President Bush vows to veto restrictions on Christian broadcasting

[sabra]

Source: AP

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - President Bush has pledged to veto any legislation that would "stifle" Christian broadcasters' freedom to spread their message.

...

Christian broadcasters fear it would force them to air anti-Christian views. Conservative talk show hosts worry that government-mandated balance would prompt stations to drop their programs.

President Bush said, "We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson."

Bush told the Christian broadcasters that in today's culture, "You are the balance."

Read more: http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=89024

[Solly Mack]

1. Dipshit

[Lautremont]

2. More horn-honking to the only people left who'll lick his ass. nt.

[saigon68]

51. Proving you can fool 27% of the people

ALL THE TIME

[TNOE]

52. I thought it was down to 19%

The very same group (mind-set) that drank Jim Jones kool-aid and lived in David Koresh's compound.

[Zhade]

54. More like 80%, since that's the percentage of christians in this country.

NT!

[AndyA]

3. So Bush thinks Rush Limpballs is a Christian broadcaster?

What an idiot.

He just doesn't want the M$M to be forced to report THE TRUTH - because it would accurately depict him as the tyrant murderer that he is.

[Eric J in MN]

4. In the 1980s, before the Fairness Doctrine was destroyed...

...Christian programs weren't forced to air anti-Christian opinions.

The Fairness Doctrine was about discussions of this world, not the spiritual world.

[frylock]

5. christian broadcasters fear it would force them to air anti-christian views

that one pegged my irony meter.

[Ishoutandscream2]

6. "Balance?" How about bigotry and hate?

I swear, these people are some of the biggest hate mongers in this country. They would applaud an assassination of a Clinton or Obama because it was "God's will" to knock off so-called "agents of Satan."

[fascisthunter]

7. Right Wingers are Pushing their Fanaticism on America

don't BS with your "balance"

[Zorra]

8. Bu*h is a sociopathic pathological liar. n/t

[truthisfreedom]

49. sociopathological!

[Sadie4629]

9. Why should there be restrictions

You know, Freedom of Speech and all that . . .

[Ordr]

10. Good.

There should be no stifling of speech of any kind in this country.

[orleans]

16. good? why is that good? you can't get enough of limbaugh & dobson?

you think they are the balance in todays culture like the fuckhead said?

[Ordr]

17. No one should have their speech limited or threatened

Regardless of how despicable it may be.

[orleans]

21. what about all the voices that are not able to be heard because

of the absence of the fairness doctrine?

did you read the article?

"Speaking to the National Religious Broadcasters convention, the president warned that some in Congress want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which was abolished in 1987. It required stations to offer air time for opposing views on controversial subjects."

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=89024

as it is now, these right wing freaks are allowed to own TONS of stations and they decide which shows to air to the public on the public airwaves.

how many liberal talk shows have you heard in the past several years compared to christian/conservative/right wing shows?

absence of the fairness doctrine limits my right to free speech! so how the hell is that "good?"

[Thothmes]

23. There is nothing

that prevents liberals and progressives from owning tons of stations. But they seem to be less willing to sink their money into the public air waves.
They seem to be quite willing though to cry foul and demand that speech be limited because they choose not to invest their money in those media.

[Ordr]

25. Right on.

[orleans]

43. educate yourself. QUICK!

For citizens who value media democracy and the public interest, broadcast regulation of our publicly owned airwaves has reached a low-water mark. In his new book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. probes the failure of broadcasters to cover the environment, writing, “The FCC’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory philosophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests.”

According to TV Week (11/30/04), a coalition of broadcast giants is currently pondering a legal assault on the Supreme Court’s Red Lion decision. “Media General and a coalition of major TV network owners—NBC Universal, News Corp. and Viacom—made clear that they are seriously considering an attack on Red Lion as part of an industry challenge to an appellate court decision scrapping FCC media ownership deregulation earlier this year.”

Considering the many looming problems facing media democracy advocates, Extra! asked MAP’s Schwartzman why activists should still be concerned about the Fairness Doctrine.

