The Democrats Just love being in power, and way before election day they were working on their goal of STAYING in power. One of their  tactics is cutting off all public debate about what the party is doing. The want to turn off the only medium that presents a dissenting opinion, talk radio.

Last week the White House announced that they would not support reimplementation of the fairness doctrine, here’s why: The President is doing an end-around to cut off dissent, its called “localism.” By changing the interpretation of the phrase “Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses” The President, still flush with the liberal victory may kill NATIONAL radio talk shows.

And the most frightening part is that Obama can implement it by stealth.  He needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming. While Obama has been on record disagreeing with the fairness doctrine, he has supported localism On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing.

He has also surrounded himself with people who support localism:

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The head of the Obama transition team was John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. This report complained that there was too much conservative talk on the radio because of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urged the FCC to “[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing. (Source)

Today on Redstate, Brian Darling also warned of the coming Stealth Censorship:

Son of The Fairness Doctrine
by Brian Darling (Profile)

Don’t be fooled by President Obama’s purported renunciation of the Fairness Doctrine last week. The far left fully intends to use a new regulatory scheme, the Son of The Fairness Doctrine, to regulate conservative talk radio. As Erick Erickson wrote last week on Red State, “Congress will restrict how many stations a company can own in a market. They’ll also require advisory boards for each station and make it easier to address consumer complaints against stations.” Although the left has backed away from the Fairness Doctrine because it is ineffective, they are gathering support for an attack on conservative talk radio.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told that “As the President stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.” Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said to The Washington Times, “I’m glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine … but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it. With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship.”

The Center for American Progress has discussed the problem in detail in their paper titled ”The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio” where they argue:

Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.

A more detailed explanation is that the Center for American Progress blames ”two primary explanations typically put forth to explain the disparities between conservative and progressive talk radio programming:

The “repeal” of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 gave station owners and hosts free reign to fill their programming with ideologically conservative content.
The demands of the marketplace favor conservative shows and audiences over progressive ones.

In short lefties are very upset that so called “progressive” radio is not getting enough airplay and that the American listeners are bored with left wing talk radio. The solution is to heavily regulate talk radio to force feed liberal viewpoints on the American people.

The Center for American Progress’s new regulatory scheme could be termed “The Son of the Fairness Doctrine,” because the goal of this new proposal is the same as the Fairness Doctrine — to regulate conservative talk radio to force unpopular far left viewpoints on America listeners and can be explained as follows:
Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations. National radio ownership by any one entity should not exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations and for local ownership, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market. This would be a direct attack on nationally syndicated conservative talk radio hosts that broadcast on a network of radio stations;
Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing. This would be done by requiring ”radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation and viewing of how they are meeting these obligations;” and,
Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee (i.e. tax) to support public broadcasting. If the local accountability rule is violated, then the FCC would be empowered to tax ”owners to directly support local, regional, and national public broadcasting.” The tax revenues would go to the “Corporation for Public Broadcasting with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner.” The Center for American Progress hopes for enough fines to ”net between $100 million and $250 million” to pay for new left wing government sponsored programming.

Who are the targets of the left. The Center for American Progress mapped out the networks to be targeted:
CBS – 74% Conservative – 25% “Progressive”
Clear Channel – 86% Conservative – 14% “Progressive”
Citadel – 100% Conservative
Cumulus – 100% Conservative
Salem – 100% Conservative

Rush Limbaugh penned a letter to President Obama and asked

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?

The Center for American Progress blog, Think Progress, responded with the following:

We have a straightforward question, which we hope you will answer in a straightforward way: When a handful of major media companies control who and what is allowed to be broadcast on the commercial dial, how is that not regulation of radio content? When these same companies then push out one-sided, right-wing information 90 percent of the time, how does that uphold freedom of expression?

So Rush asked President Obama if he plans to regulate talk radio and President Obama’s think tank responded by saying that privately owned media companies should not be allowed to “regulate” radio content. The Center for American Progress explicitly endorses a regulatory scheme that empowers the government’s regulation of Rush Limbaugh by taxing companies that don’t balance out Rush’s conservative viewpoints. Do they not understand that government mandated speech is a violation of the First Amendment right to be free from government mandated viewpoints? Watch out for the Son of the Fairness Doctrine coming to a radio station near you.

This “stealth” censorship is just another way this new administration is hiding facts from the American people.  The stimulus bill was rammed through with out availibility for a public reading, the announcement of US Participation in Durban II and now this.  It seems that the promise of an open administration is just another failed political promise.