Obama is our new President!!!!!

Hi, I'm very interested in your opinions on this matter. In June, Obama stated he was not interested in a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Today, it was announced on both CNN and Fox (I watch both), Henry Rivera, a very left-leaning, will assume transition of the FCC. I'm interested in the Obama supporters take on this. As for me, I am going to be writing Ms. Shaheen and demanding some answers.... This does NOT require any Congressional or Senate approval to be re-enacted. It's unconstitutional in the very essence and a very effective means of squelching any dissenting viewpoints. Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/25/2008 6:25:00 PM

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.

The Illinois senators top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

The Fairness Doctrine issue flared up in recent days after reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was talking about a Democratic push to reinstate it, although it was unclear at press time whether that was a new pledge or the restating of a long-held position.

Conservative paper Human Events reported that Pelosi was not planning to bring to a vote a bill to block the reimposition of the doctrine.

The paper went on to say that Pelosi ғadded that the interest in my caucus is the reverseђ and that New York Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.ђ

But it was unclear whether Pelosi was talking about a push, or simply restating her long-held view that the doctrine should return.

President George W. Bush pledged to veto any attempt to legislatively establish the doctrine, and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told B&C in an interview last fall that there were no plans to try to bring the doctrine back.

One year ago, the House passed a bill, from Indiana Republican and former radio talker Mike Pence, that put a one-year moratorium on funding any Federal Communications Commission reimposition of the doctrine. Democrats, led by David Obey (D-Wis.), suggested that the amendment was a red herring, a nonissue and that it was being debated, such as it was -- no Democrats stood to oppose it -- to provide sound bites for conservative talkers and "yap yap TV," who had ginned up the issue.

In a Shakespearian mood, Obey said the amendment was "much ado about nothing" and "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

It was a permanent version of that moratorium, also pushed by Pence, that Pelosi was reportedly saying would have no chance.

But other Democrats suggested that the sticking point was the current administration, and some big names, including Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), talked about the possibility of bringing it back. Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) went so far as to say he would make the doctrine part of his media agenda.

The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. The FCC found the doctrine unconstitutional back in 1987, and President Reagan vetoed an attempt by congressional Democrats to reinstate it.

It is a sensitive topic with Republicans, who fear that Democrats will use it to try and rein in conservative talk radio, the rise of which followed the scrapping of the doctrine.

In the wake of press reports about Pelosi's comments, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), a longtime foe of the doctrine, said its return would be "nothing less than a sweeping takeover by Washington bureaucrats of broadcast media, and it is designed to squelch conservative speech on the airwaves."

Pelosi's office had not returned calls at press time on what she said, and meant, by her comments to the paper. The Story (source: The Radio Equalizer) Henry Rivera, a longtime radical leftist, lawyer and former FCC commissioner, is expected to lead the push to dismantle commercial talk radio that is favored by a number of Democratic Party senators. Rivera will play a pivotal role in preventing critics from having a public voice during ObamaԒs tenure in office. Rivera, who resigned from the FCC nearly a quarter-century ago during the Reagan years, believes in a doctrine of communications policy as a civil rights issueӔ. His exit during the Reagan Administration paved the way for the Fairness Doctrines repeal when the late president appointed Patricia Diaz Dennis in 1986 to fill out the rest of RiveraҒs term. Had this not occurred, talk radio as we know it today would not exist. That gives Riveras new task a great deal of personal urgency: itҒs a late-career, second chance opportunity to shut down opposition voices that have been allowed to flourish since his depature from the commission. In particular, Rivera is known for his push for more minority broadcasting ownership, but this issue has largely been rendered obsolete as former commercial broadcasting empires teeter on the brink of bankruptcy. Riveras first opportunity to eliminate commercial talk radio will occur in June 2009, as the term of Republican Robert McDowell expires and he can be replaced with a pro-Fairness Doctrine Democrat. That will give the commission a three-vote Democratic majority, though the final two seats must remain in Republican hands. If they can strong-arm one of the three Republicans into leaving early, this can be implemented even sooner.

I don't want to be responsible for a seizure or anything, so look away and look at the pics of love (your family & the first couple) instead!

Not to be a bit disrepectful or rude, but the "other side," has a tendency (from my point of view) to portray anyone of faith or conservative values as being backward, racist, ignorant, intolerant, evil, Bible-bashing, gun-toting, war mongering, hillbilly red-necks living in the back woods, married to their sister, whose wedding dress was made out of the Confederate flag. The impression from my vantage point is your viewpoint is in a monopoly here and disssenting viewpoints, no matter how well eleborated, either are misunderstood or lost in translation. Or, simply not welcome. I have tried to be respectful, but have not felt the same. And if I stepped on anyones' toes, shoes, or feelings, I would be the first to apologize. I post one opinion, and it's completely taken out of context from its intent. I have felt unwelcome on this discussion board almost from the beginning for posting a dissenting viewpoint. If this is the shape of the next four years, there will be a lot of polarization, not unity.

