This has already gone too far, and what does good ole’ Dick do?
He cock blocks Coleman’s Fairness Doctrine Amendment.
That’s right, WATCH THIS VIDEO!
Sen. Norm Coleman, (R) Minnesota, brought up the amendment today as expected. It was officially called the Coleman-Demint-Thune-Inhofe Amendment 2189. In good old Democrat fashion, Sen. Dick Durbin, (D) Illinois, interrupted Sen. Coleman with silly and socialist-like questions. You must watch the video and read the partial transcript below:
First, Mr. President, there is nothing “fair” about the fairness doctrine. In the past few weeks there has been discussion amongst some of my colleagues on the other side who have said very publicly - it’s time to reinstate the fairness doctrine. We have troops in the field of combat today putting their lives on the line. Part of what we protect in this country, the first of all, is the first amendment - its freedom of speech. The fairness amendment is a relic of a bygone past - it was tossed on the ash heap of history in 1947, it was in place from 1949 to 1987. Its intended effect was to have the federal government monitor what’s said on the airways and then require broadcasters to present what the federal government calls balance. The effect was much different than that. Much different than that. In fact, it stifled speech. If you’re a broadcaster, you owned a station and you’re subject to fine, some kind of penalty if you don’t provide the kind of balance that the government says you must provide, then you run the risk of some kind of penalty. You may well choose - and, in fact history showed what happened - you may well choose simply to play country music. And I love country music, but I also love free speech. And we don’t want to put in place anything that stifles free speech.
We’ve moved from 1949, when you had a few TV stations and the information that you got came from a relatively few sources - to a world today in which we have broadband and high-speed internet and satellites and blogs and a whole range of information. And that’s a good thing. That’s a good thing! In the end, we in this body have to respond, have to listen to the voices of the people and we want an informed and educated citizenship. And we want them to get diverse views.
And the reality, Mr. President, in part why this issue even comes up is because of concerns from my friends on the other side of the aisle that talk radio somehow is dominated by conservatives. One may argue that perhaps broadcast journalism may be dominated by liberals. There have been studies that have shown that. But for us, we shouldn’t care in terms of whether it’s dominated and at the response of the government coming in and try to somehow measure or regulate.
Mr. Durbin: Would the senator yield for a question?
Mr. Coleman: Senator I will yield.
Mr. Durbin: I would ask the senator if he believes in the interest of an educated electorate, whether he thinks Americans could hear both sides of the story? A kind of fair and balanced approach when it comes to information?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I absolutely believe that Americans should hear both sides. Absolutely. But I believe - strongly believe that the government should not be in the position of deciding and dictating - “now here is the other side”. There is, in the world of communications today, Americans have all sorts of options to hear the other side. All they’ve got to do is turn a dial. All they’ve got to do is push a button. All they’ve got to do is press a mouse. And they have that ability.
Mr. Durbin: Would the senator yield for a further question?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I yield to the question.
Mr. Durbin: Does the senator concede that the airwaves belong to the American people?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I concede the airwaves belong to the American people.
Mr. Durbin: Would the senator yield for a further question?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I yield for a further question.
Mr. Durbin: Would the senator concede that those who use the people’s airwaves to make a profit have to do it with a license from our government?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I understand and agree that we have a licensing process.
Mr. Durbin: Would the senator yield for a further question?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I will yield and I would yield for the senator from Illinois to present the entire question so that i can continue with maintaining the floor and discussing amendment.
Mr. Durbin: And I’m not trying to delay the senator from Minnesota. I will concede that since the fairness doctrine has been set aside under the regular Reagan administration, things have changed in broadcast journalism and many other aspects of journalism. But I just want to make sure — I haven’t seen the senator’s amendment. I sense I know what it might be leading to. But I want to make sure that the premise is something that we may agree on. The airwaves belong to the ….(video and text cuts off, but we assume he was going to say “American people” and ramble on some more.)
Unbelievable, isn’t it? We’ll get to Dick in a minute, but it was actually Sen. Carl Levin, (D) Michigan, who originally objected to the amendment because it would take time from discussing the Defense bill. During his tenure as senator, Levin must have never spent time on the floor discussing an amendment unrelated to a bill. It appears Sen. Levin doesn’t think the American people will see right through that poor excuse for an objection. And the amount of time spent by Sen. Durbin drilling Coleman with questions was completely acceptable.
