After the mainstream media and other liberal politicians spent several days blaming the Tea Party for the mass killing in Tucson, Tea Party leaders call for prayer.
-- From "Guest Spot: Tea partyers call for prayer, not blame, after Arizona shootings" by Mary and Bob Meyer, cofounders of the Suffolk County 9-12 group, posted at Riverhead News-Review 1/11/11
The Suffolk County 9-12 Project joins all citizens in condemning the horrific attack, allegedly committed by Jared Loughner, in Tucson, Ariz., in which six innocent victims were killed and 19 were wounded, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, at a constituent event on Saturday.
Suffolk County 9-12 Project is a tea party organization that believes in achieving our goals through peaceful means and engaging the citizenry in the political process. We by no means condone acts of violence in any way, shape or form. We are committed to the rule of law, upholding the Constitution and promoting limited government.
We mourn the loss of life and those who were wounded in this senseless tragedy and act of violence. Our thoughts and heartfelt prayers go out to Ms. Giffords, as well as to the massacre victims . . .
We call on our elected officials to refrain from using a senseless tragedy as a platform to propagate their own political agenda. In a time of crisis and mourning, certain leaders have been assigning blame to specific groups and individuals in a shameless and reprehensible attempt to gain stature for their position. We, at the Suffolk County 9-12 Project reject that kind of political posturing. . . .
We urge all tea party patriots and citizens to pray for the victims and their families during this difficult time.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "We're Arizona shooting victims too, says Tea Party co-founder" by Chris McGreal in Tucson, U.K. Guardian 1/11/11
. . . Trent Humphries says there is another innocent victim left by Jared Lee Loughner's killing of six people and wounding of 14 others in his assassination attempt against Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. It is his Tea Party movement and, more particularly, his family. The killings, he says, are evolving into a conspiracy to destroy his organisation and silence criticism of the government.
The local sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, quickly pointed the finger at talk radio and . . . Tea Party supporters in Arizona . . .
Humphries is having none of it. "A lot have taken as gospel that the sheriff says that this was caused by talk radio, by Tea Party extremists, that that must be the case. I think it's done a lot of damage. It's given people the idea that somebody like my wife and I caused this murder. There's no evidence. And there's no evidence Sarah Palin caused this murder," he said. "The Democrats are using this opportunity to bludgeon their opponents. People don't want to hear that it was just some stupid, evil act that had no bearing in rationality. They want it to make sense."
There's no doubt that some people are blaming Humphries directly. He accuses the sheriff of prompting a string of accusatory emails. One said: "You people are responsible for the murder of a child, a judge and seven other innocents today. May you rot in hell."
Another accuser wrote: "It's time to change your message of hate. If not, get out of politics because the American people are not going to take it any longer. We want our country back."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Massacre, followed by libel" by Charles Krauthammer, posted at Washington Post 1/11/11
The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.
The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.
Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.
Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," he was hardly inciting violence.
To read the entire column above, CLICK HERE.
Showing posts with label fairness doctrine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fairness doctrine. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Friday, May 01, 2009
Christian Programing Banned from National Public Radio
Since Barack Obama became president, the anti-choice trend is undeniable: Make Christianity on the airwaves rare
UPDATE 6/17/09: PBS confirms ban on airing new religious TV programs
-- From "NPR axes Christian radio programs" by Pete Chagnon, OneNewsNow 4/30/2009
In 1985, National Public Radio (NPR) adopted a policy stating that member stations had to provide "nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial" educational programming. But in February 2009, the wording was changed to say: "NPR Member Stations shall provide ONLY [emphasis added] nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial educational content on all broadcast channel(s) and related media distribution platforms such as member partners that use the NPR member brands."