What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

there is a lot more to this article, i suggest you have a look

[Thothmes]

58. We do not need a "Fairness Doctrine"

What we need is Liberal Democrats to put there money where their mouth is. Buy the radio stations, invest in the media business and spread progressive message. We do not need for the Federal Governent decide what constitutes fairness. We do not need a lawyer enrichment program from the law suits.
What we need is Democrats to risk their wallets for the message they espouse. Just My Opinion.

[tabasco]

28. Corporations own the tv stations.

What you get is corporate propaganda.

You need to educate yourself about media ownership.

http://www.corporations.org/media/

[humbled_opinion]

30. Some people believe that Liberal Talk Radio

Doesn't work because the liberal listener is far more informed and intelligent on the issues then the typical conservative. The Conservatives allow their audience to basically worship the host views no real challenge to their omnipotence.

[guitar man]

32. bingo!

Liberals and progressives don't want or need to be told what to think. conservatives thrive on it.

[tidy_bowl]

39. I disapprove of what you say.....

...but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[orleans]

42. maybe you should do some more reading in your spare time:

For citizens who value media democracy and the public interest, broadcast regulation of our publicly owned airwaves has reached a low-water mark. In his new book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. probes the failure of broadcasters to cover the environment, writing, “The FCC’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory philosophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests.”

According to TV Week (11/30/04), a coalition of broadcast giants is currently pondering a legal assault on the Supreme Court’s Red Lion decision. “Media General and a coalition of major TV network owners—NBC Universal, News Corp. and Viacom—made clear that they are seriously considering an attack on Red Lion as part of an industry challenge to an appellate court decision scrapping FCC media ownership deregulation earlier this year.”

Considering the many looming problems facing media democracy advocates, Extra! asked MAP’s Schwartzman why activists should still be concerned about the Fairness Doctrine.

What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

there is a lot more to this article, i suggest you have a look

[Wabbajack_]

62. Too true

[Ordr]

24. I am also opposed to the Fairness Doctrine.

BUT

I am also strongly opposed to a few massive corporations owning many radio stations. You are right, the ideology-based companies own the majority of the stations and dictate their content. There should be a law in place that limits the number radio stations belonging to a single corporate entity. Actually, there is a law in place just for this purpose but it was recently changed to allow an enormous amount of stations under one corporate governing body. Increase the number of owners of the stations and the marketplace will determine who will broadcast what.

[orleans]

45. if you are opposed to it you probably don't understand it. n/t

[Ordr]

46. LOL

Typical.

[orleans]

47. lol. your attitude is also "typical" but i won't say of who n/t

[xxqqqzme]

50. BTW what you just wrote

is an argument for the Fairness Doctrine.

[humbled_opinion]

29. Why don't we just boycott their sponsors? n/t

[ReformedChris]

33. I remember many WingNut Radio Hosts begging for Air America to be a massive success

So they wouldn't have to deal with the Fairness Doctrine Threat being thrown around. I feel strongly that Media Ownership is the issue that stands in the way of balance in the media. Ask the giant station owners why they fire solid local hosts to cut jobs and go with mediocre national programming like Mark Levin or Rusty Humphries. We need to get back to small station ownership groups that will try to be different then the other radio stations. Instead of national garbage, get the local shows on the air again that show that point of view. If you notice, most of the strong liberal hosts on Talk Radio are usually locally based promotions.

[jimnasium]

36. Because if the Fairness Doctrine gets reinstated...

Big Media/Big Government will soon come after US.

the doctrine could be expanded to go after websites like this one.

Imagine if DU had to use half its content to give the repuke point-of-view. Would it then be feasible for Skinner to keep this site operating?

Besides, if I want an unbiased, progressive viewpoint - I'll read a copy of Utne Reader or Mother Jones.

Best regards, friend.

[orleans]

41. oh, that is such a crock. n/t

[treestar]

55. The airwaves are limited

The internet is not; there would be no such rule necessary for the internet. The freepers can have their site. The idea here is that only one side gets the airwaves, because they are limited.

[kenfrequed]

34. Right...

But what about the stifling power of the profit motive?

What about the stifling of non-majority spiritual beliefs?

What about the stifling of anti war views in the name of being "a good citizen?"

Demanding balance is NOT stifling anything, having a media without some time dedicated to dissent is a recipe for corporate fascistic domination and stifling of more voices than any watered down revisitation of the fairness doctrine.

