February 25, 2018

Book Review – “The Impact Of Science On Society”

By Bertrand Russell-1953 First Edition. The only way to accurately predict the future is to know that somebody intends to engineer it.. Falls right inline with the Iron Mountain Report, The First “Global” Revolution by The Club of Rome, Limits to Growth, The Origin Of Species, Our Global Neighborhood, Earth Summit Agenda 21{2100 conclusion date} And of course the United Nations “Environmental” Policies- Global Biodiversity Assessment.. Scientism is Eugenics on Steroids..

Pages 40-41

I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology … Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education.’ Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part … It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship … The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.

Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.

Pages 49-50

Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy … It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished … Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible …

The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia … If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this: except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilised. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method …

Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.

Page 54

After all, most civilised and semi-civilised countries known to history and had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible. And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as they can count on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class. I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship.

Pages 103-104

I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s. However, I am wandering from the question of stability, to which I must return.

There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority. All these methods have been practiced: the first, for example, by the Australian aborigines; the second by the Aztecs, the Spartans, and the rulers of Plato’s Republic; the third in the world as some Western internationalists hope to make it and in Soviet Russia … Of these three, only birth control avoids extreme cruelty and unhappiness for the majority of human beings. Meanwhile, so long as there is not a single world government there will be competition for power among the different nations. And as increase of population brings the threat of famine, national power will become more and more obviously the only way of avoiding starvation. There will therefore be blocs in which the hungry nations band together against those that are well fed. That is the explanation of the victory of communism in China.

Page 105

The need for a world government, if the population problem is to be solved in any humane manner, is completely evident on Darwinian principles.

Page 110

A society is not stable unless it is on the whole satisfactory to the holders of power and the holders of power are not exposed to the risk of successful revolution.

Pages 110-111

First, as regards physical conditions. Soil and raw materials must not be used up so fast that scientific progress cannot continually make good the loss by means of new inventions and discoveries … If raw materials are not to be used up too fast, there must not be free competition for their acquisition and use but an international authority to ration them in – such quantities as may from time to time seem compatible with continued industrial prosperity. And similar considerations apply to soil conservation.

Second, as regards population … To deal with this problem it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilences, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling.

Share

Appeals to Emotions, Hormones And Controlled Thoughts

A wide range of scientific possibilities when it comes to messing about with folks thinking, and of course appeals to emotions.. Yep, I read this stuff too.. It’s fascinating.. They put it all out in plain sight and nobody wonders and nobody cares.. Besides looking up folks ought to be looking things up. But shucks, nobody would want to mind control everyone using these methods.. Just because the scientific possibility exists to do it doesn’t mean anyone would be doing it… Who would ever be so evil as to teach people what to think and destroy their capacity to think with lies backed up by endocrine physiology using drugs to mess with the psyche of say entire societies.. Who’d be so nefarious that they’d chemically alter people into being comfortably numb.. Maybe even causing a boy to have girlish emotions and girls to have boyish emotions.. They could do all kinds of science with this science.. They could get people to believe anything..

“The field of basic endocrine physiology has advanced considerably since Martin’s earlier Textbook of Endocrine Physiology was published, and the 95% new material in this volume reflects how the entire concept of the nature and function of hormones has changed. The book takes a biochemical approach to vertebrate and particularly human endocrine physiology, and emphasizes methods of hormone action.”

Share

Transgender Tranny’s FTMs Imitation Game

Share

The Lavoy Finicum Psyop

As I’ve said since the beginning, this ‘Bundy Standoff’ and the Oregon occupation were ‘masonic rituals’ and purposeful propaganda. Including sting operations for prosecution of profane dupes tricked into supporting a rebellion against federalism. The staged shooting of Robert LaVoy Finicum on the 26th, was also a subliminal to provoke the ‘flag’ loving Patriots of the United States. Of course in the picture below, the flag is also present.

