Well, Whaddya Know
It appears, from a new Gallup poll, that Congress has a lower approval rating that the President. That's saying a lot, folks. Now with all the references to "what the American people want", does this not mean that Nancy Pelosi and company should abandon their socialist policies, including their cut and run rhetoric? I mean if the Democrats rely so heavily on polls, saying they so accurately determine what the American voter wants, doesn't this mean that they should change their course of action? Shouldn't they abandon their misguided state of denial? Oh, right, polls don't really mean that much now. Of course they don't. But to hear the Dems outlandish speeches and hypocrisy on the matter, you would think what the people say and think actually matters to them. But of course, only when the winds blow their way.
On another matter, it's been well over 100 days since the Democrats assumed control of both houses of Congress, but yet they have not passed any real legislative bills with any real meat to them (not even the attempted political point-scoring, pork-filled troop-funding bills)
They raised the minimum wage. Well, chalk one up for them. However, they have managed to install one of the most corrupt and hypocritical bodies of Congress in the nation's history. From Barney Frank and William Jefferson's indiscretions, to Nancy Pelosi's persona non-grata on the union front. Is this the will of the people?
And have you heard that Ms. Pelosi and company (notably Dennis Kucinich) have once again brought up the issue of installing the "fairness doctrine?" Lets call this fiasco what it is, censorship. It is an attempt to legitimize the left's whining and crying about being killed in the ratings pertaining to cable t.v. and talk-radio. There's a reason why conservatives own liberals in these mediums. Because people don't want to hear the left's whining, complaining, fabrications and total hypocrisy from losers like Al Franken, who by the way wants to be Minnesota's next jr. senator. He will be humbled, to say the least. He's trailing waaaay far behind by the way, not because Minnesotans don't know him and his far-left insanity, but quite the contrary, because they do, quite well. Whatever happened to Air America? Oh right....
But as for the fairness doctrine, everybody knows they only want to have a say in what goes on in the land of conservative opinion. Does this mean people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage will get to sit next to Chris Matthews or Katie Couric and refute their verbal diarrhea? Don't count on it. If they want ratings, they should start being honest, or least fake it (of course, that's what they're doing now)
The free exchange of ideas is more prevalent now than it ever was, even more than it was when the doctrine was first brought up in 1987. The left thinks that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" needs to be monitored. The reality is, the left simply doesn't trust the people to choose their own source of information or entertainment. I don't think this is going to apply to mainstream television. No, only where politics and the outing of liberal hypocrisy is concerned. Why aren't there more liberal radio talk-shows? Is it that phantom "conservative conspiracy"? No, like I've stated, it's simply that liberal radio doesn't have the intelligence, guts or staying power. Do you honestly think that people enjoy the unintelligent and uninformed rants of the aforementioned Al Franken? Why do so many liberals listen to people like Limbaugh, Savage, Matt Drudge or Michael Medved? The same reason why Howard Stern gained so many listeners in the beginning, not because people liked him so much, it was because people wanted to hear what shocking thing he was going to say next. Do you think for one little second if the situation was reversed and liberal talk-radio commanded such ratings that the loose cannons in Washington and elsewhere would be up in arms over this? Hardly. Why do you think that Limbaugh's popularity took off so quick so soon after his radio debut, not to mention his television one. The mere fact that conservative radio exploded after the demise of the original fairness doctrine, in which liberals-as they do now-owned television before the days of cable, which they weren't complaining about by the way, nor were conservatives, shows the true nature of the free market. It's censorship folks, pure and simple.
Here's something on it from Captain's Quarters
Kucinich To Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine
The continuing impact of the Democratic takeover of Congress has just gotten worse. In a little-noticed development from this weekend, Dennis Kucinich announced that he would use his position on a House government-reform subcommittee to focus on the Federal Communications Commission -- and that the Fairness Doctrine may make a comeback:
Over the weekend, the National Conference for Media Reform was held in Memphis, TN, with a number of notable speakers on hand for the event. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.
The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding "hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington.” The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news public early.
In addition to media ownership, the committee is expected to focus its attention on issues such as net neutrality and major telecommunications mergers. Also in consideration is the "Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner. It was enforced until it was eliminated in 1987.
