Save Talk Radio

Pence Just 22 Signatures Away From Vote to End Fairness Doctrine

talker — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:57:26 +0000

мебели пловдивколи под наемCongress is just 23 signatures away from a vote that could finally end the archaic Fairness Doctrine and create a permanent free-market system for talk radio. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) continues to urge congress members to sign the Broadcaster Freedom Act discharge petition. The petition will “prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from repromulgating the fairness doctrine,” originally initiated in the 1930s under Franklin Roosevelt.

During its glory days, the Fairness Doctrine was never applied to ensure conservatives’ air time. In fact, conservative voices were shunned while liberal bias seemed to mysteriously remain under the radar of the FCC. The Fairness Doctrine’s attempt at “fairness” created the most imbalanced media atmosphere possible. Or, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of controversial issues in order to avoid the nuisance of finding contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story.

This biased radio and television coverage continued until former President Reagan removed the doctrine in the 80s. Conservative talk radio - which had been an oddity - quickly became a commercial success. “This type of content-based regulation by the federal government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed” by the Constitution, Reagan said in his veto message of legislation that could have continued the Fairness Doctrine. optical amplifier

ShareThis

Rush Limbaugh Signs 8 Year Deal for 400 Million Dollars

talker — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:16:52 +0000

According to Drudge, it was just announced that Rush Limbaugh has signed a new contract for 8 more years, up to 2016, and will receive a reported $400 million dollars. That is the highest salary in history for a radio personality.

The American broadcast industry is rocked, realigned and blasted into a new orbit, yet again, by Rush Limbaugh, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

In what is being described as an unprecedented radio contract, Limbaugh will keep his syndicated show on-the-air through 2016 with CLEAR CHANNEL and PREMIERE RADIO.

Already host of the most lucrative hours since radio’s inception, Limbaugh’s total package is valued north of $400 million, according to media insiders.

The NEW YORK TIMES will claim this weekend that Limbaugh, marking 20 years this summer as a national host, has secured a 9-figure signing bonus for the new deal, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.

In its controversial profile, the TIMES reports that Limbaugh is buying a new G550 jet and is making an estimated $38 million a year.

While newspapers and traditional broadcast media are experiencing declining revenues, Limbaugh’s golden microphone has turned diamond-laced:

Earnings now pace him ahead of the annual salaries for network news anchors: Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer — combined!

The deal represents a stunning triumph over the establishment by an outsider who connected with and captured the spirit of the nation’s heartland.

You can read the full New York Times article, with a lot of new detail about Rush Limbaugh’s personal life, at the following link:

Rush Limbaugh & New York Times

ShareThis

Dingy Harry Reid Takes Credit for 4.2 Million Dollar Donation

talker — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:53:32 +0000

Here is the brilliant transcript of Rush Limbaugh breaking down Dingy Harry Reid’s latest speech on the Senate floor. Senator Reid was taking credit for the 2.1 million dollars donated to the Marine-Corps Law Enforcement Foundation (4.2 million dollars including Rush Limbaugh’s match to the highest bidder) for winning the original letter Reid wrote trying to hush Rush Limbaugh.

компютри втора употребаoffice furniture in BulgariaBEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s the transcript of what Dingy Harry said and we’re looking for it, we’ll have the audio, but this is what Dingy Harry said on the floor of the Senate at noon Eastern time today:

“Madam President, earlier this month I came to the floor to discuss some comments made by Rush Limbaugh. Following my remarks, more than 40 of my Senate colleagues and I cosigned a letter to the chairman of Clear Channel, Mark May [sic--Mays], telling him we wanted him to confer with Limbaugh regarding the statements he made.” Is that not audacious? The United States Senate getting hold of the CEO of a private corporation to confer with me over words that I had uttered. “I’ve since spoken to Mark May about this. Mark May, in fact, called me regarding this letter. This week, Rush Limbaugh put the original copy of that letter up for auction on eBay. Mr. President, we didn’t have time, or we could have gotten every Senator to sign that letter.” What is that? Yeah, if we only had time, we could have gotten everybody to sign. How come not one Republican signed it? They had a couple of days to do this. I tell you, that’s an amazing statement. Had we had more time, well, was it not worth taking the time, if this was such an important issue? If you would have taken the time, Senator Reid, wouldn’t a hundred signatures really have had an impact on Mark Mays, the CEO of Clear Channel, more than 41 and totally partisan signatures since it was all Democrats.