Flag = 6+12+1+7 = 26
God = 7+15+4 = 26

Robert = 18+15+2+5+18+20 = 78
LaVoy = 12+1+22+15+25 = 75
Finicum = 6+9+14+9+3+21+13 = 75
Robert LaVoy Finicum = 228 (United States of America)

The sun symbolism in this picture of Robert LaVoy Finicum is perfectly obvious. The pythons{pythagorans} also tell us via their scientism the sun is 93-million miles from the earth. Also, The 2014 Bundy Standoff was a controlled opposition psyop, played by Masonic actors. A masonic appeals to emotions psyop.. The colors of the king, red white and blue, the sun RA directly behind the son of gods head. signing the cosmos and other symbolic meanings with hand..

Robert = 9+6+2+5+9+2 = 33
LaVoy = 3+1+4+6+7 = 21
Finicum = 6+9+5+9+3+3+4 = 39
Robert LaVoy Finicum = 93 (Propaganda) (Crucifix) (Sunny) (Waco, ’93) Finicum meaning son of god was 54-years old at the time of this psyop..

Sun = 19+21+14 = 54
93 million miles away

The hand symbol he is making above, in terms of Masonic gestures, could be interpreted as “V Sign”, which represents the 33rd Degree in Freemasonry, among other things, such as victory. Also sign of the cosmos.

Robert = 9+6+2+5+9+2 = 33
The Sun = 2+8+5+1/10+3+5 = 24/33 (Killed 24-days after standoff began)
Oregon, the 33rd State (OR = 15+18 = 33)

 

Baal.. Up is down and down is up.. Sign of the cosmos..

Above the Twin Posts represented on the brush popper shirt.

Notice that CNN’s video on his death is 2:23 seconds long, also ‘Masonic’ coding.

Masonic = 13+1+19+15+14+9+3 = 74
Burns = 2+21+18+14+19 = 74
Oregon = 15+18+5+7+15+14 = 74 (No other state has gematria of 74)

 

 

 

 

 

The character Robert Lavoy Finicum died in the ongoing Bundy series.. The actor, whoever played the part is alive and well and likely playing other parts in other TV  and movies and likely fake news.. Now if a man can be your hero after that man read the COTUS for two years proving he was no COTUS scholar, was irrefutably misquoting and misinterpreting legal aspects of that COTUS, and refused to accept arrest, charged into a road block, repeatedly tells the police to shoot me, shoot me, gets out of the truck and is apparently refusing to comply, and was actually killed.. he was no hero he was a moron.. Or he was an actor playing a role with several other actors, including actors playing police officers.. This type of fake news, fake death, fake trials, fake funerals, fake crimes, fake assassinations is normal business for the masonic cults working their deceptions against the profane masses..

The language of the Hegelian Dialectical also includes, the legal aspect of double speak, reverse language. The use of numerology via gematria mathematical symbology.. The language of the enemies of YHWH and Yeshua.. Keep in mind that it doesn’t matter if YOU believe in numerology, or if I believe in numerology; what matters is that THEY believe in numerology, and use it as a symbolic language to covertly message each other and to control every story line they are managing from news, legislation, congressional activity, State of the Union speeches, entertainment, sports, politics, wars, terrorism.. You name it…

Also, they are using video and voice technology to disguise these crisis actors. The actors use facial and body appliances.. Hair appliances. Body suits.

Thats right, never forget…

“They who have put out the people’s eyes, reproach them of their blindness.” – John Milton

Sentient not lucid…thinking equals strength; while feeling equals weakness. Look what they have done to us with their appeals to emotion…

If you do not know their language how can you know their lies?

Peace out…

 

 

 

Share

Make America Great Again?

Share

Environmentally Unfriendly Fallout

 

“Chemtrails are geo-engineered aerosols that are loaded with toxic chemicals, including but not limited to: barium, strontium 90, aluminum, cadmium, zinc, viruses and “chaff.” Chaff looks like snow but it’s actually Mylar fibers (like in fiberglass) coated with aluminum, desiccated blood cells, plastic, and paper. Polymer chemist Dr. R. Michael Castle has studied atmospheric polymers for years, and he has identified microscopic polymers comprised of genetically-engineered fungal forms mutated with viruses, which are now part of the air we breathe.”