Sen. Coleman explained he was not looking for a vote; he just wanted the amendment to be put in the queue.
Here is more from the Dick vs. Free Speech Debate:
Mr. Durbin: I’m sorry to interrupt you but I really wish that through the commerce committee or the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, we can really get into this question. But the senator is arguing that the marketplace can provide. What is the senator’s response if the marketplace fails to provide? What if the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view? Since the people who are seeking the licenses are using America’s airwaves, does the government, speaking for the people of this country, have any interest at that point to step in and make sure there is a balanced approach to the -a fair and balanced approach to the information given to the American people?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I’ll respond to the final question here. Very clear disagreement here. The government does not - does not - have the responsibility to regulate content of speech. That’s what the first amendment is about. It’s exactly what the first amendment is about. Government’s not supposed to be regulating content. And in a time in 1949 when you had three network TV stations, basically, when had you limited channels of communication, I presume there was a legitimate concern on the part of some that, in fact, government needs to step in and ensure balance. But now we’re in 2007. We’re at a time where we’ve got 20,000, you know, opportunities for stations and satellite, where you have cable, you have blogs, you have a whole range of information. I think it would be - I - I can’t even conceive - I can’t even conceive that the market could not provide opportunities for differing positions because it does. And in the end - in the end, consumers also have a right based on the market to make choices. And so if they make choices that say we want to hear more of one side than the other, that’s ok okay. And I think it’s very dangerous, I say to my - my friend from Illinois, I think it’s very dangerous for government to be in the position of deciding what’s fair and balanced. Because as we see on the floor of the senate, oftentimes amongst ourselves, learned - hopefully learned individuals who’ve the great humble opportunity to serve in the US Senate, we have differences as to what is fair and balanced. And so the reason I think we have a First Amendment is that we get government out of - out of the - the measuring, controlling, dictating, regulating content and that’s my concern.
John Kennedy stated, “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” Mr. President, I’m not afraid of the people. I’m not afraid of the people having access to the in information, ideas that they want to have access to. But I am afraid of the government stepping in and regulating content. We have a first amendment. That’s the underpinning, the foundation of all the other amendments. The fairness doctrine flies in the face of that. It was rejected. It was rejected in 1987. The idea of bringing it back today is a very, very bad idea. This amendment specifically includes the Armed forces network. Our folks are out there on the front line fighting. They should be able to tune into whatever they want to tune into and they shouldn’t be thinking that back home someone at the FCC is listening and monitoring and deciding what is fair and what is balanced. Let the people decide. Let the market decide. Let the first amendment flourish.
Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
Dick, Dick, Dick . . . where do we start with you Dick? Your line of questioning, your socialistic views, and your desire for government to control every aspect of our lives . . . it brought a chuckle to our hearts when you snuck in the phrase “fair and balanced”. Twice.
Funny stuff, but not really. Sen. Durbin’s honest discussion made apparent that the earlier statement from his office was far from the truth. “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” Sen. Durbin said last month. Sen. Durbin’s spokesman said that Durbin was “expressing support for the concept but has no plans to introduce legislation.” “There is no big conspiracy here, there’s no secret plan, there’s no nothing,” he said.
So why put up the big fuss? Why all the questions?
When Sen. Durbin and Sen. Levin both wake up tomorrow morning, they may find themselves with noses a little longer than normal. They are not being honest with the American people, and possibly themselves. More importantly, they are not even beginning to consider the First Amendment.
We’ll leave off on a somewhat “high note” thanks to a great statement by Sen. Coleman:
And the reality, Mr. President, in part why this issue even comes up is because of concerns from my friends on the other side of the aisle that talk radio somehow is dominated by conservatives. One may argue that perhaps broadcast journalism may be dominated by liberals. There have been studies that have shown that. But for us, we shouldn’t care in terms of whether it’s dominated and at the response of the government coming in and try to somehow measure or regulate.
Leave a Reply