[lumpy]

44. Is speaking of killing someone, advocating overthrow of a

government, speech inciting hatred toward ethnic groups etc. OK in your book. Or should there be limitations on speech ?

[seafan]

11. Bush promises religious broadcasters he will not allow Fairness Doctrine while he's in White House

Just add it to the stratospheric mountain of corruption, and carry on.


Bush, in Nashville, pledges veto of fairness doctrine

By John Rodgers
March 12, 2008

President George W. Bush promised a gathering of religious broadcasters today in Nashville that he would veto any legislation reinstating the so-called “fairness doctrine” on the public’s airwaves.
The move by some in Congress to reinstate the fairness doctrine - which requires both sides of controversial issues to be represented on the air - is a top point of concern for the National Religious Broadcasters, who gathered for their convention at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center.

Bush reassured the friendly crowd of about 1,250 that he would not let the fairness doctrine be reinstated while he was in the White House.
“If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, I’m going to veto it,” Bush told the crowd, prompting a long, standing ovation.

Besides that pledge, Bush spent the rest of his speech stressing his commitment to the war on terror on its two fronts – Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bush said it was not the “politics of 2008” that would be entering into his decision making on Iraq but “peace of the years to come.”
“No president wants to be a war president, but when confronted with the realities of the world, I have made the decision that now is the time to confront it, now is the time to deal with this enemy, and now is the time to spread freedom as the great alternative,” Bush said to applause.
Bush did not mention any of the presidential candidates by name, including the one he endorsed, Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

After his roughly 35 minute speech, Bush departed the hotel and headed for a Republican National Committee fundraiser.

.....

Ten more months of George W. Bush, unless Ms. Pelosi decides impeachment is back on her table.



Via AfterDowningStreet.org

[ajamo]

13. Bushit and Slimbaugh

Two of a kind.\\
I don't mind those people doing the talking but make them tell the truth, and if they are caught in a lie, only one way to treat it, and that is jail time.
these people such as Limbaugh are trying to over throw our government, and people, yes people out there are pouring money into them, and yelling because taxes are not good.
Bring on the Tea days, not far off.

[RC]

56. This idiot was bragging about being the first war president of the 21st Century.

back during his and cheney's run up to the Iraq Invasion.
"No president wants to be a war president..."

[flvegan]

12. Since when do Limbaugh and "Christian views" run together?

I didn't know hatespeak was a "Christian view".

[ajamo]

15. November

Voting in November you bet, I put my money on Democrats.

Had enough of Republican yes people.

We need our county back

[Tikki]

18. Yes...we need our country back more now...

than ever.


WELCOME to DU...:hi: Glad your here.

We have some pretty daunting issues facing us soon...
most importantly the environment.
I ache for the fact we could be a nation strong with new
innovative jobs and already deep into alternative resource
energy if we had been allowed to work with the President
the majority of Americans voted for back in 2000.


Tikki

[flvegan]

20. Welcome to DU.

[humbled_opinion]

31. Yes we do all 3077 of em....

:silly:

[Frank Cannon]

60. Don't know if it's the hatespeak that Bush considers Christian...

or Rush's penchant for serial divorce, sex tourism, and narcotics addiction.

Puzzling, isn't it? :shrug:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. So people will be free to continue hate radio

a so-called "Christian" group here talks of "mud people" and how they should be killed. If they get on a "Christian" station, then it will be ok for them to spew this? And what of the radio stations now spewing homophobic hatred?

[RoccoR5955]

19. Bush can go.

Take a flying leap into boiling oil.

I'd like to see his head on a pike in front of the White House.

No, waterboard him. Torture him. Make him see what it feels like.

[govegan]

22. unbalanced president vows to veto balance

Per the article: Christian broadcasters fear it would force them to air anti-Christian views. Conservative talk show hosts worry that government-mandated balance would prompt stations to drop their programs.

Translation: Fascism does not relish competition in the court of public opinion.

Limbaugh & Dobson are christian in the same way that the putrescent poltroon is christian. None of the three would recognize christianity if it stood in front of them and dropped a bucket of blood on their ugly heads.

The national mammon worshipper conference would be a more appropriate moniker for these fools.