“Unlike normal contrails which quickly dissipate, chemtrails (“fake clouds” as my children call them) sometimes take hours to dissipate and eventually fan out to a “spider web” type of milky haze that covers the entire sky. As these are formed from minute reflective metallic particulates they eventually reach the earth…”

 

A few patents relating to chemtrails and geoengineering..

Patent #1619183 

Patent# 2045865

Patent# 2591988

Patent# 3437502

Patent# 353130

Breath deeper, or something…

Share

The Unfairness Of The Government Controlled MSM Indoctrination Scam

 

 

The following document is key to understanding what those who waste their time watching it are seeing with the main Hoax stream media perpetual lies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission’s view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

 

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]

 

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

Origins

The 1949 FCC Commission Report served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine. It established two forms of regulation on broadcasters: to provide adequate coverage of public issues, and to ensure that coverage fairly represented opposing views.[4] The second rule required broadcasters to provide reply time to issue-oriented citizens. Broadcasters could therefore trigger Fairness Doctrine complaints without editorializing. The commission required neither of the Fairness Doctrine’s obligations before 1949. Until then broadcasters had to satisfy only general “public interest” standards of the Communications Act.[5][6]

 

 

The doctrine remained a matter of general policy and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[7]

 

Application of the Doctrine by the FCC

In 1974, the Federal Communications Commission stated that the Congress had delegated it the power to mandate a system of “access, either free or paid, for person or groups wishing to express a viewpoint on a controversial public issue…” but that it had not yet exercised that power because licensed broadcasters had “voluntarily” complied with the “spirit” of the doctrine. It warned that:

Should future experience indicate that the doctrine [of ‘voluntary compliance’] is inadequate, either in its expectations or in its results, the Commission will have the opportunity—and the responsibility—for such further reassessment and action as would be mandated.[8]

 

In one landmark case, the FCC argued that teletext was a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the Fairness Doctrine. The Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC) and Media Access Project (MAP) argued that teletext transmissions should be regulated like any other airwave technology, hence the Fairness Doctrine was applicable (and must be enforced by the FCC). In 1986, Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuitconcluded that the Fairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it.[9]  In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, two other judges on the same court declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.[10]

 

 

Decisions of the United States Supreme Court

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after the publication of his Goldwater: Extremist of the Right, was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania. Mr. Cook sued arguing that the Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.[11]

 

 

Although similar laws are unconstitutional when applied to the press, the Court cited a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1959]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited public airwaves at the time. Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White declared:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.[3]

 

The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.

However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court):

“Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”This decision differs from Red Lion v. FCC in that it applies to a newspaper, which, unlike a broadcaster, is unlicensed and can theoretically face an unlimited number of competitors.

In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not forbid editorials by non-profit stations that received grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364 (1984)). The Court’s 5-4 majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. stated that while many now considered that expanding sources of communication had made the Fairness Doctrine’s limits unnecessary:

“We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required. (footnote 11)”

 

After noting that the FCC was considering repealing the Fairness Doctrine rules on editorials and personal attacks out of fear that those rules might be “chilling speech”, the Court added:

“Of course, the Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, decide to modify or abandon these rules, and we express no view on the legality of either course. As we recognized in Red Lion, however, were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine ‘[has] the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing’ speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case. (footnote 12)[12]

 

Revocation

 

Basic doctrine

In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In August 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[13] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:

“The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.”

