Free Speech Assault Alert

The Durbin Doctrine’s Assault on Free Speech

Following a premeditated White House campaign to demonize Rush Limbaugh, Newsweek aided the left’s “Hush Rush” campaign with a cover story pushing for Rush to be silenced. Now, Rush can handle criticism from the White House and Newsweek just fine. But there was also a little noticed vote in the Senate late last month that could enable the left to accomplish by government regulation what they could never accomplish with actual debate.

During the debate over the unconstitutional bill that would give the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives, Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) each sponsored amendments with major implications for the First Amendment. DeMint’s amendment banned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine which, prior to 1987, was used by the government to stifle free speech on our nation’s airwaves. DeMint’s amendment passed 87-11. Score one for free speech.

However, Durbin’s amendment also passed, although by a much narrower 57-41 margin. And what does Durbin’s amendment do? It forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.” In other words, Durbin wants to bring the wonders of government enforced affirmative action to our nation’s airwaves. Sen. James Inhofe warns: “The revocation of broadcaster licenses [under the Durbin Doctrine] is a real possibility, which at the very least will threaten the willingness of broadcasters to appeal to conservative listeners.”

The true intention of the Durbin Doctrine could not be more clear. Its language is modeled after a Center for American Progress report that aims to fix “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” And just two years ago, Durbin 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.”

Durbin’s commitment to squelching free speech has not diminished at all since that 2007 statement. But Durbin has gotten smarter. He knows that reinstating the old Fairness Doctrine is a non-starter so he has come up with a new but equally pernicious law that will accomplish the exact same thing. Conservatives need to wise up in the fight for free speech. The Fairness Doctrine is dead. The real threat is the Durbin Doctrine.

From the Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation: www.heritage.org

Elder: It's Not the Economy, Stupid -- It's Limbaugh

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," the newly installed President Obama told Capitol Hill Republicans.

Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, just days ago, called the popular conservative radio talk show host "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." Then Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele appeared on a CNN show hosted by comedian-turned-pundit D.L. Hughley. When Hughley called Limbaugh "the de facto leader of the Republican Party," Steele stepped right on top of the trap. "No," said Steele, "I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party," and called Limbaugh an "entertainer" whose show can be "incendiary" and "ugly." Steele later apologized to Limbaugh. Game, set and match.

http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2009/03/05/its_not_the_economy,_stupid_--_its_limbaugh

WashPost Reporter on MSNBC: GOP Nominee Must 'Stand Up to Rush'

At the top of the 12PM EST hour of MSNBC news coverage on Tuesday, anchor David Shuster spoke with Washington Post reporter Keith Richburg about the recent divide between Rush Limbaugh and RNC Chair Michael Steele. Richburg observed: "You know, it's fascinating. It's like the circular firing squad. I mean, maybe this is what Rush had in mind when he was talking about 'Operation Chaos.'" Shuster later asked Richburg: "I mean, when Rush Limbaugh says that all Republicans want President Obama to fail. What's so difficult with somebody saying, 'no, no, we think that his policies may fail, but we don't want them to fail.' What's so difficult about that?" Richburg replied: "...it almost seems like the Republican Party needs a 'Sister Solja' moment...It seems like the Republicans need somebody who's willing to stand up and say Rush doesn't represent all of the views of the Republican Party and then not rush and apologize to him...I'll bet you whoever does that could end up as the, you know, the nominee of the party or at least the major party."

[This item, by the MRC's Kyle Drennen, was posted Tuesday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Richburg went on to describe the problem with the Republican Party: "One of the main problems they have is they're almost like the British conservative party was after Tony Blair took over in 1997. They're looking out of touch. They're older. They're whiter. They're more regionally based in south than ever before. And they're in danger of irrelevance unless they can find some way to do really what Ronald Reagan did, which was appeal to moderates, appeal to Democrats, appeal to those Macomb County, Michigan suburbs. And, you know, if you just go for a straight base strategy, conservative strategy like Rush Limbaugh is saying, you're going to lose that, kind of, center ground there."

Here is the full transcript of the March 3 segment:
12:00PM TEASE:
DAVID SHUSTER: Following the latest Republican Party civil war. A complete about-face by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, after calling Rush Limbaugh's show 'ugly' and 'incendiary.' Steele's now apologized in the face of a withering attack from the radio host.

12:04PM SEGMENT:
CONTESSA BREWER: Rush Limbaugh isn't happy with his party's new chairman. He's not keeping quiet about it. David Shuster has that story from the politics desk. Hey, David.

