FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: A FOOLS FANTASY

Senator Chuckie Schumer (d-NY), in a pitch to become the icon of the far left, is out promoting the adoption of the "Fairness Doctrine" as the article below notes. Schumer is playing a fools game, which fits his profile, and this latest headline grab could create blow back that would cost his party dearly.

The far left in America wants to shut down any and all dissent that is at odds with their political point of view. The goal is to use the "Fairness Doctrine" to unfairly, unjustifiably, not to mention unconstitutionally, shut down conservative talk radio in particular, primarily because it is wildly popular and therefore both successful and profitable (unlike the failed, far left talk radio). Not to mention it tends to promote politics which is exactly opposed to their own.

Schumer, a Harvard Law 'Fool' graduate, compares talk radio to pornography. No wonder he is in politics rather than arguing before a jury. In case he hasn't noticed, porn is virtually everywhere except on the radio. This argument is so specious and illogical as to escape understanding. Broadcasting porn on television is wholly unrelated to listening to a political point of view on the radio, and any reasonably sane, normal human being can grasp that obvious point.

To try and fall back on the "fair and balanced" argument is further silliness in action. Is every broadcast outlet in the electronic media going to be subject to providing each and every viewer or listener with both sides of every issue, every opinion and every story? Of course not, and of course that is not what he means. He is not interested in that approach being applied to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR or public television. No. The "fair and balanced" fiat is only to be applied to conservative talk radio. Why? Because Chuckie doesn't agree with what much of that programing speaks to and advocates. Trained as an advocate himself, he does not want to tolerate any advocacy different from his own. Sound sort of tyrannical or dictatorial? Maybe something Stalin or Chairman Mao might do were they in charge?

An honest and courageous stance, like that noted in the cartoon above, is clearly in line with the founding American traditions of freedom and liberty. It is an important and substantive concept. We live in a freedom loving country that has, throughout it's history, stood up for and sacrificed lives for the right to be a free people. Americans know they have the freedom to listen to, watch, speak about and read whatever they choose. Including porn, NPR, Chuckie Schumer or Keith Olbermann. Conversely, any of us can choose not to be exposed to any of that or anything else for that matter.

Unlike those in many other countries, we are free to choose. Should we hear, see or read something with which we agree or disagree and we wish to know the opposing view, we are free to seek that out, wherever we may find it. No one has to spoon feed us one way or the other. Americans are fully capable of taking care of themselves. If we are not interested in the opposing view, we are free to ignore it. In other words we can change the channel, set down the book, periodical or newspaper, or walk out of the speech.

There is no need for a "Fairness Doctrine" that would, in fact, take away or liberty to do what we choose to do without interference from our government. Our political leaders have no right to limit our God given, Constitutionally granted freedom. Democrat politicians like Schumer, along with their far left masters, are acting like nothing more than cheap, tin horn tyrants, trying to dictate how the rest of us live our lives.

But the real nub of this issue is the pending blow back should these radicals attempt to move something like the "Fairness Doctrine" into law. The reaction by the mass of Americans to such an effort would be swift and powerful. The Democrat party would pay a brutal price for such foolishness. The people of this nation will not sit idly by while their freedoms are under attack. The price to be paid by those making such an attempt would be very high indeed.

Keep in mind that something in the neighborhood of 27% of voters, in this most recent election, identified themselves in exit polling as politically liberal. That leaves over 70% in the moderate and conservative political categories. In other words, most of our fellow citizens are centrist by nature. Those are the folks who will not tolerate the far left undermining their liberties.

Most certainly, Democrat President-elect Obama does not want this kind of useless distraction on his radar screen as he assumes office. Given a world literally full of chaos, he hardly needs further grief coming his way because some Senator from his own party wants to pretend he has some sort of weighty significance. The future is challenging enough without upsetting over 70% of America's voters. One does not become President-elect by lacking sound political instincts. Schumer and his fellow lefty's will likely find themselves stranded out on a limb.

The "Fairness Doctrine" is a fantasy for fools. Should misguided Dems pursue it, they will wish they hadn't. It is a ticking time bomb.


Schumer on Fox: Fairness Doctrine ‘fair and balanced’
By Bob Cusack

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.

Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

“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.”

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “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 Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “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.”

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so significantly that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the FCC.

They also note that conservative radio shows has been far more successful than liberal ones.

In his Fox interview, Schumer, who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, also weighed in on the election, predicting that Democrats will end up with between 56 and 58 seats in the Senate.

He also defended “card check” legislation, claiming there is a strong need to allow workers to cast a public ballot on whether they support the formation of a union.

Schumer said “there has to be some counter” to the leverage businesses have, claiming “employers have every leg up on people who want to organize and that’s why union workers have gone down from about 25 percent to 6 percent [in the private sector].”

Business groups adamantly oppose the card check bill, which passed the House and fell short of the necessary votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

Sphere: Related Content