The rule, which takes effect May 1, means that any NPR stations carrying religious programming must cease and desist that programming as of that date. In explaining its decision in a similar matter, PBS -- another federally funded media outlet -- says it "places a high value on presenting diverse perspectives, as opposed to rigidly adhering to any single political or religious point of view." Allowing such programming, it continues, "would cause the public's trust in PBS to erode, along with the value of the brand."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 6/17/09: PBS confirms ban on airing new religious TV programs
-- From "NPR axes Christian radio programs" by Pete Chagnon, OneNewsNow 4/30/2009
In 1985, National Public Radio (NPR) adopted a policy stating that member stations had to provide "nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial" educational programming. But in February 2009, the wording was changed to say: "NPR Member Stations shall provide ONLY [emphasis added] nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial educational content on all broadcast channel(s) and related media distribution platforms such as member partners that use the NPR member brands."
The rule, which takes effect May 1, means that any NPR stations carrying religious programming must cease and desist that programming as of that date. In explaining its decision in a similar matter, PBS -- another federally funded media outlet -- says it "places a high value on presenting diverse perspectives, as opposed to rigidly adhering to any single political or religious point of view." Allowing such programming, it continues, "would cause the public's trust in PBS to erode, along with the value of the brand."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
UK On-air Pastor Fired for Defending Christianity
When the government requires "fairness and balance" in broadcast media, the result is the loss of religious liberty and the end of broadcast Christian witness.
Urge your congressman to support The Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR 2905)
Illinois residents CLICK HERE to E-mail your congressman
-- From "Presenter sacked for 'supporting the Bible's teachings' on radio" by Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter, The Telegraph 1/11/09
The Rev Mahboob Masih, a Church minister [and community radio show host], claims he was unfairly dismissed and that the action taken against him was a case of religious discrimination.
After a lively religious debate, the radio station management took exception to the content of the discussion. The Rev Masih was accused of not being balanced enough on air. However, Awaz FM refuses to detail anything specific he said that might have offended its listeners.
The Rev Masih and his co-presenter Afzal Umeed were discussing the views of a prominent Muslim speaker, Zakir Naik, who the Rev Masih accuses of belittling the Christian faith on Peace TV, a digital channel.
The Rev Masih says that Mr Umeed asked Asif Mall, a Christian on-air guest, about Mr Naik's remarks. Mr Mall said Mr Naik's comments showed a lack of knowledge of the Bible and of the Koran.
In particular, Mr Mall disputed a claim by Mr Naik that Jesus Christ was not the only prophet to be "the way, the truth and the life".
. . . Javaid Ullah, the director of the radio station . . . said that they had "failed to remain neutral and as such allowed the guest to make comments which led in [to] offending various members of the community."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Urge your congressman to support The Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR 2905)
Illinois residents CLICK HERE to E-mail your congressman
-- From "Presenter sacked for 'supporting the Bible's teachings' on radio" by Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter, The Telegraph 1/11/09
The Rev Mahboob Masih, a Church minister [and community radio show host], claims he was unfairly dismissed and that the action taken against him was a case of religious discrimination.
After a lively religious debate, the radio station management took exception to the content of the discussion. The Rev Masih was accused of not being balanced enough on air. However, Awaz FM refuses to detail anything specific he said that might have offended its listeners.
The Rev Masih and his co-presenter Afzal Umeed were discussing the views of a prominent Muslim speaker, Zakir Naik, who the Rev Masih accuses of belittling the Christian faith on Peace TV, a digital channel.
The Rev Masih says that Mr Umeed asked Asif Mall, a Christian on-air guest, about Mr Naik's remarks. Mr Mall said Mr Naik's comments showed a lack of knowledge of the Bible and of the Koran.
In particular, Mr Mall disputed a claim by Mr Naik that Jesus Christ was not the only prophet to be "the way, the truth and the life".
. . . Javaid Ullah, the director of the radio station . . . said that they had "failed to remain neutral and as such allowed the guest to make comments which led in [to] offending various members of the community."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
47% of Americans Favor Bureaucrats Dictating Media Content
Most liberals prefer government control of information over free flow; Internet freedom threatened
-- From "Nearly half of Americans favor 'Fairness Doctrine'" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 8/14/08
Counter the propaganda. E-mail your congressman to support The Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR 2905) to permanently bury the 'Fairness Doctrine' - Illinois residents CLICK HERE.