If these folks aren't ashamed of an ignorant and hate filled mass murderer . . . .

[BearSquirrel2]

40. Wow, syndicate Alan Colmes on WLS ...

I think that the fairness doctrine would only accomplish the equivalent of Hannity and Colmes. They'll bring in some ninny to give half hearted responses in between Limbaugh's bellicose authoritarianism.

I hate the fact that people have their radio tuned to say WLS and leave it there. And there they hear nothing but conservative drivel. At the same time, I think requiring them to carry liberal viewpoints would result in sham "Faux style balance".

I think our best deprogrammer may be Ed Schultz. To me big Eddy is kinda like a modern Archie Bunker. He is a recovering conservative. He gets it wrong A LOT. At the same time, I believe that he can walk other former conservatives through the process.

Progressive voices need to keep building their own media outlets. When the audience gets big enough, revenues will come. Until then, we'll have to tolerate low power daytime only stations while WLS blasts over the entire midwest.

[Deny and Shred]

26. On one side: Hannity, the other side: Combes. There , balance.

[ReformedChris]

27. The Fairness Doctrine and "Free Speech" issues will cause the RePuke base to explode in rage

Any attempt to balance or discuss any kind of boundaries in the media will be met with a firestorm of anger and rage. Any attempt to reign in Talk Radio or Christian Broadcasting will be met with endless opposition and the radio hosts will fight to the death to stop it. I will always feel the best way to defeat the talk radio machine is to beat in Rush Limbaugh's "Arena of Ideas". We just need that one host that will open the floodgates like Rush did in the 90's and it will be balanced again.

[Thothmes]

59. Not having government enforced "Fairness" seems

to cause a fair number of Helmet fires on this forum.

[onager]

35. Part of this sounds like an old Urban Legend...

One that is harder to kill than Count Dracula:

Over a quarter of a century ago, two broadcasters petitioned the FCC to consider disqualifying religious organizations from being licensed to broadcast on channels reserved for noncommercial educational use.

Eight months later, citing the First Amendment requirement "to observe a stance of neutrality toward religion, acting neither to promote nor to inhibit religion," the Commission rejected the petition.

That ought to have been the end of it.

Unfortunately, wildly inaccurate rumors had already surfaced among Christian groups to the effect that the 1975 petition had been instigated by the infamous atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair and that it called for a ban on all religious programming, including even Christmas carols.

By the time the FCC announced its ruling, it had received an estimated 700,000 letters of protest from people who misunderstood both the origin and nature of the petition. In spite of the Commission's best efforts to correct them, these misunderstandings persisted well beyond that date. In fact, they persist to this day...

From snail mail to Fax to email, all available means have been used to keep the document in constant circulation ever since. A recent example follows...

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa050599.htm

[sofa king]

37. Another inspirational quote from Der Fuehrer.

[BearSquirrel2]

38. Get rid of the cable carrier law ...

There is a nasty little law (or rule) that requires cable companies to carry any local TV station on their cable networks. Knowing this, Fundagelicals bought up all kinds of little UHF station with crappy signal strenghts and wallah, you have your own fundagelical channel poised to prey on individuals that would NEVER have been able to receive their signal otherwise.

[HuffleClaw]

48. "You are the balance" ??!!

meep

[GoddessOfGuinness]

53. So we need to spread our message louder...

Tolerance
Peace
Science
Fairness

Dumbyass' so-called christians collect money every Sunday to help sell their political agenda via the airwaves. Why can't we do the same thing?

[Thepricebreaker]

57. Free Speech? Nothing stops us from doing the same.

[zanne]

63. No, nothing but the giant media conglomerates that won't let us. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

61. Ok, so hold up, I"m confused

1. Bigoted speech is now "Christian"? (Their fear of banning "anti-Christian" broadcasts.)

2. Rush Limbaugh is now a "Christian" broadcaster?

Actually, come to think of it, maybe 2 explains 1. I've been using the wrong definition of Christian all my years!

[onenote]

64. chimpy is just trying to please his remaining base -- there's no chance of the FD being reinstated

while he's president. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Even assuming it could pass the House, it would die in the Senate.

But, if you're chimpy, what are you going to talk about with your base at this point. Might as well throw them some red meat, even if its frozen and still in the package