Faith and Inspiration

What’s Fair About It?

Anna — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:26:59 +0000

My son just finished a history lesson on Muckrakers: “investigative journalists who expose corruption and injustice to the public”. At the end of the 1800s and early 1900s we had journalists like Upton Sinclair who exposed the unsanitary way in which meat-packing factories butchered and prepared meat. As a result, food-inspection laws were passed. Ida Tarbell called attention to the business practices of John D. Rockefeller and his Standard Oil Company trust. The supreme Court dissolved the Standard Oil trust and antitrust laws were enforced. To learn more about such historical heroes as these two and “Mukraking” go here, Wikipedia.

Those are just two examples of why we need to have muckrakers in the public forum, such as talk show hosts, to get the truth out to the general public. Liberal Pelosi and others on Captitol Hill, along with the liberally-biased mainstream media, would like nothing better than to shut up all muckrakers. While the network news associations were reporting only what they wanted people to know during the presidential election, the honest journalists were reporting facts to help us to make informed decisions. People like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are among the many who strive to inform the American Public of things like the Un-fairness Doctrine that the democrats in Washington would love to force on us.

They call it the “Fairness Doctrine”. In researching this issue I was delighted to find the information below at The Heritage Foundation by James L. Gattuso. It opened my eyes to what is really behind this doctrine:

Back to Muzak? Congress and the Un-Fairness Doctrine

by James L. Gattuso

WebMemo #1472

“Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”

–Bill Ruder, Democratic campaign consultant and Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Kennedy Administration[1]

“The main thing is the Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of [its Watergate coverage]. They have a television station…and they are going to have to get it renewed.”

–President Richard Nixon[2]

Should the federal government mandate “fairness” in broadcasting? “Yes,” say some Members of Congress, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who reportedly said this week that House leaders would “aggressively pursue” legislation to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine.”[3] Until it was abolished in 1987, this Federal Communications Commission rule required broadcasters to air all sides of controversial issues.

At first glance, the rule may sound innocuous. Fairness is, after all, a basic American value. But as a matter of principle, any such government controls on media content is anathema to constitutional guarantees of free speech. And in practice, the so-called fairness doctrine was deeply unfair.

Dulling Down Broadcasting

Rather than foster full and fair discussion of public issues, the real effect of the Fairness Doctrine was to discourage discussion of controversial issues of any kind. It’s no coincidence that such media as talk radio–virtually non-existent while the rule was in place–flowered after its repeal. Rather than the vast wasteland of bland muzak-like discussion it was before, broadcasting– especially radio–has become a platform for vibrant and controversial debate on countless issues.

The Fairness Doctrine was developed by the FCC over a long period, based on its broad authority under the Communications Act to regulate the airwaves. The rule was first articulated in 1949, when television was in its infancy and radio meant a handful of AM stations in each market. In its final form, the rule required broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial matters of public importance.”[4]

The vagueness of the standard left quite a bit of uncertainty. What is a “reasonable” opportunity? How many “contrasting” views? Station managers whose programming ventured too far into controversial subjects could quite easily find themselves subject to a fairness doctrine challenge. And even if the challenge ultimately failed, the cost of defending against it could be substantial. So the safe route for most was to stay far away from controversy. As a result, policy discussion on the airwaves for decades was, for the most part, as bland as cottage cheese.

Political Abuse

This “chilling” effect was exacerbated by political abuse of the system. Politicians of both parties used the doctrine to further their political ends. Political strategists for Kennedy and Johnson, for example, consciously used the Fairness Doctrine to cow political opponents. According to statements from party activists, there was an explicit strategy to raise the cost of critical programming, and thus get it dropped entirely. “Perhaps…our tactics were too aggressive,” one party operative is quoted as saying, “but we were up against ultra-right preachers who were saying vicious things about Kennedy and Johnson.”[5]

The political use of the Fairness Doctrine was brought to new heights by President Richard Nixon. According to Jesse Walker of Reason magazine, “private activists directed by the Republican National Committee regularly filed Fairness Doctrine challenges against stations whose reporting angered the White House.”[6]

Demise of the Fairness Doctrine

The constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine was challenged in the 1969 case Red Lion v. FCC[7], involving a religious broadcaster who was fined by the FCC for not providing a person criticized on the air an opportunity to reply. The Supreme Court upheld the rule, reasoning that because broadcast frequencies were scarce, the government may intervene in broadcast media in ways that would not be allowed toward traditional media, such as newspapers.