Speaking of "the picture", did anyone happen to be watching tv when they took this pic? They had a camera on both of them, but you could see more of Michelle's face then Barack's (guess I'll have to start calling him President Obama - haha). Anyway, you can see him say something to her, and clear as day, see her say to him "I love you too". That made me tear up as much as his speach did!

Kiko - Are you saying that Henry Rivera would bring back the Fairness Doctrine, even though Obama does not want to reinstate it? Wouldn't the Fairness Doctrine also make left-leaning talk radio/TV present the other side? Also, (not that I'm defending the Fairness Doctrine, I think it's a product of another time, when there were less choices on TV/radio), but it wouldn't mean Limbaugh and the like can't be on the air, just that the stations would then have to have a liberal show on to balance it out, is this correct? Does the Fairness Doctrine also apply to cable and satellite radio?

With all respect, kikki, the presence of a cross on a city seal is very much a government act (perhaps technically not "law," but I'm not sure that word as used must mean legislation) "respecting establishment of religion." Surely you can see that? A cross on a seal means "this is a Christian city." That clearly has an establishing effect. Further, if it is a Christian city, it is not a city for all Americans. The issue in general goes far beyond "taking offense"--a complaint that mockingly trivializes the reality--and into guarding against the real dangers--physical, mental/emotional, social, financial, etc.--that this kind of religious promotion leads to. The alignment of government with and its affirmation (establishment) of any religion, but most particularly a majority religion, puts a governmental stamp of approval on the idea that the cross represents "us"--by corollary, anyone not represented by the cross is "not us." And "not us" is a dangerous thing to be. Further, such symbols do, indeed, force everyone to follow one religion because it forces them to accept that religious identity--in this case, their city's identity. If the cross is on the seal, then it is a Christian city, only Christians are "us," and others don't belong or don't belong as much. I know many religious conservatives who are as much in favor of separation of government and religion as liberals. Why? Because they don't trust government to get it right according to their particular religious ideas. And of course they are correct: government can't get it right for everyone, even if for all the varieties of Christians. Today, for example, when you find a cross in a public place, it is almost always a cross. You don't see cruxifices. Why? Because Protestants held sway and as far as they were concerned, Catholics did not count as "us." It is impossible to be overtly inclusive of everyone by trying to get it all in--there are too many religions, some of which some might find offensive or threatening (how many literalist Christians really want a pentagram on the town common?)--and even if you could magically include everything, then you've still imposed religion itself on those who have disavowed it. The tokenism that will be practiced by many schools in the next month--how many games of dradles, how many singings of that annoying song (no offense anyone)?--is itself both pathetically feeble and offensive. Not to mention it ignores the vast scope and range of religious expression in this country. There is no harm done by the absence of religious symbols in government, but there certainly is by its presence. Not too long ago, our school principal wanted the (Jewish) music teacher to organize a "Christmas Concert" featuring carols. She refused. One of the aides said to me, "what's the big deal? All the kids are Christian anyway." At the time, in my daughter's class of 16 kids, there were three kids from atheist/agnostic families, two pagans, and DD1, a UU. So, no, they weren't all Christian and if they were, it would be that much more important, I think, to not send the government-affirmed message that that's the thing everyone is and should be. But by insisting on Christmas's inclusion--[eta:] or any other religious expression--in the schools and public spaces, I think that, bit by bit, those intent on keeping "our traditions" in public space have actually contributed to the secularization and cheapening of what was otherwise a sweet and appealing holy day for many [eta:] as well as other sacred traditions. I agree that, generally, historical markers reflect the society that produced them at the time and there is value in that. But as we go forward, let our government-established monuments, symbols, and activities reflect the growing respect we have for each other in a pluralistic society. Let's honor religion by allowing those who practice it, not government, to express it in their own lives and spaces as they see fit.

As for Fairness Doctrine, it worked and made sense once. It would be unwieldly and totally impractical now, probably bankrupt the media and leave nothing on the air but political discourse.... I don't think anyone on either side need worry about it coming back except perhaps in a radically different, much more tightly defined and restricted form, although personally I would doubt even that. You usually only hear about it when one side or the other scores big and the other side indulges in a little wishful thinking.

Thanks Hadley. I wanted to say something but I really just didn't have the energy.

Excuse me, but do not make assumption about what I think about Christians, Muslims or any other group. I previously clearly stated we teach tolerance in our home. And most of my family and friends are some religion or another (Catholics, Baptists, Jewish, etc.) As for being discriminated against, trying being an atheist. I don't even dare MENTION it in the workplace or to most people. Yet goodness knows, they feel free to talk about their religious views. Most people who know me don't even know i am AN atheist. If asked specifically (how rude!), what religion I am I usually wave my hand around aimlessly and say airily, "Oh we're not religious" and then change the subject. Robin

I'm not a scholar (aww, come on, say you couldn't tell) . . . but here's my very simple take on how I view religion in terms of how others worship (or don't worship). I respect anyone who has given some thought to his/her purpose on earth and lives their life accordingly. That's it. Pretty simple. Think?