 

At the 4-0 vote, Chairman Patrick said,

We seek to extend to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print media have enjoyed since our country’s inception.[14]

 

The FCC vote was opposed by members of Congress who said the FCC had tried to “flout the will of Congress” and the decision was “wrongheaded, misguided and illogical.”.[15] The decision drew political fire and tangling, where cooperation with Congress was at issue.[16] In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine,[17] but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.[18]

 

 

Fowler said in February 2009 that his work toward revoking the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan Administration had been a matter of principle (his belief that the Doctrine impinged upon the First Amendment), not partisanship. Fowler described the White House staff raising concerns, at a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the Big Three television networks and PBS in political discourse, that repealing the policy would be politically unwise. He described the staff’s position as saying to Reagan:

The only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks—every day they would savage Ronald Reagan—is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it![19]Instead, Reagan supported the effort and later vetoed the Democratic-controlled Congress’s effort to make the doctrine law.

Corollary rules

Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the personal attack rule and the “political editorial” rule, remained in practice until 2000. The “personal attack” rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons (or groups) within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on-the-air. The “political editorial” rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000.

 

Reinstatement considered

Support

In February 2005, U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter (Democrat of New York) and 23 co-sponsors introduced the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (H.R. 501)[20] in the 1st Session of the 109th Congress of 2005-7 (when Republicans held a majority of both Houses). The bill would have shortened a station’s license term from eight years to four, with the requirement that a license-holder cover important issues fairly, hold local public hearings about its coverage twice a year, and document to the FCC how it was meeting its obligations.[21] The bill was referred to committee, but progressed no further.[22]

In the same Congress, Representative Maurice Hinchey (another Democrat from New York) introduced legislation “to restore the Fairness Doctrine”. H.R. 3302, also known as the “Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005” or MORA, had 16 co-sponsors in Congress.[23]

In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,”[24] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.[25]However, according to Marin Cogan of The New Republic in late 2008:

Senator Durbin’s press secretary says that Durbin has ‘no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view’—that the American people were served well under the doctrine—’and it’s all been blown out of proportion.’[26]

 

On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) told reporters that her fellow DemocraticRepresentatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?'”, the Speaker replied “Yes.”[27] On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico) told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.[28]

 

On December 15, 2008, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (Democrat of California) told The Daily Post in Palo Alto, California that she thought it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters.

“I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone.[29]

 

On February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, “…we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.” Later in response to Press’s assertion that “…they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another,” Senator Harkin responded, “Exactly, and that’s why we need the fair—that’s why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.”[30] Former President Bill Clinton has also shown support for the Fairness Doctrine. During a February 13, 2009, appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said:

“Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.”

 

Clinton cited the “blatant drumbeat” against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it doesn’t reflect economic reality.[31]

 

 

Opposition

The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent conservatives and libertarians who view it as an attack on First Amendment rights and property rights. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times in 2005 and 2008 said that Democratic attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine have been made largely in response to conservative talk radio.[32][33]

 

 

In 2007, Senator Norm Coleman (Republican, Minnesota) proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that forbade the FCC from “using any funds to adopt a fairness rule.”[34] It was blocked, in part on grounds that “the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction”.

In the same year, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 was proposed in the Senate by Senators Coleman with 35 co-sponsors (S.1748) and John Thune (R-SD) with 8 co-sponsors (S.1742)[35]and in the House by Republican Representative Mike Pence of Indiana with 208 co-sponsors (H.R. 2905).[36] It provided that:

The Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine’, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).[37]

 

Neither of these measures came to the floor of either house.

On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell stated that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality (a proposal to classify network operators as common carriers required to admit all Internet services, applications and devices on equal terms), presenting a potential danger that net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls to the Internet.[38] It could also include “government dictating content policy”.[39] The conservative Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argued that the three main points supporting the Fairness Doctrine — media scarcity, liberal viewpoints being censored at a corporate level, and public interest — are all myths.[40]

 

On February 16, 2009, Mark Fowler said:

I believe as President Reagan did, that the electronic press—and you’re included in that—the press that uses air and electrons, should be and must be as free from government control as the press that uses paper and ink, Period.[19]

 

In the 111th Congress (January 2009 to January 2011), the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S.34, S.62, H.R.226) was introduced to block reinstatement of the Doctrine. On February 26, 2009, by a vote of 87-11, the Senate added that act as an amendment to the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 (S.160),[41] [a bill which later passed the Senate 61-37, but not the House of Representatives].[42] The Associated Press reported that the vote on the Fairness Doctrine rider was:

“In part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.”

