some questions from the reporters which helped to straighten out a matter where, frankly, there was no matter or issue to begin with.

Along with the relief that many, including myself, enjoyed that Mr. McCain's reputation was still intact; There should have been a louder, collective, hallajuah!! in that only in an open society such as ours the freeworkings of the press worked in helping to clear his name and reputation.

Chalk up another one to our founding Fathers who knew exactly what they were doing where in the first amendment to our constitution they made it very clear that we MUST have a free press. (see below)

Realistically for those in the press the professionalism of the institution itself should weed out those who may be bent on an agenda to smear otherwise good people's names. Furthermore, the perspective candidate or individual should ignore that particular person or group who simply want to make a stir by asking stupid questions that do not even deserve a response. And leave it up to the rest of us, either individually or as a whole, to determine whether a response should have been warranted.

However, as the "unofficial" fourth branch of our government (free press) reporters should be given perfect leeway to ask a reasonable question they may not have all the answers to so that hopefully they'll be able to report the facts fairly. Likewise I believe that political figures, those running for office or anyone who has a question to arise concerning themselves and their character should be given the opportunity (as Senator McCain did)to respond to it; Let everyone know the truth or in some cases, as the facts may reveal, further discredit themselves.

In a nutshell, if the press isn't allowed to ask probing questions then John McCain and Barack Obama (nor any other public figure for that matter) would not have a venue to quash rumors that amount to no more than innuendo, and then set the record straight on whatever issue or circumstance has been brought into question.

And I really believe that was what the founding Fathers intended when they wanted to insure this newly formed Republic had a free and open press. To them the truth would always set and help keep American's free. That is why some through out history have alluded to the press (media) as the fourth "unofficial" branch of our Government.

More importantly however and for the balance of this writing, the comments of Mr. Beckel (a Democrat) reignited a sentinel issue that I believe hangs in the balance with the upcoming Presidential election.

For several years now the debate over the Fairness Doctrine has repeatedly been bantered around by a large power vacuum in our nation's capital. And as Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has stated, it is a "misnamed" piece of legislation! And the Senator is absolutely correct!

In effect, the Fairness Doctrine, in the language which it has evolved recently will require media outlets to present a "balance of opinion" concerning political points of view as it relates to their prespective programming .

Now that may sound harmless enough on the surface but here is what it is really all about:

The Fairness Doctrine which has in one form or another existed since 1929 in its recent or contemporary outline will force radio stations to go through the burdensome step of presenting another point of view in addition to current "talk"programming. In other words, to borrow from Dick Morris, "if you are given three hourse of Sean Hannity on the radio station then the station will be obligated by law to give three hours to Allen Colmes." But the fact is that this newly designed legislation isn't really about fairness at all! It is designed to put current day conservative talk (i.e, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan, Laura Ingram, Bill O'Reilly, etc.) either out of business or force the stations to present counter-programming that, if the radio outlets(station managers) do not, they would probably be looking at best, a lawsiut, and at worse, prison.

Yeap, you heard it right friends, in America radio station owners and program directors could get into serious trouble for violating a new Fairness Doctrine if it actually becomes the law!

Still not convinced, try this.........

The far left has been unable to sustain a marketable political program (or programing) to rival the present day, talk radio behemoth's mentioned earlier and other small market radio programs that are very similar to them.

In fact, "Air America," the left-of-center, progressive, radio and Internet programming network that has been on the air since March of 2004, had to be pulled from the progeny of bankruptcy by the "Green Family Media" group in the fall of 2007. Air America was the left wings first, great hope to at least score a notch in the overwhelming success that has been enjoyed for nearly two decades by conservative talk radio. Obviously it didn't!

And in this failed effort one can't help but sense the otherwise vocal frustration that can, and most probably will from their political point of view, dictate legislative action to mute the voices of public discourse and an open assessment of public policy should the Democrats take control of the House, Senate and White House this January. In other words the left can't beat nor compete with conservative talk radio. So how will they try to shut it up? Enact new laws [Fairness Doctrine] that will force them to be shut down!!!

Why has conservative talk been so successful you ask?
Unlike the liberal leaning, Air America, and other left-of-center mediums, the conservative talk radio format enters not only the home but the marketplace. Why? Conservative talk radio reaches many who go about their day-to-day activities without the opportunity or time to exploit internet and television venues that are controlled by a more left-of-center establishments.

In other words, most conservative talk radio listeners are those who go about their business, work hard, raise their families and can't spend long hours being brain-washed by vegetating in front of mostly liberal television news outlets! (this is where I get to mention Oprah Winfrey) Most of talk radio listeners don't have an agenda except to raise their families, do their jobs, live respectful life, pay their bills and carve out their share of the American dream, love their country without all that leftest television nonsense to work their way through.

