In an inadvertent and quite by accident chain of events, a liberal talk show host proves beyond a shadow of a doubt helped El Rushbo prove his point about the need to kill the Fearness Doctrine here and now. There is nothing "fair" about it unless "fair" means shutting the very popular nation-wide craving for Conservative News down. Naturally, "fair" does not mean that Keith Overbite will have to share half his time with El Rushbo "Fair" to a libtard drooling and driveling mental case means that only liberal point of views are worthy. I guess that explains why print news is failing in the liberal land of stupidity and liberal talk radio is a dismal failure because it so bloody popular. "Fair" means doing away with with Free Markets.
Top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh has gotten some unexpected help in his campaign against the so-called Fairness Doctrine that would censor conservative talk radio -- liberal radio host Ed Schultz, though Schultz most assuredly did not intend for this to happen.
On his nationally syndicated program Friday, Schultz read excerpts from an op-ed written by Limbaugh and published in that day's Wall Street Journal, a column taking the form of a letter to President Obama. [...]
The liberal talkie-troll proceeds to read the Op-Ed and whines about it the whole time. In the reference section below, you will find the link to this story and at Newsbusters, you will find the audio link to the Ed Schultz show in question.
I'll not place the vitriolic hate-filled Hate Speech oozing from the lips of the libtard Eddie. Suffice it to say that once again, as a libtard tries ITS best to refute issues, they always, without fail, admit to the charges that they themselves place on others. It is quite comical in a rueful way.
A caller was talking with Eddie and because the caller disagreed with Eddie, all of a sudden, the caller was just about every bad thing that ever walked, ran, crept, crawled, slithered, swam or flew across the earth. And then he hung up on his caller. So much for that "fair and balanced" thing. Go read that whole exchange linked below. It's an eye opener.
Recently, Obama said that he will not support the Fairness Doctrine. Fine. He also said that same thing last June. Fine. However, Nanna and Reidie said that they want it. Other libtards in CONgress say they want it. Will Obama veto said "policy"? Maybe. Will CONgress override that veto? More than likely. But, does Obama or the Congress really need to go through Congress to sneak the Fairness Doctrine through? No, they do not. There is always a back door.
[...] But you can't blame talk radio fans for worrying. When the Federal Communications Commission enforced the doctrine, from 1949 to 1987, it was a convenient club for politicians and interest groups itching to silence their critics. During the last couple of years, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats have publicly pined for its return, a change that would effectively require any outlet that transmits Sean Hannity's show to either devote a chunk of its schedule to rebutting him or, more likely, dial back its political programs altogether and air a jock or a psychiatrist instead. Pelosi's party hasn't come close to restoring the rule, but they've handed a powerful political weapon to the opposition: Every time the Dems raise the subject, right-wing radio shows and blogs broadcast the news to an angry conservative base. In a year when rank-and-file Republicans are uncomfortable with their party's presidential nominee, it's a potent way to persuade them to hold their noses and vote for John McCain. [...]
The Fairness Doctrine is being used as a political football and sooner then later, when no one is loooking, we may find that with all of the fretting, it will come to pass and it won't be through regular channels.
[...] Now the bad news. There's a host of other broadcast regulations that Obama has not foresworn. In the worst-case scenario, they suggest a world where the FCC creates intrusive new rules by fiat, meddles more with the content of stations' programs, and uses the pending extensions of broadband access as an opportunity to put its paws on the Internet. At a time when cultural production has been exploding, fueled by increasingly diverse and participatory new media, we would be stepping back toward the days when the broadcast media were a centralized and cozy public-private partnership. [...]
[...] An Obama FCC might mean still more steps toward reregulation. Coming on the heels of Martin's commission, it could also mean a relative reprieve—even, in some areas, a move away from command and control. A lot depends on events, and a lot depends on which interest groups acquire the most influence in his administration. Here are four factions to keep an eye on. [...]
Go read the rest of the article at Reason Online entitled, "Beyond the Fairness Doctrine".