The Fairness Doctrine did not require broadcasters to present issues in a "fair and honest manner"; it required them to turn their stations into ping-ponging punditry if they allowed opinion to appear on the air at all. It created such a complicated formula that most broadcasters simply refused to air any political programming, as it created a liability for station owners for being held hostage to all manner of complaints about lack of balance.
Congress and the Reagan administration repealed the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, and it allowed a market for political opinion to flourish. It also revitalized the AM band, which had been badly eclipsed for music broadcasting during the 1970s due to the rise of static-free FM stations. Radio stations could air local and syndicated talk shows without having to worry about metering time between differing viewpoints, allowing the station owners to reflect the market and their own personal preferences for politcal viewpoints.
Why would Kucinich want to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine and kill off the AM band and talk radio? Because his allies have proven less successful than conservatives at building a market for their broadcasts. Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and a slew of conservative thinkers carved out an industry out of the AM wilderness, and the Al Frankens and Wendy Wildes can't keep up without government intervention. Air America would lose as well in this scenario, but I'm sure Kucinich sees that as a fair trade, and for good reason.
Democrats aren't wasting much time in rolling back free speech now that they have the majority. Putting Kucinich in charge of domestic policy reform was no mistake on their part. They want to kill talk radio, and if they manage to hold their majority and win the White House in 2008, they just might do it.
Maybe they could start with getting rid of incompetents like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann ("a monkey posing as a journalist") Merideth Veira and the like. There's a reason why the CBS Evening News' ratings are even lower before Couric took over. But to stifle free speech, which the left pretends to believe in, is not only unconstitutional, but criminal. Instead of playing by the rules, they want to change them. I'm telling you, if they keep this up, come November, 2008, they're outta here.
Of course, they say nothing of the MSM or the major television networks and their obvious bias. Yeah, yeah, I know, what bias? All I have to say to that is, don't make me laugh. There is no doubt that conservatives control the radio airwaves; at last count the numbers hover around the 80 percent mark. But I don't hear the public complaining, at least not enough to make a difference. The bottom line is, regardless of where their ideology lies, it's good radio. It's no coincidence that Limbaugh draws approximately 20 million listeners a day and Bill O'Reilly, regardless of what you think of him, draws three times the numbers than that of Olbermann on MSNBC. As I said, will conservatives be allowed to rebuke the likes of Matthews and Olberloon? Look folks, let's be honest, this is a conservative witch-hunt, because liberals are losing, and they know it. But all of this is really much ado about nothing, me thinks, because it will never get through Congress, nor the high courts.
Hey, did you hear Congress' approval numbers are now lower than the President's?
On another matter, it's been well over 100 days since the Democrats assumed control of both houses of Congress, but yet they have not passed any real legislative bills with any real meat to them (not even the attempted political point-scoring, pork-filled troop-funding bills)
They raised the minimum wage. Well, chalk one up for them. However, they have managed to install one of the most corrupt and hypocritical bodies of Congress in the nation's history. From Barney Frank and William Jefferson's indiscretions, to Nancy Pelosi's persona non-grata on the union front. Is this the will of the people?
And have you heard that Ms. Pelosi and company (notably Dennis Kucinich) have once again brought up the issue of installing the "fairness doctrine?" Lets call this fiasco what it is, censorship. It is an attempt to legitimize the left's whining and crying about being killed in the ratings pertaining to cable t.v. and talk-radio. There's a reason why conservatives own liberals in these mediums. Because people don't want to hear the left's whining, complaining, fabrications and total hypocrisy from losers like Al Franken, who by the way wants to be Minnesota's next jr. senator. He will be humbled, to say the least. He's trailing waaaay far behind by the way, not because Minnesotans don't know him and his far-left insanity, but quite the contrary, because they do, quite well. Whatever happened to Air America? Oh right....