Perhaps just as importantly however, conservative talk radio exposes the realities of the agenda of the other side in a common sense, educated, understandable format. It is often hosted by educated professionals who care about our country and what happens to it! In most cases it isn't being hosted by political opportunists who are bent on "spinnning " a position to make themselves look good at the countries immediate or long term expense.

And how this comports with the aforementioned comments of Mr. Beckel should be obvious?

Simply, Mr. Beckel's comments are part of the underlying ideology that permeates the current wave in many a Democratic ideology. Shut up the press! Shut up the conservative talk venue so they (the left) can be home free to do anything without any public accountability or scrutiny. And the average citizen would then be left to languish with a more tilted, left-wing coverage, more tasteful to the Democrats palate.

In short to push their socialist agenda the Democrats must have control of the information that is generated for public consumption! And conservative talk radio is a forum that leaves them frustrated in their ability (or inability) to control content--yes, it is all about their"propaganda."

Apparently, in Mr. Beckel's (and other Democrats) world, the press should not ask a question that would create further inquisition and exploration by the media which could easily and creatively draw the public into public discourse and hold elected officials accountable. Because if that happens the lefty's loose, practically, every time!

California's senior Senator Diane Feinstein gives us a further glimpse of the Democratic perspective:
"Well in my view, talk radio tends to be one sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It is explosive. It pushes people, I think, extreme views without a lot of information........This bill [Fairness Doctrine] fixes those flaws. Do I think there ought to be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view, yes, I do, particularly about the issues of the day. .....I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is one way." (Foxnews Sunday 6/24/07)

The senior Senator from California is preaching a double standard! But that isn't a surprise. Think about it! She represents people from a state that is perhaps the most influential media sector of our country, Hollywood! And hasn't that same Hollywood crowd told us for years, in effect, "if you don't like what you watch or hear (via TV and other media) change the channel?" Or, "turn off the TV!" Well, senator, many of us did! And we have turned to conservative talk radio!

So now, Senator, it is your turn!!

Tell your people not to listen and to change the channel! Interesting how what is good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander in this case, is it? But that is nothing new to the Democrats. It is always a double standard!

Obviously, the left will maintain that Hollywood is an entertainment mecca. The Senator and those of her political pursuasion will point out they are talking about public policy when it comes to talk radio. Again, sounds good, but hold on just a second.....!!!

Question, does anyone out here in "fly-over country" not believe that at least half of the "junk" coming out of Hollywood has had a detrimental impact on our society? Especially on our young people? And aren't those political folks, like Senator Feinstein, always wanting Americans, especially young Americans, to get involved in the political process? Isn't conservative talk radio is one of those venues that does just that?

Yeap, Senator, you and your friends should follow the advice of some of your fellow Californians--- change the channel if you don't like it!

But the reality is, in the case of talk radio, the shoe is now on the other foot, and the Democrats will do what they can to silence it.

Last summer the House of Representatives voted 309-115 against allowing the FCC to use tax payer money to implement the Fariness Doctrine. Predictiably, noted Democrats in the Senate like Sen. Feinstein, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Dick Durban are for it. Most Republicans are opposed.

But believe it or not, some Democrats do have the right perspective. They might not like conservative talk radio but they understand, I believe, how important free speech is to each of us--whether as a reporter, a talk radio program or just normal citizens like you and me.

"We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now," said House Appropriations Committee Chaiman David Obey(D-Wisconsin). "Rush and Sean are about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibiity by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become mostly influential or respected." (The Hill.com/Alexander Bolten/06/28/07)

We have been told where John McCain stands on the subject and his position on any proposal of the Fairness Doctrine; The question begs, WHERE IS BARACK OBAMA ON THIS ISSUE?

And it is my hope that some folks or at least someone while he or she still has the freedom to do so will get him "on the record" on this issue before the election.

Who knows? Maybe that is one reason he is avoiding the "Town Hall Debates" with Senator McCain? He and his campaign must realize that he may get asked about his position on the Fairness Doctrine; And he would then have to stand there as looking at the crowd, the camera and each American, letting them know he is going to take away one of the sacred pillars of our national fabric---freedom of speech.

No big deal though,......it really isn't that important is it? ......it is only the US Constitution which is at stake!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right to peaceable assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment I (Bill of Rights) to the Constitution of the United States.

"There is no sactuary in the First Amendment for the unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all." Supreme Court Justice Byron White.

Gritsfed