Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

As the talk of again making the `Fairness Doctrine` law has become the topic of debate inside and outside the Washington beltway, we are witnessing a power-grab by the ultra-left in nearly ever facet of American life.

Whether it is the talk of `nationalization-lite` of U.S. banks and investment firms or the Fairness Doctrine, the swift pace with which the ultra left is moving forward with their agenda is alarming.

The Fairness Doctrine will be met with opposition, for certain. Plans to introduce the Broadcast Freedom Act in response to the Fairness Doctrine has the ultra left up in arms. The complaint that conservative talk radio is too powerful, too influential and unfair comes from those voices who simply can`t get over the fact that liberal talk radio simply isn`t as popular. The likes of Al Franken and what comes out of his mouth is an example of why liberal talk radio simply doesn`t influence the way conservative talk radio does.

The airwaves are fair. The opportunity for anyone to talk about those things that concern them exists in plenty of venues. My company is built upon Internet-based broadcasting and as a broadcaster we too are seeing a move by the new administration to make Internet broadcasting a new addition to the push for the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine threatens free speech. To be sure, with the rights of free speech comes responsibility. All freedom must be exercised with responsibility, and free speech no less.

The fact that politics infiltrates nearly every facet of our economic, scientific, family and national lives, is not a truth from which we can escape. We can only speak on behalf of those things that we believe in with passion and with energy, and do so with responsibility.

The Fairness Doctrine and the threat of FCC regulation over the Internet does not simply encroach upon the freedom of speech among broadcasters. It hits broadcaster, Internet user and listener and viewer alike.

For those who want to silence our voice in the broadcasting arena, I would paraphrase Ronald Reagan "...Mr. Green, I am paying for this microphone!"

Let us oppose further government controls over our lives and our liberties. Let us recognize the ultra-left agenda for what it is and let us meet the challenges of preserving the last haven of free speech known to man on earth...the Internet and our broadcasting venues. Let us meet the Fairness Doctrine with the one weapon that will not fail us..THE WEAPON OF OUR REFUSAL.

-Will Griffith, Chairman
The Griffith Corporation
Homeland TV Network
Griffith Broadcasting
American Warrior TV
www.griffithcorp.com
888-828-5355



-------------------------

Will Griffith
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

The concept of working hard, accomplishing something and getting ahead ( in other words, being successful, which is what our parents taught us to do ) is a bad thing now, I guess .... penalizing those that are successful is going to become the norm .... conservative radio succeeds because it is like any other service or product, i.e. there is a market for it, whereas liberal talk radio doesn`t seem to be able to get its act together because, apparently, it isn`t wanted by the public, or it isn`t profitable .... that aspect doesn`t matter, obviously .... this is basically a warped version of "spread the wealth".


-------------------------

M Hall
Website Critique Community
International Society of Curmudgeons

Mr. Hall, you hit the nail right on the head. Our country has become so concentrated on being politically correct that it has forgotten basic, fundamental truths that make our nation great and unique.

As our friend, Craig Landes has pointed out before, we are so worried about hurting someone`s feelings today that it has hampered the American spirit. In the ultra-liberal mind, everyone deserves to succeed and everyone should be a winner. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. We have evolved into a nation of complacency and we will pay the price on so many levels.

It is indeed, as you so eloquently point out, a warped version of "spread the wealth". The problem is they spread their ignorance of history along with it.

Good day to you Mr. Hall.

Will Griffith
www.griffithcorp.com



-------------------------

Will Griffith
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

The Fairness Doctrine won`t be the issue. Too many people who don`t pay much attention to politics already understand that censorship is a bad thing. They don`t know why, but they know it`s bad.

Instead, as Dick Durbin, the embarrassing senator from Illinois pointed out today, there`s a much better way. By "better," we can read "sneaky." It`s the diversity of ownership body of law already on the books.

The way it works is that the government uses the court system to demand two things:

• There must be no obstacle standing in the way of broadcast media ownership to all people, including minority groups,
• Content must originate in some percentage from local providers.

When you examine the way this "could be" interpreted, and the way it for sure will be interpreted, we end up with a back-door into censorship. (Note too, that removing ownership obstacles is exactly what the government demanded with home mortgages and Fannie Mae.)

The way it would work would be that large conglomerate owners would be forced to break up their holdings. All in the name of diversity.

Then, the national syndicated programs would be combined into a percentage of air-time. Right now, on WLS-AM out of Chicago, the majority of the air-time is devoted to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levine. The percentage of time is whatever it is.

The diversity laws would demand that local content make up the bulk of the content, meaning that WLS would have to choose what syndicated programming they would be allowed to air.

Since this is much more complicated to understand than the 1-word "Censorship" slogan, few people will have the ability to comprehend the end results. As such, this route is a much better way to remove syndicated talk-shows from the airwaves, all under the fairness of "diversity."

I would suspect that if this were to happen, then satellite radio would recover from the brink of bankruptcy, for paid subscribers. Additionally, new Internet Radio capabilities would emerge, probably focused around podcasting.

My supposition would be that anyone could subscribe to a free podcasting system, which would include commercial advertising. As it is now, most podcasts are only the program content. But by including commercial advertising, it would pay for the podcasts, and allow for the distribution of the program content.

I think we`re about to see conservative ideology go "underground" for real. People like Limbaugh and Levine have been semi-kidding about it being forced into the underground movement status. I think it`s coming, for real.

The key to the overthrow and control of a country is to control the flow of information. Historically, this has been fairly easy to accomplish. But in today`s world, with Internet and satellite technology, it`s almost impossible. The policies of the liberals are out-of-date already, and their techniques for control are also out of date.