Just under half of Americans believe the government should mandate that all radio and television stations offer equal amounts of "conservative" and "liberal" political commentary, according to a new Rasmussen poll.
Rasmussen noted Republicans have expressed alarm in recent months over congressional Democratic efforts to restore the so-called Fairness Doctrine. The law was abolished in 1987, during the Reagan administration, opening the door to development of a flourishing talk-radio market led by Rush Limbaugh.
The poll also touched on regulation of the Internet, revealing 31 percent believe websites should be forced to balance their commentary.
This week, Rasmussen noted, Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee to the Federal Communications Commission, suggested restoration of the Fairness Doctrine could lead to government regulation of content on the Internet.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Nearly half of Americans favor 'Fairness Doctrine'" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 8/14/08
Counter the propaganda. E-mail your congressman to support The Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR 2905) to permanently bury the 'Fairness Doctrine' - Illinois residents CLICK HERE.
Just under half of Americans believe the government should mandate that all radio and television stations offer equal amounts of "conservative" and "liberal" political commentary, according to a new Rasmussen poll.
Rasmussen noted Republicans have expressed alarm in recent months over congressional Democratic efforts to restore the so-called Fairness Doctrine. The law was abolished in 1987, during the Reagan administration, opening the door to development of a flourishing talk-radio market led by Rush Limbaugh.
The poll also touched on regulation of the Internet, revealing 31 percent believe websites should be forced to balance their commentary.
This week, Rasmussen noted, Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee to the Federal Communications Commission, suggested restoration of the Fairness Doctrine could lead to government regulation of content on the Internet.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Fight to Protect Freedom of Speech on the Airwaves Just Beginning
Public reaction to the amnesty proposal has made both sides angry with talk radio.
From "Fairness Doctrine, R.I.P." by James L. Gattuaso, posted 7/5/07, at NationalReview.com
on broadcasters. The vote almost certainly means that the long-dead rule will not be revived anytime soon. That’s good news. But the celebrations should be tempered: the real battle over media regulation is still to come, and won’t involve the words “Fairness Doctrine.”
The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to air contrasting points of view on controversial issues. It was repealed some 20 years ago, after the commission concluded that the rule was actually stifling, rather than fostering, coverage of disputatious issues.
And history proved the FCC right. The years following repeal saw the birth of modern talk radio, a phenomenon that brings brash public debate into the homes of America daily.
Not all have been pleased with this development. The greatest successes in talk radio have been unapologetically conservative voices. And that has made talk radio made a thorn in the side of the left.
Not surprising, then, that almost immediately after liberals regained power in Congress, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) called for restoring the long-dead Fairness Doctrine. The “idea of uninhibited exchange of ideas in the marketplace” he said, “needs to be looked at in the era of media consolidation”.
Kucinich’s call attracted much media attention, and more than a little criticism, but little was actually done to advance the idea legislatively. It probably would still be on the back burner were it not for — of all things — illegal immigration. During the acrimonious debate over immigration reform, “AM armies” roused by conservative talk-show hosts proved to be a powerful — and to many legislators, unwelcome — force.
Angered by this, a number of amnesty opponents — from both sides of the aisle lashed out against talk radio. Liberal leaders seized the moment to call for the Fairness Doctrine’s return.
It was a political mistake of the first order. Conservative radio-talk-show hosts from Rush Limbaugh to the smallest local personality hit back hard against the idea. It seemed near impossible to turn on your car radio without hearing about the issue. But it wasn’t just incensed conservative talkers who quashed the idea. No one seemed to like it. Even the normally liberal-leaning blogosphere produced few defenders of a Fairness Doctrine revival. It was just too obviously an attempt to stifle speech.
...So is it time for conservatives to celebrate? Not quite yet. The real battle over American media has hardly begun.
