Does FCC stand for F*** CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS?

Perhaps.

This week our new president created a bit of buzz in the circles of conservative intelligentsia. Speaking to GOP House leaders on the new bloated spending ... err ... I mean"stimulus" package Obama warned, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." The leader of the free world sounds rather too focused on a single radio host, if you ask me. And in Rush's response he seemed to agree: "He [Obama] is obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party." I would agree.

Now Drudge is reporting that those same GOP House leaders are warning Rush to back off of the criticism of both them, and get this now, President Obama! They don't think the public can stomach partisan politics right now - I read that as they're afraid they'll be charged as racists or obstructionists in the path of the chosen one - and that he (Rush) should remember that they could lose a battle with Democrats over The Fairness Doctrine.

And THERE it is - the back drop for which all this chatter about Rush, by the president, is set against, The Fairness Doctrine. Now there were more then a couple aspects to this doctrine but the long and short of it is this. It was instated by the FCC in 1949. It says that if you allow editorial comments or commentary on controversial issues from one point of view, that you are required - in order to maintain your broadcast license - to air the opposing point of view. It was meant, at a time of limited news source (read: before cable, Internet and a plethora of periodicals) to ensure "both sides" (presumably between Republicans and Democrats) would be heard. This is separate and away from the "Equal Time" requirement of political candidates mind you. We are talking private citizens. Over the years its legality has been challenged in court, many times.

Now, the FCC is governed by a 5 person commission. FCC policy is voted in or out by this commission, in majority fashion. Every commissioner is appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serves a 5 year term. The law states that no more then 3 of the commissioners can be of a single political party at a time. Right now it is 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats, bare that in mind. In the 80's, when the FCC became a 3 - 2 Republican majority, The Fairness Doctrine was abolished. It died a long death with various court challenges and piece meal repeals by the FCC, but under the Reagan FCC it was abolished in total. In fact Democrat law makers passed legislation in 1987 attempting to codify this FCC rule as law - Reagan vetoed it. Bush 41 told Tip O'Neal point blank when the issue again arose, "I'll veto it." Well - THAT abolishment is what made Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty, et al possible. A radio station manager could now put on Rush for 3 hours, sell millions in advertising and not have to worry about putting on a liberal the next day to counter him. It turned the A.M. talk radio dogma of "local, local, local" on its head, because now you could set up a regularly scheduled political opinion program like Rush, without having to make time for the alternative opinion the next day. It allowed the most talented hosts a regular format without interruption in scheduling or monologue. That combined with a national hunger among conservatives to find SOMEONE in media that didn't have a liberal bias caused an explosion of conservative talk radio into the billion dollar business that it is today.

Now, back to the current FCC make up. Deborah Tate is resigning at the end of her term this month. Why? She knows full well that President Obama will not resubmit her name, she's a Republican. Obama will invariably replace her with a Democrat. Why is that important? it will then be a 3-2 Democrat commission and Senator Dick Durbin (D) IL, John Kerry, various Democrat House members too numerous to mention (a total of 24) have been making rumblings of reinstating The Fairness Doctrine, even discussing what the reinstated rule would look like (superficial modifications), all the way up to now making it a law given no threat of veto would come from a President Obama. What affect would this have? Destroy talk radio in its current form. For every issue Rush et al comment on in a Monday program, station managers would have to air the alternative opinion on Tuesday. It would destroy the format. The market has decided the winners and losers in ideological A.M. talk radio and a government mandate to give 50% of the way time is currently structured on talk radio to the ratings "losers", well stations will just opt for Top 40, or classic rock. A.M. conservative talk radio would die a quick death.

Now you may say - "so what, they'll go to Sirrius." Well that's not the point. The government has no business in regulating political speech of private citizens on public airways the way it does obscenities and pornography, or even actual candidates. This is a First Amendment issue. Not to mention, if a free program accessed by switiching on any ol' little radio has to move to a subscriber based satellite broadcast, the commercial sales will plummet through the floor, because so will the amount of listeners. And Democrats know all of this. Rather then try and compete, or being satisfied with owning the loyalty and bias of 90% of major newspapers; NBC; ABC; CBS; CNN; MSNBC, they still desire to squelch the last major, popular, ideological opposition. They aren't in the business of beating us anymore, if this happens, they're trying to destroy us, as a movement. With the flick of Obama's pen followed by a single 5 person "aye", free speech on the radio airways will be a thing of the past.

****
The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
-Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

So now political speech, the most protected and vital type of speech is akin to pornography and vulgarity if it takes the form of criticism of President Obama and his ideological comrades?

****
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. 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.”
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Old fashioned? This is the same "gentleman" whom accused our GITMO interrogators, members of the US military, of acts "... reminiscent of PolPot, Nazi Germany, and Soviet Gulags." It was conservative talk radio that forever dubbed him: "Turban Durbin."

****
“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

And as we all know ... NPR is fair and balanced, right Dianne?

In an age with countless resources of electronic media they want to squelch the strongest refuge of their harshest critics by shamelessly advocating GOVERNMENT MANDATED POLITICAL PROGRAMMING on the radio. Does anyone besides myself find that a frightening prospect?