The main result of all this will make it inconvenient for most people to live their lives. But not impossible.

There`s a lot of good in ensuring that smaller, independent broadcasters get a piece of the airwaves pie. Don`t confuse sharing with stealing. If there are ten voices vying for a slot on the airwaves, there would be no law saying only one of them can be conservative. Conservatives would only be as underground as their population dictates. 

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.

Conservative talk actually doesn`t "dominate" the airwaves. That`s a perception that isn`t backed up by the numbers. I believe the figure I heard in relation to actual time across the AM band is that conservative talk shows make up approximately 10% of all content.

The fact that they attract hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising revenues, and their *Ratings* dominate all other shows is entirely a separate issue.

Plenty of diverse people can own an AM radio station. There are lots of them already out there, and they`re the majority of the band. All you need to do is slide your tuner across the AM band to hear the many other stations.

Air America is one of them, and around here we have an extremely powerful signal for a catholic religious station. At the top end of the dial are several very strong signals from Hispanic stations, and I don`t know if there are strong Asian or Afro-American stations.

I think the Afro-American stations tend to be on the FM dial, focusing on music. I haven`t heard many Eskimo stations, and also not that many American Indian stations around here at the moment. There only are 2 talk stations that focus on conservative talk shows.

Assuming that Air America is liberal, that makes 3 politically oriented talk-show stations in the greater Chicago metropolitan and suburban region. Liberal talk radio makes up 33%, with conservative making up 66%.

Is that what we mean? If so, then either 1 radio station must go out of business talking, or 1 new liberal station must be allowed. So let`s use the diversity laws to force one of the Hispanic stations to carry liberal talk shows. After all, right now there are at least 2 Hispanic stations, and zero Spanish-language talk shows.

Better yet, we have zero Jewish talk-show stations anywhere, and 1 Catholic station. That`s a 100% closed market. We could demand either that the Catholic station "open up" 25% of their content to Jewish radio, 25% to Islamic radio, and 25% of the content to Buddhist talk radio. Or we could "force" a synagogue to buy a radio station and damn-well start broadcasting Jewish programming.

Amendment 1 -U.S. Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or [prohibiting or abridging] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Craig, every time I read your replies I learn new things or follow new thought paths. Thank you.

I add this quote not to remind you of it`s import, but simply to make it visible for the purpose of further commentary.

Upon reading the precepts delineated in our Constitution, it occurred to me that any "abridgement" of our speech is directly unconstitutional. To diminish our ability to express our ideas, opinions or otherwise lessen the content of our speech would be a subversion of one of our most important rights acquiesced to by the founding fathers.

As well, an argument could be made that the airwaves have become the primary medium through which people collectively voice their disagreement with our government, making it, in essence, a form of assembly and petition, the definitions of which fall clearly into the purpose of the Amendment.

I find it deplorable that, with all of this debate in congress, no one seems to be simply making direct reference to those same founding documents which established their congressional positions in the first place.  They can talk until they`re blue in the face about how "fair" something is, but the truth is that opinion, unlike perspective, is something thing that every American has a wealth of which cannot be redistributed fairly.





-------------------------

Alysyn Bourque
CEO, THE GRIFFITH CENTER

A few years ago, Bush was in the White House, and Republicans were a force in congress. I remember the panic that conservatives were going to run rampant over the country. The Supreme Court was going to be stacked so that Roe vs Wade could be overturned, conservative morality was going to be thrust upon the people against their will, Jack Thompson was crusading mindlessly to censor  videogames. The sky was falling all around us and to many, it looked like the President and his cabinet had no respect for the Constitution. We talk a lot about how the liberals want to destroy our rights, but we lost quite a few in the name of security during the last administration. We`ll be arguing for or against illegal wiretapping, indefinite imprisonment without trial and without a charge, torture, etc, for years to come. In the end, justice prevailed and the worst never happened. Liberals might dominate the government, but conservatives still have enough sway to keep the balance. I guess my argument is, the Constitution won`t be destroyed any more than it already has been, and if the liberal government makes unconstitutional laws, the Supreme Court will override it. If Alysyn is right, the bill won`t stand.

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.

The Constitution is under assault, and has been since 9/11. Nobody much cares, and as has often been said in the past, the American people will gladly vote in a dictator if they believe their safety depends on it.

With the current climate, the current Supreme Court, and the new administration, much of what has been already done with the stimulus spending and other enactments is already unconstitutional. Do you see anyone other than conservatives mentioning it?

Let`s also be 100% clear, with crystal clarity on top of that: Conservative thought has nothing whatsoever to do with party politics, the Republicans, the Democrats, or any other current party. Nor does it have any bearing on the so-called Christian Right.

Conservatism is a philosophic body of thought, primarily focused on the political foundation of the country, secondarily on the morality of capitalism, and to an extent on the underlying values that hold up the whole process.

Unfortunately, there is very little clear definition of conservatism, and that`s causing no end of turmoil. There`s no such thing as a "neo-conservative" either, just so people understand that as well.

Then it seems the conservative`s real battle is one of truth and public opinion. You say being a conservative is separate from political party and religion. I believe you 100%. The problem is, the truth doesn`t matter one bit. Perception matters. If the general public believes conservative equals Republican and hardcore Christian fundamentalism, then for all intents and purposes, that`s what it is. Conservatives have to disassociate themselves from their closest allies. Conservatism is a good guy with two unpopular friends, and he`s been found guilty by association. If more conservatism in the government is a good thing, you need not try and fight your liberal enemies, but try and change your Republican and Christian allies. They`re making you look bad in public opinion.

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.