Fairness? What Fairness?



U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the “Fairness Doctrine” is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair.

The Soros Media Surge

George Soros’ moneyed tentacles focused on the media during the 2006 elections, through his funded organizations’ efforts to focus on real or exaggerated cases of Republican corruption. He was more successful than with his 2004 funding of MoveOn.org.

My old friend Cliff Kincaid and I sometimes disagree on some issues, but on one in particular – media reliability – we’re always on the same page. Kincaid is editor of Accuracy In Media, longtime conservative watchdog of the media.

Last weekend, Kincaid attended the National Conference for Media Reform, sponsored by the Free Press, in Memphis. Below is Kincaid’s report of the extending reach by Soros and allies on the Left.

Memphis, Tennessee: Media reform sounds like a good cause. But the gathering here of more than 2,000 activists turned out to be an effort to push the Democratic Party further to the left and get more “progressive” voices in the media, while proposing to use the power of the federal government to silence conservatives. In short, triumphant liberals now want to consolidate and expand their power.

Several speakers, including Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Maurice Hinchey, declared that they think Congress should use a new federal “fairness doctrine” to target conservative speech on television and radio.

But while conservatives are not ashamed to be conservatives, because of the popularity of their ideas about freedom, a strong military, economic growth and traditional values, the liberals at this conference wanted desperately to avoid the use of the term “liberal,” apparently because of its association with failed domestic, social and foreign policies. They described themselves and their causes as “progressive.”

If this conference has an impact, and the participants were called upon to put pressure on the media and Congress, we should expect increasing references to the term “progressive” in coverage of controversial liberal initiatives, including the proposed agenda for “media reform.” The only question is when congressional liberals get enough nerve to aggressively push this authoritarian attempt to muzzle their political opponents.

His “media reform” agenda is being pursued primarily though Free Press, which has received at least $400,000 over the last several years from the Soros-funded Open Society Institute. But Soros has also poured money into groups like the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Fund for Investigative Journalism, and Investigative Reporters & Editors. Soros, portrayed by the major media and “progressives” funded by him as a humanitarian and philanthropist, has made billions of dollars through international financial manipulations conducted through secretive off-shore hedge funds. He was convicted of insider trading in France, one of many countries to have borne the brunt of his global financial schemes.

In addition to the creation of what he calls a “New World Order” under U.N. auspices, Soros’s causes include abortion, drug legalization, and special rights for immigrants, homosexuals, felons, and prostitutes. An atheist, Soros is promoting the complete breakdown of traditional values and morality in America.
By the Democracy Project

The “fairness doctrine? ” Where is the fairness doctrine when it comes to the overwhelming liberal bias that the MSM has held since the 70’s? The media has never been fair, and this sham of a bill will make it even worse.

It is the people themselves who have made talk radio, cable, and blogs the force that they are. But apparently what the people want do not matter. If you are liberal, freedom of speech and the free market are secondary to political philosophy. It’s just another reason I will never vote for the liberal Democrats and their supporter, George Soros.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It’s outrageous, to be sure, but not unexpected coming from the party of weakness.

Oh, and there are some possible upsides to the ‘fairness doctrine’… (evil grin).

Laura Ingraham debated with Rep. Maurice Hinchey this morning. I didn’t catch the 2nd segment, but the first one made me think about just how disconnected the Democrat thinking is. On the surface, the congressman sounds like he’s thinking logically; but substantively, he’s blowing a lot of smoke. He mentioned the purpose of the Fairness Doctrine when it was enacted in 1947 (?) was to insure that no one point of view would dominate the airwaves, as the Nazi ideology did, 6 decades ago. He failed to acknowledge what a different world we live in, with access to so much information in a variety of forums. Radio doesn’t dominate information dissemination as it might once have done. Besides radio, we have the printed press, tv news media, and the vast information highway that is the internet from blogs to access to every paper around the world, to truther conspiratorial sites. If you don’t like listening to Rush, turn on NPR or Air America or listen to music. It’s absolutely ridiculous that Hinchey laid claim to wanting to help protect Ingraham’s freedom to broadcast by promoting more diversity of opinion. If Air America can’t find an audience beyond the moonbat brigade, that’s their problem to solve.