“He put the letter up for auction on eBay,” continued Mr. Reid, “and I think very, very constructively, let the proceeds of that to go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation that provides scholarship assistance to Marines and federal law enforcement personnel whose parents fall in the line of duty. What could be a more worthwhile cause?” Rehabilitating Senator Reid is a worthwhile cause, which is I think what this is. “I think it’s really good that this money on eBay is going to be raised for this purpose. When I spoke to Mark May, he and I thought this probably wouldn’t make much…” So he’s been involved in it now, huh? (laughing) He’s now wormed his way into this! He’s not matching. I don’t think he’s going to match, and he hasn’t apologized for this, by the way.

“When I spoke to Mark May, he and I thought this probably wouldn’t make much money, a letter, written by Democrat Senators, complaining about something. This morning, the bid is more than two million for this. We’ve watched it during the week. It keeps going up, and up, and up. There’s only a little bit of time left on it, but it certainly is going to be more than two million. Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature,” said Senator Reid. “And for the cause, Madam President, it’s extremely good. Now everybody knows that Rush Limbaugh and I don’t agree on everything in life. Maybe that’s kind of an understatement. But, without qualification, Mark May, the owner of the network that has Rush Limbaugh, their auction is going to be something that raises money for a worthwhile cause. I don’t know what we could do more important than helping to ensure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education.”

Think of this. He’s using the word “we”. He has inserted himself into this, ladies and gentlemen! It’s going so well, it’s something nobody by his own admission ever imagined — they want in on it! We’ve got the audio now. Let’s just listen to it rather than me read it.

HARRY REID: Earlier this month, I came to the floor discussing comments made by Rush Limbaugh. Following my remarks, more than 40 of my Senate colleagues and I cosigned a letter to the chairman of Clear Channel, Mark May, telling him that we wanted him to — to confer with Rush Limbaugh regarding the statements he made. I’ve since spoken to Mark May about this. Mark May, in fact, called me regarding this letter.

RUSH: It’s Mays.

HARRY REID: This week, Rush Limbaugh put the original copy of that letter up for auction on eBay. Mr. President, we didn’t have time or we could have gotten every Democratic Senator to sign that letter. But he put the letter up for auction on eBay. And I think very, very constructively, let the proceeds of that to go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. What is the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation? It provides scholarship assistance to children of Marines and federal law enforcement personnel whose parent dies in the line of duty, as well as health care assistance for disabled children of fallen troops. What could be a more worthwhile cause? And I think it’s really good that this money on eBay is going to be raised for this purpose. When I spoke to Mark May –

RUSH: Mays.

HARRY REID: — I think that he and I thought this would probably not raise much money, a letter by Democratic Senators complaining about something. This morning, the bid is more than two million on this. We’ve watched it during the week. It keeps going up, and up, and up, and there’s only a little bit of time left on it. But it’s certainly going to be more than two million. Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature –

RUSH: Stop the tape here, stop the tape. Do you see what’s happening here? This is a clever move, rather transparent, to totally take the credit for this. Had he not sent the letter — “we” didn’t think it would ever generate this kind of money; “we” think it’s great to raise this kind of…; “we” think this — he’s hoping that this is the angle the Drive-Bys will cover. Harry Reid is taking credit for writing the letter that gets this money raised for the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. Resume tape.

ShareThis

No News is Good News Regarding the Fairness Doctrine?

talker — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:03:40 +0000

Well, after a much needed break (and attention to our other political websites) it’s time to momentarily dust the cob webs off Save Talk Radio dot org and comment on what has been happening . . . which is not much. It is pretty clear that Democrats have kept quiet on the issue, and reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, until the next election. With Bush still in the White House, they know any efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine would be wasted.

So what do we do now? Sit on our hands and wait? Nope, it’s time to contact your local elected officials and make sure they know how unfair the Fairness Doctrine is. It’s also time to start supporting your local Republican candidates to ensure we get control back of the House and Senate. Should Hillary or Barack win the Presidential election, which is an unfortunate possibility, we have to have control of Congress to make sure the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t come back from the dead. Of course, when it becomes clear which Republican will be running for President, we need to do everything we can to ensure they win as well. Should the Democrats gain control of Congress and the White House, it is basically guaranteed that they will do everything they can to reinstate the “Hush Rush bill.”

WorldNetDaily recently uncovered a very telling statement from the assistant secretary of commerce for President John Kennedy:

Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce in President John F. Kennedy’s administration, candidly recalled the way the doctrine was used in the early 1960s. “We had a massive strategy to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue,” he explained in Fred Friendly’s 1976 book, “The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment.”

