Me, too. Obama will skirt the Fairness Doctrine and licenses won't be renewed. Like print news will go out of business.//I float Limbaugh's voice through the house when I am home. He's certainly more fun than Matt Lauer!
On Feb 22, 4:24�pm, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > I seldom listen to the radio at all but i do agree with Rush. > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > �A letter from Rush Limbaugh published in the Wall Street Journal. > > Whether you like Rush.....Or not; this is an interesting, thought provoking > > perspective: ================= Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free As a > > former law professor, surely you understand the Bill of Rights. > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123508978035028163.html?mod=djemEdito... > > > By RUSH > > LIMBAUGH<http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=RUSH+LIMBAUG...> > > > Dear President Obama: > > > I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a > > straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a > > variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," > > and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to > > populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and > > the AM band? > > You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to > > listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the > > lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out > > of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over > > radio content. This is both chilling and ominous. > > > As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the > > University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the > > purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible > > excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that > > "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the > > press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in > > refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, > > dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be > > left to the government to police. > > > When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio > > industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only > > about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news > > articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which > > was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the > > lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no > > accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, > > which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous > > attempts at rationing the content of speech. > > > After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine > > in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When > > President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires > > Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an > > effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a > > reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those > > issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . > > . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First > > Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or > > biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only > > through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to > > guarantee." > > > Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In > > fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs > > covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The > > explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic > > value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, > > content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of > > the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And > > not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from > > other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an > > exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and > > a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do. > > > Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is > > not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said > > you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it > > clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called > > local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your > > FCC could issue. > > > I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, > > newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to > > allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against > > certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and > > ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American > > Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this > > movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it. > > > The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the > > original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an > > excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of > > expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a > > "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should > > agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient > > political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest. > > > We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed > > censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas > > remain a free market? > > -- > *~@):~{>- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