DAVID SHUSTER: Contessa, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is having second thoughts about taking on conservative power house Rush Limbaugh. Steele is apologizing for calling the radio host a mere 'entertainer,' who's show is sometimes 'ugly' and 'incendiary.' Limbaugh did not take to kindly to Steele's criticism, he lashed out at Steele on his radio show yesterday.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: I'm not in charge of the Republican Party and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in a sad sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party given the state that it's in, I would quit.

SHUSTER: Keith Richburg is New York bureau chief for The Washington Post. Keith, what do you make of all of this?

KEITH RICHBURG: You know, it's fascinating. It's like the circular firing squad. I mean, maybe this is what Rush had in mind when he was talking about 'Operation Chaos.' What you're seeing is a fight, really, for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. On the one hand, you've got Michael Steele, who's trying to re-brand it, if you will, make it more palatable to minorities, make it more diverse, make it more appealing to moderates, and on the other hand, you have Rush Limbaugh, who gave that fiery, incendiary speech to the conservative wing of the party, basically saying 'no, we don't want to change. We want to be, you know, true to our beliefs.' And that -- and whoever wins that fight is going to determine, kind of, which direction the party goes.
SHUSTER: I'm a little bit surprised. I mean, you can -- you can criticize narrowly, I would think, some of what Rush says, right?

RICHBURG: Absolutely.

SHUSTER: I mean, when Rush Limbaugh says that all Republicans want President Obama to fail. What's so difficult with somebody saying, 'no, no, we think that his policies may fail, but we don't want them to fail.' What's so difficult about that?

RICHBURG: Absolutely. And it shouldn't be. I'm really surprised about the Steele apology, because there's nothing he said in there that I found particularly outrageous. Rush Limbaugh's on the radio, he's an entertainer. Some of the things he said is ugly and incendiary. Exhibit A is 'Barack the magic Negro' that got air time on Limbaugh's radio station. And you know, it almost seems like the Republican Party needs a 'Sister Solja' moment, you know, when Bill Clinton was able to stand up and break with the far left of the Democratic Party by criticizing rap music on Sister Solja. It seems like the Republicans need somebody who's willing to stand up and say Rush doesn't represent all of the views of the Republican Party and then not rush and apologize to him.

SHUSTER: And who is that person? I mean, is it a Ron Paul, is it somebody who's perhaps a little more self-confident of themselves? I mean, who is it?

RICHBURG: That's a really good question. And you know the -- you know, we don't predict in this business, but I'll bet you whoever does that could end up as the, you know, the nominee of the party or at least the major party. You know, the problem -- they almost -- you know, we're talking about Gordon Brown. One of the main problems they have is they're almost like the British conservative party was after Tony Blair took over in 1997. They're looking out of touch. They're older. They're whiter. They're more regionally based in south than ever before. And they're in danger of irrelevance unless they can find some way to do really what Ronald Reagan did, which was appeal to moderates, appeal to Democrats, appeal to those Macomb County, Michigan suburbs. And, you know, if you just go for a straight base strategy, conservative strategy like Rush Limbaugh is saying, you're going to lose that, kind of, center ground there. So that's what this is all about. Which way does the party go to recover? The same way the British conservative party took a dozen years to try to figure this out.

SHUSTER: Keith Richburg, New York bureau chief of The Washington Post. Keith, thanks for coming on.

RICHBURG: Thank you.

The above was in www.mediaresearch.org CyberAlert

This Is Way Bigger Than Rush

The Democrats, along with those on the right who seem more worried about incurring the disdain of the wrongheaded left than of their fellow patriots, are feverishly promoting their Saul Alinsky-inspired scheme to demonize and divide their most effective political opponents.

What would be amusing, were matters not so gravely serious today, is the utter juvenile transparency in the liberals' efforts to vilify Rush Limbaugh.

They've been doing it for 20 years, but this time, they're better-organized and have a broader purpose. So those who haven't had the courage to stand by him should understand that Rush is not the ultimate target here. We all are -- those, that is, who oppose their Marxist agenda and Stalinist tactics.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2009/03/03/this_is_way_bigger_than_rush?page=full

Hat tip: http://www.americac2c.org/ for this article.

Democrats Want to Resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine."

An article by Air America Radio founder that might surprise you... Received via the National Federation of Republican Women no less!

Members of the Democratic congressional party are attempting to silence talk radio by resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine." Although Democrats would tell you otherwise, the regulation would limit free speech.