But as for the fairness doctrine, everybody knows they only want to have a say in what goes on in the land of conservative opinion. Does this mean people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage will get to sit next to Chris Matthews or Katie Couric and refute their verbal diarrhea? Don't count on it. If they want ratings, they should start being honest, or least fake it (of course, that's what they're doing now)
The free exchange of ideas is more prevalent now than it ever was, even more than it was when the doctrine was first brought up in 1987. The left thinks that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" needs to be monitored. The reality is, the left simply doesn't trust the people to choose their own source of information or entertainment. I don't think this is going to apply to mainstream television. No, only where politics and the outing of liberal hypocrisy is concerned. Why aren't there more liberal radio talk-shows? Is it that phantom "conservative conspiracy"? No, like I've stated, it's simply that liberal radio doesn't have the intelligence, guts or staying power. Do you honestly think that people enjoy the unintelligent and uninformed rants of the aforementioned Al Franken? Why do so many liberals listen to people like Limbaugh, Savage, Matt Drudge or Michael Medved? The same reason why Howard Stern gained so many listeners in the beginning, not because people liked him so much, it was because people wanted to hear what shocking thing he was going to say next. Do you think for one little second if the situation was reversed and liberal talk-radio commanded such ratings that the loose cannons in Washington and elsewhere would be up in arms over this? Hardly. Why do you think that Limbaugh's popularity took off so quick so soon after his radio debut, not to mention his television one. The mere fact that conservative radio exploded after the demise of the original fairness doctrine, in which liberals-as they do now-owned television before the days of cable, which they weren't complaining about by the way, nor were conservatives, shows the true nature of the free market. It's censorship folks, pure and simple.
Here's something on it from Captain's Quarters
Kucinich To Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine
The continuing impact of the Democratic takeover of Congress has just gotten worse. In a little-noticed development from this weekend, Dennis Kucinich announced that he would use his position on a House government-reform subcommittee to focus on the Federal Communications Commission -- and that the Fairness Doctrine may make a comeback:
Over the weekend, the National Conference for Media Reform was held in Memphis, TN, with a number of notable speakers on hand for the event. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.
The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding "hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington.” The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news public early.
In addition to media ownership, the committee is expected to focus its attention on issues such as net neutrality and major telecommunications mergers. Also in consideration is the "Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner. It was enforced until it was eliminated in 1987.
The Fairness Doctrine did not require broadcasters to present issues in a "fair and honest manner"; it required them to turn their stations into ping-ponging punditry if they allowed opinion to appear on the air at all. It created such a complicated formula that most broadcasters simply refused to air any political programming, as it created a liability for station owners for being held hostage to all manner of complaints about lack of balance.
Congress and the Reagan administration repealed the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, and it allowed a market for political opinion to flourish. It also revitalized the AM band, which had been badly eclipsed for music broadcasting during the 1970s due to the rise of static-free FM stations. Radio stations could air local and syndicated talk shows without having to worry about metering time between differing viewpoints, allowing the station owners to reflect the market and their own personal preferences for politcal viewpoints.
Why would Kucinich want to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine and kill off the AM band and talk radio? Because his allies have proven less successful than conservatives at building a market for their broadcasts. Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and a slew of conservative thinkers carved out an industry out of the AM wilderness, and the Al Frankens and Wendy Wildes can't keep up without government intervention. Air America would lose as well in this scenario, but I'm sure Kucinich sees that as a fair trade, and for good reason.
Democrats aren't wasting much time in rolling back free speech now that they have the majority. Putting Kucinich in charge of domestic policy reform was no mistake on their part. They want to kill talk radio, and if they manage to hold their majority and win the White House in 2008, they just might do it.
Maybe they could start with getting rid of incompetents like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann ("a monkey posing as a journalist") Merideth Veira and the like. There's a reason why the CBS Evening News' ratings are even lower before Couric took over. But to stifle free speech, which the left pretends to believe in, is not only unconstitutional, but criminal. Instead of playing by the rules, they want to change them. I'm telling you, if they keep this up, come November, 2008, they're outta here.
Of course, they say nothing of the MSM or the major television networks and their obvious bias. Yeah, yeah, I know, what bias? All I have to say to that is, don't make me laugh. There is no doubt that conservatives control the radio airwaves; at last count the numbers hover around the 80 percent mark. But I don't hear the public complaining, at least not enough to make a difference. The bottom line is, regardless of where their ideology lies, it's good radio. It's no coincidence that Limbaugh draws approximately 20 million listeners a day and Bill O'Reilly, regardless of what you think of him, draws three times the numbers than that of Olbermann on MSNBC. As I said, will conservatives be allowed to rebuke the likes of Matthews and Olberloon? Look folks, let's be honest, this is a conservative witch-hunt, because liberals are losing, and they know it. But all of this is really much ado about nothing, me thinks, because it will never get through Congress, nor the high courts.
Hey, did you hear Congress' approval numbers are now lower than the President's?
posted by Northern Exposer at 13:07
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home