Should Congress have the power????

Question

Do you think that Congress should have the power to threaten private industry with sanctions because of their voice of political opinion???

I would bet that most of you say no, but don't you realize that this is EXACTLY what is occuring in the hype surrounding Rush Limbaugh and the Radio Communication industry.

Effectively, Democrats are threatening sanctions on the private radio industry because they wish to silence the voice of opposition. This is evident in the planned revival of the Fairness Doctrine and other vicious attacks on freedom of speech in the radio industry.

Please share your thoughts!

For example: Fairness doctrine will establish sanctions to be enforced on Radio stations which allot more time to Conservative talk shows that to liberal talk shows. In truth, almost EVERY corporation involved in radio broadcasting is in it for the money. They would air liberal talk shows if it was financially rewarding for them, but it isn't. Liberals in congress don't like this and are moving to force private industry to comply with rules they have made up, in order to stifle oposing voices AND by which will cause lost profits to radio entrepreneurs who are bringing forth nothing less that what the overall general public wants to hear. Sounds kind of like the State-run media of Communist North Korea to me.

Don't believe me, have a look at the Liberal strategy:

"First, [Democrats] failed on the radio airwaves with Air America, no one wanted to listen,” says a senior adviser to Pelosi. “Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don’t want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008.”


BY HER OWN WORDS, NANCY PELOSI WANTS TO LIMIT WHAT POLITICAL VIEWS THE MEDIA CAN PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC!!!!! Freedom of speech??? - Do you think that the people who would be enforcing this would in no way be biased to one side or the other???

Answer 1

You are correct. The fairness doctrine, if revived would be an unconstitutional attack on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It would also be a direct assault on free market capitalism. If liberal programming was viable in the talk radio market, there would be dozens of people flooding the airwaves with liberal talk radio shows. But the fact is they just don't attract listeners so they don't make money. They get their air time on television. In the realm of political punditry programing, the market decides what goes on the air and what doesn't.

Answer 2

No, proof of medias control is easily measured in their censure of Dr Pauls campaign. Whether one is for or against his platform denial of equal time gives neither side an informed stance. Just as they want it, why is every minute of Hillary's life forced upon us when other candidates views are muted or spun into something else. Private industry is not developed by mandates but by public support. It drives its own destiny and should not be subject to narrow gudelines.
If EIB listeners stop listening to Rush then they will replace him. Apparently many do prefer his views and silencing him would be wrong. As a listener one can always change the station. Choices are what make freedom exist, removal of choices are a removal of freedom. Congress needs to get out of the witch hunt business and let private industries remain subject to their own listener driven destinys.

Answer 3

People are free to think just as the Democrats tell them to think.
ABC, PBS,CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC
...but NOT EIB

Answer 4

i think everyone should be free to think what they want to think and not what someone tells them to think.

Answer 5

you bet ye, and they do.