The odd Dennis Kucinich aside, few on the Left ever seriously thought the Fairness Doctrine could be reinstituted. Last week’s win was mostly over undefended ground. But the Left has been very active in promoting a number of much more subtle “reforms” meant to alter what broadcasters do and say.
Read the whole article.
From "Fairness Doctrine, R.I.P." by James L. Gattuaso, posted 7/5/07, at NationalReview.com
on broadcasters. The vote almost certainly means that the long-dead rule will not be revived anytime soon. That’s good news. But the celebrations should be tempered: the real battle over media regulation is still to come, and won’t involve the words “Fairness Doctrine.”
The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to air contrasting points of view on controversial issues. It was repealed some 20 years ago, after the commission concluded that the rule was actually stifling, rather than fostering, coverage of disputatious issues.
And history proved the FCC right. The years following repeal saw the birth of modern talk radio, a phenomenon that brings brash public debate into the homes of America daily.
Not all have been pleased with this development. The greatest successes in talk radio have been unapologetically conservative voices. And that has made talk radio made a thorn in the side of the left.
Not surprising, then, that almost immediately after liberals regained power in Congress, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) called for restoring the long-dead Fairness Doctrine. The “idea of uninhibited exchange of ideas in the marketplace” he said, “needs to be looked at in the era of media consolidation”.
Kucinich’s call attracted much media attention, and more than a little criticism, but little was actually done to advance the idea legislatively. It probably would still be on the back burner were it not for — of all things — illegal immigration. During the acrimonious debate over immigration reform, “AM armies” roused by conservative talk-show hosts proved to be a powerful — and to many legislators, unwelcome — force.
Angered by this, a number of amnesty opponents — from both sides of the aisle lashed out against talk radio. Liberal leaders seized the moment to call for the Fairness Doctrine’s return.
It was a political mistake of the first order. Conservative radio-talk-show hosts from Rush Limbaugh to the smallest local personality hit back hard against the idea. It seemed near impossible to turn on your car radio without hearing about the issue. But it wasn’t just incensed conservative talkers who quashed the idea. No one seemed to like it. Even the normally liberal-leaning blogosphere produced few defenders of a Fairness Doctrine revival. It was just too obviously an attempt to stifle speech.
...So is it time for conservatives to celebrate? Not quite yet. The real battle over American media has hardly begun.
The odd Dennis Kucinich aside, few on the Left ever seriously thought the Fairness Doctrine could be reinstituted. Last week’s win was mostly over undefended ground. But the Left has been very active in promoting a number of much more subtle “reforms” meant to alter what broadcasters do and say.
Read the whole article.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Senator Durbin Supports Assault on First Amendment Rights
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine." -- Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., June 26, 2007
From "Representatives Fight Assault on First Amendment Rights" by Jennifer Mesko, posted 6/29/07 at Citizenlink.org
Some Democrats want to revive the Fairness Doctrine, a 1949 policy that once required broadcasters to present different points of view in issues-oriented programs. In other words, along with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, you'd receive a generous helping of Al Franken and James Carville.
From "Representatives Fight Assault on First Amendment Rights" by Jennifer Mesko, posted 6/29/07 at Citizenlink.org
Some Democrats want to revive the Fairness Doctrine, a 1949 policy that once required broadcasters to present different points of view in issues-oriented programs. In other words, along with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, you'd receive a generous helping of Al Franken and James Carville.
Republican Reps. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Mike Pence of Indiana and Jeff Flake of Arizona are working to prevent such an assault on free speech. On Thursday, the U.S. House voted 309-115 in favor of their amendment to a spending bill, which would bar the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using certain federal funds to enforce the Fairness Doctrine, should it be reinstated.
Today, Pence introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007, which would prevent the FCC from resurrecting the doctrine that was eliminated in 1987 after the agency found it had a "chilling effect" on free speech.
...Historically, when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, many broadcast outlets – especially Christian radio stations – chose to avoid issues programming.
Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Sen. John Kerry reportedly have suggested that Congress should reinstate the doctrine.
Read the whole article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