Thank you, Hadley2. Very well said.

Robin, Very politely, this is what I am trying to elaborate on. I didn't specifically make a point that you assumed anything about Christian, or any other group. My point is, since I joined this forum with a dissenting viewpoint, I have felt "pounced upon," despite attempting to state my opinion in a respectful manner. My stereotype was meant as a generalization of how it sometimes feels from this vantage point of what people portray conservatives as being. Please understand, this was not intended to be directed to any specific person. It's just a feeling I've received since joining this forum. I can go into detail, but it would take too much time. Suffice to say, it goes both ways. And, if I have been disrespectful, I will be the first to apologize for my error. I do not feel I was directly disrespectful of you. If I have been, please advise me of this. OT: My grandfather was an athiest. I adored him.

Henry Rivera is very pro-Fairness Doctrine, from what I am gathering after researching this evening. I Googled his name after hearing the report on Fox and CNN. As far as I have learned, it would apply to the airwaves. It is a product of another time, I very much agree. I don't think it has any room in our society, especially in light of the developments since 9/11. The problem with balancing anything like this is, particularlly in talk radio, there is currently not a big market for a liberal talk radio show out there that would counter the popularity of Limbaugh, Ingram, Hannity, Savage, Glenn Beck, etc. It doesn't mean that these cannot be on the air. It means there would have to be equal time to present another viewpoint. Unfortunately, again, there's nothing like that which matches the money-making potential of current talk radio. There was Air America, which I think was started by Al Franken. I know Randi Rhodes was on it, also. Stations will likely not be able to provide a opposing opinion that will make money in that market, so it will have to drop programming. This is the statements being made in the press. I can only think of one possible successful opposing radio source, which would be NPR. I know some find it balanced, but I don't agree. Aside from that, "Prairie Home Companion" is a cure for insomnia every time. Sorry. I don't like NPR. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke of the Fairness Doctrine this week on Fox News. The video stream is available under "Chuck Schumer Compares Limbaugh to Porno." Here is the link for the article below: [url=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/11/04/schumer-talk-radio-needs-be-regulated-pornography]Schumer: Talk Radio Needs to be Regulated Like Pornography | NewsBusters.org[/url] My concern is one of several things... mostly with the Constitutionality and violating the Bill of Rights. I've seen enough civil rights erode since the 20th century, and more with Bush's acts in office. I don't want more of the same. I consider the Fairness Doctrine a step in the wrong direction, for both sides of the political spectrum. The issues for Limbaugh and other syndicated talk radio, they are franchises. Smaller stations may not be able to carry time for a viewpoint, say from Al Franken, because it doesn't make money. Maybe they could give the Huffiington Post columists a radio show? Is Cindy Sheehan still writing for that site, by the way? I know Huffington and Kos are kind of the flipside to something like WorldNetDaily and Newsmax. I read Huffington because I like some of the commentary (though I was disappointed to see Keanu there). Kos annoys me like fingernails on a chalkboard. I like NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, ABC, Drudge (little sensationalistic, but stil entertaining), Fox, MSNBC, USA, and Salon. I try to read a broad spectrum. I also read pro-life news a great deal (and NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood). I do like to keep up with the opposition :love: I hope the Fairness Doctrine isn't reinstated. No opinion should be silenced in my opinion. I think all speech, even "hate speech," must be allowed in a "free, equal" society. Just because I don't like you saying it, doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to say it. Example, I really, really find Larry Flint destestable. I think he exploits women and find him to be a dispicable human being. But, he has the absolute right to print his garbage under the 1st Amendment. The women that avail themselves of his garbage have the absolute right to do so. I have the absolute right to avoid it and disagree with it. I would much rather have those who disagre with me know and out with their opinions than brewing undercover. I would much rather have opinions out in the open rather then festering in the alleyways and backrooms. Making an opinion "illegal" will not make it go away.

I know this is meant tongue-in-cheek. My response to it though is that I think that people from the liberal perspective sometimes feel that some people of faith want to use government to impose their specific religious views on other people and this is anti-democratic and anti-American. One of the tenets of many religions is to proselytize and draw more believers and that government can be a very powerful tool to do so. I wonder if the people who were so fervently fighting for the cross on the city seal would have fought so fervently if it would have been a Muslim crescent or a Jewish star. Everyone who wants to promote a blurring of the lines between church and state always assumes that it should be their particular religion. How about we all agree government should promote Zoroastrianism?

I am going to close this down at this point. It's become nothing more than a debate which will never be won between a few people have very different opinions.Please take the debate to PM or off site at this point...if we continue to let it go here, it will go on forever and I'm enacting an expiration date for debates about hot button topics that have no end in sight.