The decision in Red Lion, however, has been subject to intense criticism.[8]And in 1987, the FCC rescinded the Fairness Doctrine, finding it to be contrary to the Constitution as well as bad policy.[9] In its landmark decision, the Commission wrote:

We believe that the role of the electronic press in our society is the same as that of the printed press. Both are sources of information and viewpoint. Accordingly, the reasons for proscribing government intrusion into the editorial discretion of print journalists provide the same basis for proscribing such interference into the editorial discretion of broadcast journalists.[10]

The FCC’s decision to rescind the doctrine was later upheld by a federal appeals court. In so doing, however, the court did not pass judgment on the constitutionality of the rule and instead relied on the FCC’s policy findings that it did not serve the public interest.[11]

Red Lion is still formally in place. But in years since, the basic “spectrum scarcity” rationale of Red Lion (and thus the constitutionality of fairness rules) has become ever weaker. Not only have new broadcast frequencies–such as the UHF television and FM radio bands–been put into use, but entirely new systems such as cable TV and satellite radio have been created, offering consumers hundreds of channels when before they only had a handful.[12] And the Internet has made notions of scarcity almost meaningless.[13]

At the same time, broadcasters–especially radio broadcasters–became much more willing to air controversial points of view, in large part because of the repeal of the FCC’s fairness rule. Most notably, talk radio, which had been a relatively rare format, exploded in scope and popularity. In 1990, there were some 400 stations with a talk show format nationwide. By 2006, there were more than 1,400 stations devoted entirely to talk formats.[14] Programming shed its cottage cheese-like character, as controversial new hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, gained airtime and the freedom to express strong opinions and views without fear of regulatory reprisal. According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism:

With the [Fairness] Doctrine’s repeal, radio shows could become more one-sided, more free-wheeling, ideological and political. And it didn’t take long. One of the first to gain popularity under the new rules was a new voice out of California named Rush Limbaugh. Within a year or two of the new rules, Limbaugh’s provocative denunciations of Democrats became a phenomenon. Stations quickly began to pick up his syndicated show, and other conservative names followed his lead. Being controversial seemed a plus.[15]

Not all the changes, of course, were due to the Fairness Doctrine repeal. Other factors, such as the rise of FM radio, were at work. But, as documented by economists Thomas Hazlett and David W. Sosa, the regulatory change had a substantial causal effect.[16]

Government-Enforced “Balance”

Many supporters of the Fairness Doctrine are concerned about this explosion of information because they see it as the wrong kind of information. Many are frankly concerned about the amount of “conservative” programming, especially in talk radio, and would like to see a different balance.

Certainly, conservative-oriented talk radio has been more successful than left-leaning radio programming. But broadcasting is only one small part of today’s media universe, which includes not just radio and television broadcasting but print, cable, and Internet sources. Conservatives have had no lock on opportunities, even in radio. Programming with a liberal bent, from Mario Cuomo’s show to Air America, has been given opportunities and will get more.

Moreover, arguments that the Fairness Doctrine is needed because certain types of media are too conservative, too negative, too partisan, or too anything actually strengthen the case against the regulation. Any law that is targeted at media based on the content of what is being said raises greater constitutional concerns and is much less likely to pass constitutional muster–and for good reason. Regulating speech in order to alter its content is exactly the sort of meddling that the First Amendment is meant to prohibit. It is simply not the job of politicians to “correct” the mix of opinions being expressed in the marketplace of ideas, even if–and especially if–they disagree with those opinions.

Conclusion

The Federal Communications Commission did the right thing 20 years ago in throwing this unnecessary, counter-productive, and unwise restriction on speech into the regulatory dustbin. It should be left there. To do otherwise would be dangerous and unconstitutional.

James Gattuso is Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]Quoted in Jesse Walker, “Tuning Out Free Speech,” The American Conservative, April 23, 2007, at http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_04_23/article3.html.

[2]Quoted in Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa, “Chilling the Internet? Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcasting,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 270, March 19, 1997.

[3]See “Her Royal Fairness, The American Spectator, May 14, 2007, at http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11427.

[4]For general background on the development of the rule, see Museum of Broadcast Communications, “Fairness Doctrine” at http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm.

[5]Quoted in Jesse Walker, “Tuning Out Free Speech,” The American Conservative, April 23, 2007, at http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_04_23/article3.html.

[6]Ibid.

[7]Red Lion v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).

