Rep. Boyda on the Fairness Doctrine

I wrote to Rep. Nancy Boyda about my concerns about efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which is an effort to silence conservative voices on talk radio by forcing broadcasters to provide alternative views (the result of which would be programming so lame and uninteresting to the consumers who have flocked to conservative programming because their views aren't found elsewhere that they would turn off the radio).

Here is her response:

Thank you for your interest in the recent House action prohibiting the use of federal money to enforce the Fairness Doctrine. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on the issues facing Congress.

America's founders understood that democracy depends on the free dissemination of ideas and information. They enshrined that principle in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from making any law ".abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." Throughout our history, newspapers, books and magazines have provided the widest array of fact and opinion to the public, making dissenting views accessible to all.

With the development of radio and television, the limited availability of the airwaves made it impossible for all persons who wanted broadcast licenses to get them. The Radio Act of 1927, authorized the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to issue broadcast licenses only if it would serve the "public convenience, interest or necessity." Persons who acquired licenses were considered public trustees, responsible for operating in the public interest. They were required to demonstrate "due regard for the opinions of others."

In 1949, the FCC formally adopted this policy as the Fairness Doctrine. It became federal law in 1959 when Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934. Much of the doctrine was aimed at ensuring fair treatment for political candidates. Stations were not required to provide equal time to opposing views, to have an equally balanced programming schedule or to have each program internally balanced. It did, however, require broadcasters "to afford a reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance."

In 1987, as a result of deregulation efforts as well as the increase in cable television channels, the FCC ended the Fairness Doctrine. Congress attempted to re-establish it as law earlier that year, but did not have enough votes to override President Reagan's veto. Since then, broadcast licensees have not had to abide by the Fairness Doctrine.

Recently, Representative Mike Pence of Indiana proposed an amendment to the Financial Services and General Governmental FY 2008 Appropriations Act, to prohibit the use of federal funds to enforce the Fairness Doctrine. The House passed the amendment 309-115. I voted against the amendment because it was unnecessary. The Fairness Doctrine does not exist now.

I am, however, very concerned about the effect of consolidation on media ownership. When the stations owning the airwaves are concentrated in the hands of a few, it makes it very difficult for people to find avenues of information that offer differing points of view. I firmly believe that each person should stay informed on current events and social issues and our responsibility to seek out multiple media sources to make informed decisions.

Let me be clear - I do not oppose conservative talk radio. I appear once a month on the Jim Cates Show and enjoy the conversation tremendously. I am concerned that it is becoming more difficult for all viewpoints to participate in the "marketplace of ideas" that our founding fathers envisioned two centuries ago. Democracy thrives when we all get involved.

Thank you for contacting me. Your interest in this issue is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Nancy Boyda
Member of Congress

My reply to her is simply that conservative talk radio IS fairness...at least provides a sliver of it when conservative viewpoints and information can be found in so few places. A true fairness doctrine would force the editorial decision makers in the mainstream press to provide balance in their coverage. But, of course, those who do offer conservative viewpoints are sneered at for being shills for the right.

I don't agree with Rep. Boyda on hardly anything, but I will give her credit for always being willing to answer questions.

KC Star Cartoon Displays Dismay at Abortion Activists

In an update received by Phillip Cosby of National Coalition for the Protection of Families:

The news media recently has had a flurry of coverage concerning our fight against the sex industry. As usual the stories are never as I would write them but all in all it has been interesting and not too many surprises. Some telling of the facts are better that others.

I want to call your attention to today KC Stars political cartoon. The drawing is of two men charging a great house and door with a large log.

The captions explain that these are conservatives charging the abortion industry's fortress (Planned Parenthood) with a battering ram called “Abuse of the Grand Jury Process”. As you may know by now the pro-life movement has awakened to the power of the grand jury petition process. I cheer them on…

I had to chuckle at the thought of someone being so dismayed at a group of concerned citizens using the legal system to investigate a public injustice. That is exactly what Kansas lawmakers envisioned and encouraged when the power to participate in the legal system was legislated awarding a grand jury by petition process. It is a very pure form of a government "of, by and for the people" that engages the judicial system.

Although the KC Star may intend such caricatures to mock, I want you to imagine this same political cartoon and place this caption below it….Mt 16:18b…”and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”…

We are a people that seeks justice, turns on light, dispels darkness, goes on the offensive and tears down walls. Lord,help us to not take the road for the timid that would shrink back from adversity.

Why Liberals Hate Christians

Kevin McCullough wrote an essay on why liberals hate Christians. Here is his conclusion.

Evangelicals know that we are all sinners, none righteous but Him. He calls us to follow Him. We are expected to, and in doing so we will see that life's economy runs best when following His plan. We do not behead those who choose not to. We simply want them to know the joy, peace, contentment and purpose we find in Him.

And it is the reality in seeing the joy, peace, and contentment that we have and that they do not - that drives liberals to draw angry conclusions.

They also want a world with no moral judgments, and they hate that we draw moral absolutes from the Bible...that we actually BELIEVE that our positions are morally right and others are morally wrong. And, to be fair, everybody despises a hypocrite--and in today's media that so many leftists draw their information, that is how Christians are portrayed. It is easy to find and spotlight hypocrites in a group of people who hold themselves up as morally righteous when in fact we're all fallen and sinful. When the media finds a Christian whose sin has become public, they turn on the lights and roll the cameras for all to see. Since liberals hang out with liberals, they feed off of each others' thoughts, get their information from the same places, and draw the same conclusions. Their lack of exposure to real in-the-trenches Christians gives them no frame of reference whatsoever. So...maybe the next big mission field is in our own country. Maybe instead of sending so many people to Botswana, we just need to send missionaries to the left of our own country.

A young college student in our church just returned from a mission trip to Jakarta. I do believe that she was received better in this VERY Muslim city than she would be received in the liberal neighborhoods of San Fransisco.

GOP Motivation

I see that polls show the Democratic voters are highly motivated. There are good reasons for the GOP base to get stirred up as well:

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the state Legislature must create same-sex marriage or civil unions within 180 days. Once again, gay activists and liberal courts have dealt a major blow to supporters of traditional marriage. Congressional action to protect marriage will surely be needed in this coming term, and you won't find it in the Democratic party! You must keep a Republican controlled congress if you want to protect traditional marriage.

Homosexual couples from Kansas will be able to "marry" in New Jersey and return to challenge our state laws in federal court. Only congress can protect us from the activist robed crusaders.

Right-thinking Christians should also be moved to the polls because of John Kerry's off-handed remarks about the stupid people in the military stuck in Iraq. His remarks are a slap in the face to our nation's military heroes, made only worse by his attempt to say they were directed at the president and not the men and women in uniform and his refusal to apologize. Unfortunately, his views are representative of much of the left in this country, and we can't trust them to be in charge of our military efforts during this time of war.

Liberals and the media (they do go hand-in-hand, don't they?) have been trying to discourage Christians from voting this year (overblowing the Foley scandal, for one). They know what a difference Christian voters made in 2004. Don't give them this victory. Get to the polls and take your friends and family with you.

And spend time in prayer for our nation and for righteous candidates to come out victorious.