Finally, someone related to the Democrats is honest about the Fairness Doctrine. This is the real reason, and only reason, the Democrats want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. To challenge, harass and ultimately silence conservative broadcasters. The less the public hears from conservative radio talk show hosts, the easier it will be able to lead the blind public and keep votes on their side.

Here is another excellent example from US history why the Fairness Doctrine should never come back alive:

In the 1964 presidential campaign, President Lyndon Johnson and his Democratic machine prepared a kit explaining “how to demand time under the Fairness Doctrine.” The campaign produced 1,035 letters to stations and 1,678 hours of free air time for the Democrats, playing, in the eyes of the practitioners, no small part in Johnson’s landside defeat of Sen. Barry Goldwater.

Had enough? Don’t let “no news” keep you from doing nothing. Let your elected officials know that you have had enough with the Democrats attempt to silence talk radio, and that the topics discussed by talk radio hosts should not be governed by liberals, or anyone. It’s a free country, with free radio airwaves, and if we don’t keep it that way . . . what will the Democrats try next? Whatever it is, it’ll be a lot easier without any voice from the other side.

ShareThis

Save Talk Radio Podcast #1 - July 15, 2007

talker — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:03:30 +0000

Welcome to the first Save Talk Radio Podcast. This is the first and only podcast dedicated to fighting the Fairness Doctrine and saving Conservative Talk Radio.

(Click “Play Now” to live stream, or click “Play in Popup” so you can listen and browse to other pages.)

In our first podcast we explain why we started www.savetalkradio.org and how we need your help. We need you to get involved and help us make a difference. It could be as little as making a comment to the website, contacting us with an idea, or emailing the podcast link or article links to your friends. (Click Share This!)

We then discuss the bad news first, the objection to Sen. Coleman’s Amendment to the Fairness Doctrine, and the stupidity of Sen. Dick Durbin.

We also address the Broadcaster Freedom Act, recent Fairness Doctrine articles in the news, and have several audio clips from Sen. Mike Pence, Sen. Diane Feinstein and even talk radio host Neal Boortz.

It’s our first podcast, so be gentle, but check it out now! Tell your friends and conservative colleagues to join us and help the fight to Save Talk Radio!

ShareThis

Coleman Press Release - Failed Fairness Doctrine Amendment

talker — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:05:56 +0000

Here is the official press release from Senator Norm Coleman regarding the actions taken yesterday by Senate Democrat leaders:

July 13th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - On the Senator floor today, Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) attempted to offer an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, which would require the government to monitor political discourse on American’s airwaves and regulate the expression of political views. Rather than allowing the measure to move forward to a full debate, the amendment was objected to by Senate Democrats. Leading the Democrats objection was Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), who insisted government should have a direct hand in regulating political ideas to ensure an equal balance.

“Rather than allowing a full and complete debate on the amendment, Senate Democrats prematurely chose not to allow it to move forward. After blocking the ability of the entire Senate to debate this measure, they suddenly proceeded to rationalize the Fairness Doctrine on the Senate floor. It’s quite clear that the reinstitution of the misleadingly-named Fairness Doctrine would threaten our constitutional right to free speech and fundamentally undermine the workings of our free market democracy,” said Coleman.

“In this day and age, reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine is not about equal balance, as its supporters claim, it is about muzzling broadcasters. I believe it is a dangerous proposition for the government to be in the business of rationing free speech and determining what is fair. At the very least, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should have allowed this amendment to be debated.”

In 1949, the FCC established the Fairness Doctrine requiring broadcasters to provide fair and balanced public affairs related programming. In 1985, the FCC determined that the Fairness Doctrine was no longer necessary due to the emergence of a “multiplicity of voices in the marketplace.” The FCC was also of the view that the Fairness Doctrine may have violated the First Amendment. In 1987, following a Federal Court’s ruling that the FCC was not statutorily bound to enforce the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine. Also that same year President Reagan vetoed Fairness Doctrine legislation. Nevertheless, in recent weeks several prominent Democrats have been voicing a desire to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

“Since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine talk radio has flourished, thanks to free speech and free market ideals. Americans have not only been witness to, but have directly benefited from, the information revolution that has changed our daily lives. Cable television, radio and the Internet are all in their own ways bringing forward a multiplicity of information and view points. Despite today’s efforts by my opponents, I will continue working to ensure our free speech and free market principles are protected by fighting against reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine,” Coleman added.

