Axelrod was asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” about the “spreading and very public disaffection” with the president’s fiscal policies seen at the “Tea Party” rallies around the country last week.
“I think any time you have severe economic conditions there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that’s unhealthy,” Axelrod said.
Of course here it is right from the horse’s ***
The story does not end there there is a push behind the scenes to undermine free speech altogether. They are working behind the scenes to resurrect the “Fairness Doctrine” As a lifelong broadcaster I can tell you that the fairness doctrine was a dismal failure. Most stations shied away from any controversial subjects and stuck to a music format to avoid being found in violation as Fox’s Alan Colmes points out.
You don’t see them pushing for fairness in the printed press which for the most part has a very liberal bias. As one that has been activly fighting the smoking ban it is just short of impossible to get a dissenting opinion even though the facts back you up. What they are complaining about is the popularity of right wing talk radio. They tried to counter this popularity with their own network (Air America) which was a dismal failure and wound up in bankruptcy.
On October 13, 2006 mounting debts forced Air America Radio to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company was bought by Green Family Media, made up of New York real estate investor Stephen L. Green and his brother Mark J. Green, who closed on the purchase of the network on March 6, 2007 for US$ 4.25 million.
Now any business is going to put out a product that brings them profit, not one that will put them into bankruptcy yet the brilliant liberals would force broadcasters to put on programs that would have no listeners and would put them into financial ruin.
Tested in Court
The fairness doctrine’s constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster’s First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule’s constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine “inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate” (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC’s action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress.
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.
Schumer compares Fairness Doctrine to regulating porn
This is not about fairness at all. It is about the progressives/socialist controlling what you watch and listen to. The free market is the ultimate in freedom.
Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.
Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.
Of all arguments for the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, the most inaccurate and insidious is that it will permit a greater diversity of opinion to be heard. By requiring, under threat of arbitrary legal penalty, that broadcasters “fairly” represent both sides of a given issue, advocates of the doctrine believe that more views will be aired while the editorial content of the station can remain unaltered. But with the threat of potential FCC retaliation for perceived lack of compliance, most broadcasters would be more reluctant to air their own opinions because it might require them to air alternative perspectives that their audience does not want to hear.
As long as I am on the free speech kick I find it ironic that there is a push to ban the book about banning books, now is that irony or what?