Skip to content

The Fairness Doctrine: Democrat’s Attack on the Freedom of the Press

July 17, 2007

Durbin said the government has the right to regulate talk radio, because the airwaves belong to the American people.

  Does that statement make any sense to you? The airways belong to the people, so we must regulate it? If the airways belong to the people, shouldn’t the government stay away? I think so, but I am not smart enough to make my own decisions, so the government will tell me what to listen to.

  The free market has determined that talk radio should be dominated by conservative talk. Conservative talk is what makes money, so conservative talk is what many stations offer. There is NPR and Air America trying to promote liberal talk, but liberal talk has not been successful so now the Democrats want to force it on the American people. The liberals already own all the other outlets of the media, but it is noy good enough for them, they need to conquer talk radio also. They want to eliminate opposing views instead of debating them.

He (Durbin) challenged Coleman’s faith in the free market, asking him what he would do “if the marketplace fails to provide” alternative voices.

  Talk radio does not provide the point of view that Durbin sees fit so the marketplace needs to be regulated. Once again the Democrats need to regulate something they don’t agree with in the effort to stifle it. The marketplace needs to be regulated until the Democrats agree with the end result. This seems very similar to communism if you ask me.

Coleman said he believes that conservative opinion dominates talk radio because of a demand for more conservative voices on the airwaves. “In the end consumers also have a right, based on the market, to make choices and so if they make choices that they want to hear more of one side than the other, then that’s okay,” he argued.

  People have the right to make choices? What a radical concept. Huh? The fact that people should be able to listen to what they want? This man need political re-education. Doesn’t he realize that Americans constantly make the wrong choices and must be told what they can say, eat, smoke, and listen to. The days of personal responsibility are gone.

“Government shouldn’t be monitoring and regulating content,” he added.

  In all seriousness now. The above statement does sum it up perfectly. When the government starts to monitor and regulate content then we really are heading down the path to socialism which leads to communism.

  Whatever has happened to the freedom of the press?

  You can read the whole story here

3 Comments leave one →
  1. Ryan's avatar
    July 18, 2007 10:30 am

    It amazes me that this topic won’t die. What’s really confusing is as to why this thing won’t die. The dems keep working to keep it afloat, which if you ask me just tells us that the dems don’t believe that we are smart enough to listen to what we want. I guess I didn’t realize that we were all brainwashed and that it takes the heroes in the United States congress to swoop in and save us from the mind-controlling brain waves called conservative talk radio.

    Do you ever wonder how it has come to be that the democrats have lost so much faith in the free market and the people of this country? Between things like this to national health care to federal swimming pool legislation, it certainly seems like the democrats don’t have any faith in our ability to think and function for ourselves. It’s weird and kind of disturbing.

    Like

  2. Nolan's avatar
    July 18, 2007 4:39 pm

    I do some consulting with the NAB on media issues and am also perplexed as to how some are calling for the return of a one-size-fits all federal regulation that was unnecessary and obsolete 20 years ago. Certainly we all can agree that the media landscape has changed ever so slightly in those two decades and we now have more options than ever to get our news, information and entertainment how and when we want it.

    The so-called “fairness doctrine” wasn’t fair in that it only applied to broadcasters and it actually led to less debate in controversial issues. Broadcasters simply avoided these issues rather than risk receiving a complaint that they hadn’t covered all sides of an issue, a rather subjective thing to determine. Today with the tremendous options in TV and online why on earth would this make sense?

    Like

  3. Steve Dennis's avatar
    July 18, 2007 8:54 pm

    I think the Democrats know they can’t win the debate on many issues so instead of trying they will just try to silence the opposition. It’s for our own good you know.

    Like

Leave a reply to arclightzero Cancel reply