Speaking Out

Talk Radio & TV

There has been a movement in our nation toward silencing the voices of talk radio and television hosts. This movement came largely from the liberal side of politics. The reason that they wanted to bring back the so-called “fairness doctrine,” is because they are running scared that talk radio might be their Achilles-heel in the 2008 presidential election. The Liberals already have the advantage of big money, often from questionable funding sources, and they have the broadcast and newspaper media, almost all the major TV networks, plus Public Radio [NPR] and Public TV on their side. This is in spite of the fact that Public Broadcasting is largely supported by money from the government (us), and public contributions (us) from both liberals and conservatives. It should maintain an unbiased political view in reporting the news.

On the conservative reporting side, there is FOX News and conservative talk shows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and a few others. So the majority of the media is of liberal persuasion and does whatever is expedient to put forth that viewpoint, but that isn’t enough for the liberals, they want to squash the voice of anyone they consider opposition.

IS THAT THE WAY IT SHOULD BE IN AMERICA?

The reason that talk radio is such a threat to liberals is that conservative talk shows generate much larger audiences than liberal ones. Many liberal talk shows have gone under for lack of enough audience to get the sponsorship they need to pay the bills. Even if they fund it from the “big money” sources, they still can’t get the audience. So out of frustration, they try to say it is “unfair.”

Is it unfair if people in this country with a free will to make the choice of what they listen to or watch, decide to tune into a conservative talk show? I think it is good to have both liberal and conservative talk shows. I say, if the liberal side can hold an audience, that’s great. Let the market place decide. That’s the way it’s done in America.

The so-called “fairness doctrine,” with its “equal time” provision could require that whatever is broadcast, expressing political or religious views, be open for opposing views to be aired. People who have chosen to broadcast Christian programming on their stations would have to also broadcast opposing views of all kinds of other religions. It is my understanding that they would have to do this without remuneration. If that is true, that would throw away 50% of their revenues and make it impractical or impossible to keep the stations on the air.

History:

The “fairness doctrine” began in 1949 because of anti-communist sentiment and was abolished by the Federal Communications Commission in 1987. It was a literal pain for broadcasters. I know, because I was there on the broadcast end.

We don’t need the “fairness doctrine.” It is a misnomer; it is NOT FAIR at all. It would just be another tool of the liberals to try to take over the country with socialized medicine, tax hikes all across the spectrum and abortions funded by everyone’s taxes through Planned Parenthood. They received over 300 million tax dollars in 2006.

My Opinion:

I believe that IF the so called “fairness doctrine” is ever reinstituted it will backfire on the ones who push it through. As surely as it can be applied to Talk & Christian radio, it can be applied to politics. This means that when the liberals buy broadcast time, or receive time on a broadcast media, the conservatives can demand equal time. Thankfully, the reviving of this old doctrine did not get enough support in the 110th session of Congress to introduce it.

For the sake of broadcasters and for the freedom of speech we enjoy in this country, I hope the so-called “fairness doctrine” is never reinstituted.

Abortion:

Abortion has reduced our population tremendously through the killing of unborn babies. These were millions of “would be” Americans that never got a chance at life. Talk about mass killings! We just let it keep happening and spend our time prosecuting people involved in “dog fighting” and protecting “endangered species.” I'm not for dog fighting, nor against protecting endangered species, but we are going to be endangered if the killing of the unborn doesn’t stop. We should fight abortion with every fiber in us.

What makes me really mad is that the majority of abortions are of black babies and yet most of the black community continues to vote for the pro-choice (pro-Abortion) candidates. Why is this?The population reduction through abortion has been offset by the influx of illegal immigrants into our country. Soon we will be out numbered if both (abortion and illegal immigration) are not stopped and we will be at the mercy of illegals. There are no telling how many illegals that voted in the 2008 election, possibly affecting the outcome. I am no against immigrants, otherwise most of us wouldn't be in this country. My German ancestors came here in 1737 and they did it legally. I want the best life for all mankind, but do it legally. It is also very important that immigrants learn to speak English, our common language.

Jay