Co-sponsors of the amendment include Senators Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Larry Craig (R-ID), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Cornyn (R-TX), John McCain (R-AZ), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Wayne Allard (R-CO), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Judd Gregg (R-NH), John Ensign (R-NV), Bob Bennett (R-UT), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Bob Corker (R-TN). Office of Senator Norm Coleman, July 13, 2007

ShareThis

Senate Democrats Block Fairness Doctrine Amendment

talker — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 03:07:44 +0000

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.

ShareThis

Video and Audio of Broadcaster Freedom Act Introduction and Press Conference

talker — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:02:17 +0000

Here is the video of the speech from Congressman Mike Pence (we previously transcribed) introducing the Broadcaster Freedom Act on the House floor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I7diyxOZ7s

Below are two audio links to the Fairness Doctrine Press Conference from yesterday:

Fairness Doctrine Press Conference Part 1

Fairness Doctrine Press Conference Part 2

ShareThis

Broadcaster Freedom Act Officially Announced to Save Talk Radio

talker — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:56:44 +0000

As we reported yesterday, the Senate along with the House officially introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act. News leaked yesterday that the Senate would announce the new bill, but we should have known all along that Mike Pence was behind it. Congressman Mike Pence, (R) Indiana, spoke on the floor of the House today in an elegant and straight forward manner. Congressman Pence was supported during his speech by Senators Coleman, Thune, and Congressman Walden. Pence explained that the Broadcaster Freedom Act would prevent any future administration from regulating the radio airwaves without an act of Congress.

Here is the transcript of the speech from Congressman Mike Pence:

The American people love a fair fight and so do I. And in the debate over America’s future, we especially want to hear all the facts and all the arguments on every side of the issue. Unfortunately, some in our nation’s Capitol want to achieve that result by bringing back what is known as the Fairness Doctrine, an archaic government regulation imposed by the Federal Communications Commission for decades that required broadcasters to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner.

Now, that sounds acceptable enough but there is nothing really fair about the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine is a relic of America’s broadcasting past and it should stay where it belongs, on the ash heap of broadcast history.

Fortunately, two weeks ago 309 Republicans and Democrats in the Congress voted in favor of the Pence Amendment to prevent the FCC from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine for one year. But while I was pleased with the bipartisan passage of this legislation, today we must open a second front to ensure that the Fairness Doctrine can never come back again.

Today, in cooperation with colleagues in the House and Senators Norm Coleman, Jim DeMint and John Thune, we will unveil the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which will prevent this or any future administration from once again regulating the airwaves of America without an act of Congress.

I urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle: Join me in cosponsoring the Broadcaster Freedom Act and preserve the free airwaves of America.”

For the record, the actual language of the Broadcaster Freedom Act seems to prevent any new legislation that is similar to the Fairness Doctrine. It really bans the FCC from following the Fairness Doctrine, or other similar legislation the liberals may try to force on us in the future.

Here is some of the relevant text from the Broadcaster Freedom Act:

“…the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repopulating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’,…”.

ShareThis

Press Conference to Announce Senate Ban on Fairness Doctrine

talker — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:33:49 +0000

Just when you thought things had slowed down and Democrats were waiting for January of 2009 . . . the Fairness Doctrine issue gets hot again. There is a press conference scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday July 11th, to announce the great news.

The few real conservatives in the Senate have decided to add language to an Iraq war bill that is currently on the Senate floor. Republican Senators Norm Coleman, (R) Minn., Jim DeMint, (R) S.C. and John Thune, (R) S.D., have introduced language to the Iraq bill that would prevent the FCC from reenacting the Fairness Doctrine.

As we reported earlier, the House already passed an amendment to unrelated legislature which would ban the FCC from trying to re-establish the Fairness Doctrine. It is interesting that both conservative sides of our government are reacting so quickly to the recent comments from several Democrats. After all, the discussion regarding the Fairness Doctrine has never been discussed by Democrats on the floor nor by the FCC. However, Democrat Senators such as Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, and John Kerry have mentioned interest or intention in reenacting the Fairness Doctrine.

“At its core, this is about the right to free speech,” said Sen. Coleman.

“It’s not surprising that some liberal voices are frustrated with talk radio, but rather than debate the issues, they prefer to regulate voices they don’t agree with,” Sen. Thune said.

We should applaud the quick action and serious attention our truly conservative government officials have given to this serious matter. Although this will not prevent possible new legislation against talk radio, it will be a great relief if both the House and Senate vote against the Fairness Doctrine.

ShareThis