[8]See, e.g.., William Van Alstyne, The Mobius Strip of the First Amendment: Perspectives on Red Lion, 29 S. Carolina. L. Rev. 539, 547-48 (1978) (listing many of the leading articles in the first decade after the decision) at http://eprints.law.duke.edu/archive/00000564/01/29_S._C._L._Rev._539_(1978-1979).pdf.

[9]The agency had originally declined to consider the question of whether the rule was constitutional. In early 1987, however, a federal court held that the FCC could not enforce the doctrine unless it considered the constitutional objections. Meredith v. FCC, 809 F. 2d 863 (1987).

[10]Syracuse Peace Council, 2 FCC Reports 5043 (1987).

[11]Syracuse Peace Council, 867 F. 2d 654 (D.C. Cir. (1989)).

[12]Many believe that due to these developments, combined with the longstanding legal criticism of the Red Lion case, were it to be reconsidered today, it would be decided differently. A study published two years ago by the FCC itself makes this case convincingly. See, John W. Berresford, “The Scarcity Rationale for Regulating Traditional Broadcasting: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed,” FCC Media Bureau Staff Research Paper, March 2005, at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257534A1.pdf.

[13]See Adam D. Thierer, “The Media Cornucopia,” City Journal, Spring 2007, at http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_media.html.

[14]Project on Excellence in Journalism, “The State of the News Media 2007: An Annual Report on American Journalism, Talk Radio page, at http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_radio_talk_radio.asp?cat=8&media=9.

[15]Project on Excellence in Journalism, “The State of the News Media 2007: An Annual Report on American Journalism, Talk Radio page, at http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_radio_talk_radio.asp?cat=8&media=9.

[16]Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa, “Was the Fairness Doctrine a “Chilling Effect? Evidence from the Post-deregulation Radio Market,” 26 Journal of Legal Studies 279 (1997).

Are we Ready for the “Change” that is Coming?

Anna — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 20:09:48 +0000

One thing is for sure, election of the first black president in the U.S. is a history maker. It is too bad that it took a black candidate to inspire the black people here to get out and vote, even if it was just because of his color. The irony of that is that many of those who voted him in also voted their values and defeated the gay marriage agenda in three major states. Woo! Hoo! Do his constituents really know what he stands for? Obviously, no they do not, or they would know that he is for gay marriage, partial birth abortion, and too many other far-left atrocities to mention.

And what about the other side? Well, the failure of the wimpy moderate conservative, John McCain, was a huge letdown for those he was supposed to be representing. He did not take the many opportunities he had to point out the important faults of Obama, i.e. his 20-year association with Wright who preached hate of whites and America, his association with known terrorists, his promise of income redistribution and socialized medicine which only make for more big government. How does he plan to pay for his so-called stimulus package, etc.? If he does all that he promised during his campaign, he will actually add over a trillion dollars to the federal deficit. Do we not understand the reason for the huge fall in the stock market the days after the election? People are taking their money and running before Obama and his left-wing agenda can get their hands on it.

One very sad consequence of McCain’s blunders is his people blaming Sarah Palin for his mistakes. I believe if Sarah Palin had been running for president, things would have turned out very differently. While McCain stood up and said, “Let’s stand and fight!” Senator Palin actually did do the fighting while he “played nice” and spoke of reaching across the aisle. Excuse me, but as a true Christian with Godly morals and values, I do not agree with anything that Obama and his evil cronies across the aisle stand for and I will not “play nice”. If John McCain is indeed the maverick that he claims to be, he will put a stop to his people passing his failures onto Sarah, and take responsibility for his own shortcomings. I also believe that we have not seen the last of this woman who is a true maverick.

Perhaps those who elected this Obama will have to experience the ensuing pain of economic depression and all that comes with it to actually wake up to the truth. Unfortunately, those who tried to get the truth out about this, and many innocents will have to suffer as well. We can only hope and pray that there is still a check and balance factor in Washington to hold them and their choices accountable, and keep them from destroying our country. Another thought out there is, maybe God is allowing this because we are so near the end times. Only time will tell.

While all of this is very discouraging for now, we cannot let it keep us down. There is a movement in the works that will completely recharge and revamp the true Conservative Right with its God-fearing principles that this country was founded on. The majority of the American people do stand for these priniciples; it shows in the vote against same-sex marriage, for one thing.

Senator Bill Frist, former Majority Leader, is Chairman of VOLPAC (Volunteer Political Action Committee). Anyone who truly wants to take a stand and make a difference in our country’s future may become involved here: VOLPAC. Other great resources include: Liberty Counsel-Rebuilding our Base and advancing our values, and GrassFire.

