Nashville's Online Source for Daily News
Search Site
Bush, in Nashville, pledges veto of fairness doctrine
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.
The speech was Bush’s third at the Opryland Hotel during his presidency. He was last in Tennessee in February, when he toured the state’s damage from a string of deadly tornadoes.
For more on this story, see Wednesday’s The City Paper …
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Technorati
Mailing list sign-up
1928 Hawks Nest Dr, Hermitage
Price: $259,900
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 3/3
3710 Clearwood Lane, Clarksville
Price: $0
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 0/0
View More Homes
"...fairness doctrine - which requires both sides of controversial issues to be represented on the air...""“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."???????
hey, our village has enough idiots!
I don't see anything fair about the fairness doctrine.
In actuality, this is an important thing. The reenactment of this is a thin veiled attempt at removing opposition from the air waves. It was/is being driven by some Dems in Congress against mostly Michael Savage, and to a much lesser degree O’Reilly and Rush. It is a crock of a bill, and agree with those three or not, it smacks smartly against the biggest thing this country was founded on, freedom of speech. This may be the one thing I would have to commend Bush for.
It was unworkable the last time they tried it. First, someone in the government must decide if it is "controversial" and then forbid broadcasters from presenting anything UNLESS they can find a dissenting point of view and give each "equal time".For instance, foreign aid used to feed starving children in Africa. Some may feel that the federal government does not have the authority to allocate taxpayer funds. Is this controversial? Can ABC air a program about a food relief program in Africa without finding and airing a dissenting POV? Only the politicians in Washington can tell you the answer.
Nice to see some intelligent post, that are informative and helpful. I was beginning to think all this forum was used for was seeing who could be the biggest jack--- and who could come up with the most unoriginal, small minded wisecracks. That was a nice hypothetical situation you gave Dragon. Although, I don't think those who presented this bill had that kind of subject in mind. I think it has a lot to do with the fact there are hardly any left wing radio shows and a lot of right wingers.
Agreed, Papa. I think that it is purely political and is an attempt to control the media for partisan reasons. It would also have large unintended consequences.
It really surprises me that the Democrats are pushing this bill. It seems that this is a total contradiction to normal Democratic policy.
Part of that is what happens when special interest groups control the Congress. They try to dictate what they like and don’t like to the members, which in turn create this kind of intimidating bill/law. Part of it is also a power thing. Power corrupts. Power instills fear in the weak that have it. There are many that want it to be their way or the highway. People speaking out against them are a threat to their power, pure and simple. There are some who feel, even I do to a degree, that it is an attempt to under mind America, to facilitate its fall, by removing the very foundations on which this country was created, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. If one religion or group can dictate what can or can not be said about it, we are done as a country.
Most news organizations (60 minutes comes to mind) try to find dissenting opinions to all stories they air. The Fairness doctrine tries to force everyone to do that. I agree the bill is stupid, but it is aimed squarely at Fox and CNN which show one side only. We need to take away broadcasting licenses from most of the religuous bigots.
Everyone in this country has the right, for now, to say what ever they want. If you are offended, you have the right to walk away. If you are slandered you have the right to sue. If you are injured, you have the right to file charges (assault, the threat of injury, can be both physical and verbal). For this country to survive, that cannot change.
I haven’t read the current bill, Lou (do you have a citation?), but requiring broadcasters to open up OUR airwaves—which they simply rent—to all points of view is a good thing.Morons like Michael Savage, Bill O’Reilly, & Rush Limbaugh will still have plenty of space-time. Dragon, a program ABOUT a food-relief program wouldn’t require equal time, but editorials on the news would. Think of how many times the media censors anything progressive. More than passing this “equal-time” provision, the Congress must set up new rules for the F.C.C., which has been censoring the airwaves terribly since 2001. We own the airwaves, and the F.C.C. keeps giving them to fewer & fewer people. Anyone who believes in competition & free enterprise should be sickened by how the F.C.C. has permitted monopolies.Besides re-preventing anyone from owning more than one local network or newspaper—and not both—Congress should mandate that all cable t.v. companies sell channels a la carte. This should’ve happened twenty years ago: Comcast, say, gives you a list of channels & charges you monthly by the channels you choose. If all you want are FOX, some religious networks, the History channel, the Weather channel, and, say, ESPN, then why should you pay for C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC, the golf network, Bravo, &c.? The technology is there, and the a la carte option could be a slightly higher priced option rather than some of the current packages.
I don’t believe it is about opening our airwaves. It is about making a particular show, Michael Savage for example, to present opposing views to his points, without consideration as to whether or not he is right, wrong, or indifferent.That the FCC is a joke, or cable al a carte availability is not the point of the current “fairness doctrine”.
George needn't worry his pretty little head about having to veto the bill.We can wait until there's a Democrat in the White House.
Gov. shouldn't force ANY of the press to do any thing. If viewers and readers can't figure out that both sides aren't being represented, then it's their problem, IMO.
"By: PapaLegba on 3/11/08It really surprises me that the Democrats are pushing this bill. It seems that this is a total contradiction to normal Democratic policy."Normal Democratic policy is maximum government control, so this "fairness" thing is very much up their alley. No one remembers how the Clinton White House reviewed TV scripts for appropriate content? http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/14/drugads.cnn/index.htmlhttp://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/31/magazines/index.htmlhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jan2000/drug-j24.shtmlHow about Tipper Gore's Parents Music Resource Center, which sought to put "inappropriate content" stickers on records? Another proud Democrat "free speech" initiative.Oh, the good old days... fascism is good only when it has that little D next to it.
Wow, Vandy, that's inaccurate & stupid--even for you. I'm no fan of the Democrats, but Republicans are at least as bad at using the government to control us.Lou, the fairness doctrine won't change Michael Savage's really awful show (who listens to it?). During the "fairness" years, there was plenty of biased talk-radio.
This may not be the right approach, but if there is NO governance of the airways, only people with big money will have their ideas put on the air. Do you think those with big money (i.e.: big business, extremists of either political persuasion, megachurches, etc.) tell the truth or their spin on things? People believe what they hear and, sad but true, most people are too uneducated or lazy or too busy to research what they hear on tv & radio. This is a variation of what is happening in politics (and elsewhere in our society)... the opinions of those with the most money, float to the top, leaving the rest of us to wonder what the heck is happening to the country. Love of money... corrupts (like the Bible says). Look around & see.
The cool/great thing about letting them say what they will.... it's educational. Better to know what your enemy is up to than to have no clue or foresight, right? If they play their hand, you can at least counter and do it in a much more timely manner....
The fairness doctrine as represented below - Against - http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfmFor - http://michellemalkin.com/2007/04/15/fairness-doctrine-watch/http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htmAgenda?http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fairness-doctrine-hammered-309-115-2007-06-28.htmlhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm1472.cfmThere is a lot of info here and as with most things, the info can be referenced to show what ever side you want. I get as much education and information from Michael Savage as I do from Liberadio. Yes I listen to them both, and find that I agree with a lot of what each has to say. The reality is that they are not that far apart in their beliefs and desires for people and this country, albeit, their ways to get there are not always the same. That does not mean either won’t, or will, work. But to take away from either, is wrong, period. And no matter what people say, think, or believe the fairness doctrine renewal at this time is about censorship, period.
Thanks, Lou, for the citations. I don't listen to either Savage or Liberadio. I listen to DEMOCRACY NOW & THE DIANE REHM SHOW. Then, I put on something else.I tried Savage once. He was full of bigoted misinformation (although I do forget what the subject matter was) that I snapped it off. Give me a book-on-tape in the car any day.