 

The AP report went on to say that President Obama had no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans (led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S. Carolina) wanted more in the way of a guarantee that the doctrine would not be reimposed.[43]

 

 

Suggested alternatives

Not to be confused with Unfairness doctrine.

Media reform organizations such as Free Press feel that a return to the Fairness Doctrine is not as important as setting stronger station ownership caps and stronger “public interest” standards enforcement (with funding from fines given to public broadcasting).[44]

 

 

In June 2008, Barack Obama’s press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President):

Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters … [and] 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. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.[45]

 

In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine.[46]

 

 

Public opinion

In an August 13, 2008 telephone poll released by Rasmussen Reports, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary, while 39% opposed such a requirement. In the same poll, 57% opposed and 31% favored requiring Internet web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing points of view. By a margin of 71%-20% the respondents agreed that it is “possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media” (including the Internet, newspapers, cable TV and satellite radio), but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine closely. (The margin of error was 3%, with a 95% confidence interval.)[47]

 

 

Formal revocation

In June 2011, the Chairman and a subcommittee chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both Republicans, said that the FCC, in response to their requests, had set a target date of August 2011 for removing the Fairness Doctrine and other “outdated” regulations from the FCC’s rulebook.[48]

 

 

On August 22, 2011, the FCC formally voted to repeal the language that implemented the Fairness Doctrine, along with removal of more than eighty other rules and regulations, from the Federal Register following a White House executive order directing a “government-wide review of regulations already on the books”, to eliminate unnecessary regulations.[1]

 

 

References[edit]