LET US NEVER FORGET - GOD IS ULTIMATELY IN CONTROL. WE NEED TO BE STRONG AND STAND AND FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT THAT HE WILL LEAD US THROUGH. WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST ADMIT OUR RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS OUTCOME. THOSE WHO DO NOTHING BUT SIT BACK AND WATCH WILL HAVE TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR NON-ACTION.

PRAY AND ASK GOD TO LEAD YOU IN DOING YOUR PART.

The Prayer of Daniel-Fitting for our Nation Today

Anna — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:59:21 +0000

While Israel was in captivity by the Babylonians, Daniel was given the book/prophecies of Jeremiah. After reading the book, he concluded that the time was near for his people to return to Jerusalem. He read God’s promise in Jeremiah 29:14: “I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back from your captivity.”

Since Daniel had experienced literal fulfillment of prophecy in his life, this was a great revelation for him. He had been praying for many years that Israel would be restored, and he knew that God would fulfill his promise in Jeremiah. Daniel was also a very strong man of God who prayed to Him three times a day, every day; he knew how to move God in prayer.

The following is the prayer Daniel prayed for God to fulfill his promise and deliver his people. Though it was a prayer of confession of the sins of the nation, he did not judge the sinners. He associated himself with the sins of his people 32 times, acknowledged their deserved judgement, and petitioned God for mercy. He approached God on the basis of his loyal love and humbled himself with fasting, sackcloth and ashes.

Daniel 9:3-19(NKJV): 3. “Then I set my face toward the Lord God to make request by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes. 4. And I prayed to the Lord my God, and made confession, and said, “O Lord, great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and mercy with those who love Him, and with those who keep His commandments, 5. we have sinned and committed iniquity, we have done wickedly and rebelled, even by departing from Your precepts and Your judgments. 6. Neither have we heeded Your servants the prophets, who spoke in Your name to our kings and our princes, to our fathers and all the people of the land.”

7. “O Lord, righteousness belongs to You, but to us shame of face, as it is this day–to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jeruselem and all Israel, those near and those far off in all the countries to which You have driven them, because of the unfaithfulness which they have committed against You.”

8. “O Lord, to us belongs shame of face, to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, because we have sinned against You. 9. To the Lord our God belongs mercy and forgiveness, though we have rebelled against Him. 10. We have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in His laws, which He set before us by His servants the prophets.”

11. “Yes, all Israel has transgressed Your law, and has departed so as not to obey Your voice; therefore, the curse and the oath written in the Law of Moses the servant of God have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against Him. 12. And He has confirmed His words, which He spoke against us and against our judges who judge us, by bringing upon us a great disaster; for under the whole heaven such never has been done as what has been done to Jerusalem.”

13. “As it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come upon us; yet we have not made our prayer before the Lord our God, that we might turn from our iniquities and understand Your truth. 14. Therefore the Lord has kept the disaster in mind, and brought it upon us; for the Lord our God is righteous in all the works which He does, though we have not obeyed His voice.”

15. “And now, O Lord our God, who brought Your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and made Yourself a name, as it is this day–we have sinned, we have done wickedly!”

16. “O Lord, according to all Your righteousness, I pray, let Your anger and Your fury be turned away from Your city Jerusalem, Your holy mountain; because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Your people have become a reproach to all who are around us.”

17. “Now therefore, our God, hear the prayer of Your servant, and his supplications, and for the Lord’s sake cause Your face to shine on Your sanctuary, which is desolate.”

18. “O my God, incline Your ear and hear; open Your eyes and see our desolations, and the city which is called by Your name; for we do not present our supplications before You because of our righteous deeds, but because of Your great mercies.”

19. “O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and act! Do not delay for Your own sake, my God, for Your city and Your people are called by Your name.” (Bold type added by author)

We could very easily substitue “Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem” with the words “The United States” and pray this same prayer for the recovery of our nation’s Godly morals and values. DO YOU EVER WONDER WHY OUR NATION IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION?

God Played Volleyball Last Night

Anna — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:54:12 +0000

Or, maybe it was Jesus, or maybe it was both.

I am loving the summer Olympics this year, more than ever before. Of course, the U.S. is doing wonderfully in many areas, but my most favorite of all (besides swimming and Michael Phelps) is volleyball. The U.S. has taken the Gold in the women’s beach volleyball competition, and what a close competition it was between the American team and the Chinese team.