Freedom of speech, one of the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. However, now Democrats want to silence a select few. Our government does not, nor should it ever, have the responsibility to modify that right and thus regulate content of speech.

Limbaugh Is Right on the Fairness Doctrine
Liberals don't need equal-time rules to compete
By JON SINTON

Conservative talk radio has worked itself into a tizzy lately over the rumored revival of the Fairness Doctrine -- the FCC policy that sought to enforce balanced discussion on the nation's airwaves.

As the founding president of Air America Radio, I believe that for the last eight years Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been cheerleaders for everything wrong with our economic, foreign and domestic policies. But when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine, I couldn't agree with them more. The Fairness Doctrine is an anachronistic policy that, with the abundance of choices on radio today, is entirely unnecessary.

Instituted in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine obligated stations to "afford reasonable opportunity" for opposing views on topics of "public importance." At the time, most cities outside of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles had only a few stations. AM radio was in everyone's car and home, but there were just three or four stations per market. FM radio was still a quarter of a century away from commercial success.

Policy makers who introduced the Fairness Doctrine were worried that crafty special interests could overwhelm the airwaves with one-sided propaganda and tilt elections, sway public sentiment or foment civil unrest. Their fears were understandable. Joseph Goebbels effectively used radio in service of the Third Reich.

Contrary to what some people would have us believe today, the Fairness Doctrine was primarily an issue on TV, since radio didn't have much talk. Until the 1970s, AM stations had a steady diet of music with a couple of minutes of news at the top of the hour. But by 1978, music had migrated to FM, leaving AM in a programming lurch. The history of media is replete with new technologies stealing the content of the ones they supplant. Motion pictures killed vaudeville; radio was full of dramas and comedies before Jack Webb and Jack Benny switched to TV. As for AM radio, it was not until Rush found an audience on WABC in New York City in 1988 that the AM operators knew what to do with their once mighty stations.

The conventional wisdom is that Rush's success depended on the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Some say that if he had to make time for opposing opinions, Rush would have flopped. Personally, I think he is most entertaining when he is dismantling opposing arguments. He's successful because he is a superior entertainer.

Rush created the new AM template, and it spread like wildfire. When programmers and sales managers get a whiff of success, it is cloned in every conceivable way until the audience, once grateful for innovation, tunes out.

So why didn't liberal talk radio flourish as well? There are several reasons, none of which has to do with a lack of talent. Bill Maher, Al Franken, Stephanie Miller, David Bender, Janeane Garofalo, Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow all have the chops.

First, boring hosts made the occasional, unsuccessful foray (sorry, Mario Cuomo). Second, some talented lefties like Mike Malloy were cast into the abyss of right-wing talk radio where they were completely out of place. (Radio is a mood servicing drug; format purity rules.)

Finally, most broadcast owners are conservative. Programs like Rush's have made them rich, so the last thing they want is to mess with success, particularly if it entails airing opinions they don't share. Trust me, it took us years to get them to play rock 'n' roll.

No one tried a national, 24-hour liberal station before Air America Radio. When we founded Air America, we aimed to establish a talk network that lived at the intersection of politics and entertainment. Of course, we were motivated by our political leanings. But as a lifelong broadcaster, I was certain that at least half the American audience was underserved by conservative talk radio. Here was an opportunity to capture listeners turned off by the likes of, say, Sean Hannity. The business opportunity was enticing.

It never occurred to me to argue for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, I sought to capitalize on the other side of a market the right already had built.

When conservative talking heads wave a red flag about the possible revival of the Fairness Doctrine, they know it's a great way to play the victim and rally supporters. But I'll let Rush continue with his self-righteous indignation -- and if I want, I'll tune into Rachel Maddow, or one of the thousands of other voices that populate radio today.

Mr. Sinton is the founding president of Air America Radio.

Want to Learn More?
http://www.protectfairness.com/

Heritage Morning Bell: The Stealth Plan to Silence Rush

Does President Barack Obama believe that the greatest threat to progress resides in Rush Limbaugh? Earlier this week while trying to sell his Trillion Dollar Debt Plan to Republican leaders, Obama said, “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Thankfully House Republicans listened to the hundreds of constituents calling their offices asking them to vote against the bill and not the guy who thinks he can buy their votes with a couple of cocktail and Super Bowl parties. Now we find out that Obama’s far left allies are upping the ante. The leftist umbrella organization American Untied for Change is pouring money into radio ads in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada. The ads ask listeners, “Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?” ... More

Heritage Morning Bell: The Stealth Plan to Silence Rush