Last night I watched our U.S. men’s beach volleyball competition between Dalhausser and Rogers and the Brazilian team of Fabio and Marcio. We won the first set, neck and neck, at 23 to 21. Brazil won the second set, also neck and neck, at 21 to 17. It was the closest couple of games I have seen in quite some time.

So, here I am sitting on the edge of my couch, chewing my nails, rocking back and forth, praying: “God, please help our guys win.”

The tie-breaking set begins and, WHAM! U.S. is leading by 2, then by 4. Then Brazil gets a point. Then U.S. is leading by 7… I am thinking, “What in the world is going on?! Although, I am very happy this is happening, I cannot help but wonder why did Rogers and Dalhausser not play like this in the first 2 sets?! I was totally dumbfounded at how quickly and efficiently they literally stomped the Brazilians at 15 to 4.

“Okay,” I told myself. “You can breathe now.” As the oxygen was returning to my brain, it dawned on me. I probably was not the only person praying for God to help the U.S. team win. In fact, I would almost bet the farm that there were very many people praying for them.

I also believe that God and Jesus are watching the games with us, and maybe, just maybe volleyball is their favorite sport as well as mine. I think God and Jesus took over Rogers’ and Dalhaussers’ bodies and said, “Hey guys, this is how it is done. Stop goofing off and just do it!”

And that is how the U.S. men’s beach volleyball team took the Gold in the 2008 summer Olympics!

Apologia-Verbal Defense

Anna — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:39:52 +0000

Most of us can remember all too clearly past encounters where we were led by the Holy Spirit to share God’s word with others. Or, at other times when someone came to us with questions about the gospel/salvation. Though we do and have done this in obedience and with our hearts aligned with God, we sometimes find ourselves suddenly bombarded with attacks, defiant arguments, and questions.

Peter advises us to be prepared - I Peter 3:15-17 - NKJV “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.”

Peter uses the Greek word apologia for answer in this scripture. The word may sound like apology, but do not be fooled. What do we have to apologize for when we are sharing God’s word? Absolutely nothing! The word apologia actually means to layout a verbal defense.

There are people who do have true questions. There may be just one thing that the devil has used to put up a wall in one’s mind for years. When we give them God-given answers, it is like that wall has been knocked down and they can see the truth for the first time; like a light has been turned on. But, of course, that is not always the case. With others, as soon as you give them their first answer, they fire more at you like - ‘But why…?, What about…? Are you really saying that…?’ and so on. Those people do not really want your answers. They want to get you frustrated and side-track you. We must, at all cost, be in and leaning on the Holy Spirit to stay calm and on track.

A while back I joined a social site that I thought would be a fun place to share with and befriend other moms. Being who I am, I posted a journal on my page about taking a stand for my beliefs; namely on the churches of today preaching tolerance to the sin of homosexuality. I quoted the scripture in Leviticus 18:22.

There was an immediate barrage of hateful attacks accusing me, for one thing, of forcing my religion on them. No one was forcing them to come to my journal and read my post; they made that choice. Some said that being homosexual is as natural as breathing, and that more and more people are accepting of the homosexual lifestyle. One actually stated that the Bible is outdated and should be re-written. This went on and on for hundreds of posts. I had to delete and block some lesbians that were vulgar and abusive. They could comment without using vulgarity and hate, but they chose not to. At one point, I found myself being distracted from my main topic and had to delete some of my own responses.

There were only 3 Christian moms who stood with me to combat the evilness that was present there. (I know there were more than those 3 on the site, but they had been there longer than I, and were aware of this certain group of pagans who follow Christian posts and come out of the woodwork to bash them.) The four of us quoted scripture after scripture in response to their attacks, just as Jesus did in the wilderness when Satan tempted Him. It became quite obvious that they did not want to know the truth; it convicted them. I decided not to continue to ‘cast my pearls before swine’ and moved on to other subjects. As long as my subjects were not controversial, I never heard from them.

It was a devastating eye-opener for me to learn of these mothers that are into pagan witchcraft, atheism and a new-age Christianity and they believe anything goes; “Just leave everyone alone and we all do our own thing”. It is very scary to know that they are raising a part of our future generation.

I came to the conclusion that I did not want to be a part of that community where everyone is nice as long as you do not hold anyone accountable or try to get the truth out. I still call some of the sweet-spirited moms that I met there friends, but for the most part, I keep that place in my prayers.