  1. to:ab Boliek, Brooks (August 22, 2011). “FCC finally kills off fairness doctrine”. POLITICO.
  2. Rendall, Steve (2005-02-12). “The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back”. Common Dreams (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting). Retrieved 2008-11-13.
  3. abRed Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, decided June 8, 1969, also at 395 U.S. 367(1969) (Excerpt from Majority Opinion, III A; Senate report cited in footnote 26). Justice William O. Douglas did not participate in the decision, but there were no concurring or dissenting opinions.
  4. Jung, D.L. (1996), The Federal Communications Commission, the broadcast industry, and the fairness doctrine 1981-1987, New York: University Press of America, Inc.
  5. Donahue, H.(1988). The battle to control broadcast news. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
  6. Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949])
  7. Donald P. Mullally, “The Fairness Doctrine: Benefits and Costs”, The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Winter, 1969-1970), p. 577
  8. In the Matter of THE HANDLING OF PUBLIC ISSUES UNDER THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST STANDARDS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 48 F.C.C.2d 1 (F.C.C. 1974)
  9. Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC, 801 F.2d 501 (D.C. Cir. 1986)retrieved on August 17, 2008
  10. Meredith Corp. v. FCC, 809 F.2d 863 (D.C. Cir. 1987), February 10, 1987, retrieved on August 17, 2008
  11. Tom Joyce: “His call for a reply set up historic broadcast ruling; Fred J. Cook, whose book as ttacked on Red Lion radio station WGCB in 1964, died recently at age 92.” York Daily Record (Pennsylvania), May 6, 2003, retrieved on August 17, 2008
  12. The quotation is from Section III C of Red Lion v. FCC 395 U.S. 367 (1969). Justice Brennan’s opinion was joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powelland Sandra Day O’Connor. Dissenting opinions were written or joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices William Rehnquist, Byron White and John Paul Stevens
  13. Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC, 867 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1989), retrieved on August 17, 2008
  14. FCC Video, NBCUniversal (1987) (“Today we reaffirm our faith in the American people. Our faith in their ability to distinguish between between fact and fiction without any help from government.”) “FCC 1987”; see Robert D. Hershey, Jr., F.C.C. Votes Down Fairness Doctrine in a 4-0 Decision, New York Times, August 5, 1987 [http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/05/arts/fcc-votes-down-fairness-doctrine-in-a-4-0-decision.html
  15. Robert D. Hershey, Jr., F.C.C. Votes Down Fairness Doctrine in a 4-0 Decision, New York Times, August 5, 1987 [1]
  16. Sandra Salmans, Regulator Unregulated: Dennis Patrick; At the FCC, Another Man Who Loves Free Markets. [2]
  17. The Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987, S. 742 & H.R. 1934, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)
  18. Val E. Limburg, “Fairness Doctrine”, April 27, 2009, Museum of Broadcast Communications
  19. ab The Mark Levin Show, February 16, 2009 (a 26-Megabyte MP3 file), from about 17 minutes 15 seconds into the broadcast to 25 min. 45 sec.
  20. H.R. 501, Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (109th Congress, 1st Session)(full text) from GovTrack.us, retrieved on November 13, 2008.
  21. Congressional Research Service summary of H.R. 501–109th Congress (2005): Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act, GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation), retrieved on November , 2008
  22. Overview of H.R. 501 (109th Congress, 1st session) from GovTrack.us, retrieved on November 14, 2008.
  23. Summary at “Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005”. Archived from the original on 2007-09-02. Retrieved 2007-09-12. – Full text at H.R. 3302 Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005retrieved on August 17, 2008.
  24. Alexander Bolton, GOP preps for talk radio confrontation TheHill.com, June 27, 2007, retrieved on October 27, 2008
  25. John Eggerton (June 27, 2007). “Kerry Wants Fairness Doctrine Reimposed”.Broadcasting and Cable. Retrieved October 27, 2008. describing an interview on The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC radio
  26. Marin Cogan, Bum Rush: Obama’s secret plan to muzzle talk radio. Very, very secret, The New Republic, December 3, 2008, retrieved on November 20, 2008
  27. John Gizzi (June 25, 2008). “Pelosi Supports Fairness Doctrine”. Human Events. Retrieved October 27, 2008.
  28. Pete Winn (October 22, 2008). “Democratic Senator Tells Conservative Radio Station He’d Re-impose Fairness Doctrine–on Them”. CNS News. Retrieved October 28, 2008.[dead link]
  29. San Francisco Peninsula Press Club (DECEMBER 16, 2008). “Rep. Eshoo to push for Fairness Doctrine”. San Francisco Peninsula Press Club. Retrieved December 15, 2008.
  30. Michael Calderon (February 11, 2009). “Sen. Harkin: ‘We need the Fairness Doctrine back'”. Politico. Retrieved February 11, 2009.
  31. John Eggerton (February 13, 2009). “Bill Clinton Talks of Re-Imposing Fairness Doctrine or At Least “More Balance” in Media”. Broadcasting & Cable. Retrieved February 13, 2009.
  32. “Rush to Victory”. The Wall Street Journal. April 4, 2005. Retrieved July 1, 2008.
  33. “‘Fairness’ is Censorship”. The Washington Times. June 17, 2008. Retrieved July 1, 2008.
  34. Frommer, Frederic J. (July 14, 2007). “Democrats Block Amendment to Prevent Fairness Doctrine”. Associated Press. Retrieved August 10, 2008.
  35. Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007, Open Congress Foundation, retrieved on November 14, 2008
  36. Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007, introduced February 1, 2005, “To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine”, Open Congress Foundation, retrieved on November 14, 2008
  37. Text of H.R. 2905: Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007, GovTrack.us, retrieved on November 14, 2008
  38. Jeff Poor, “FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content”, August 13, 2008, Business & Media Institute
  39. http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=34016 See also Commissioner McDowell’s speech to the Media Institute in January 2009.
  40. Culture & Media Institute report on The Fairness Doctrine. – accessed August 13, 2008.
  41. “Senate Backs Amendment to Prevent Fairness Doctrine Revival”. FOXNews.com. February 26, 2009.[dead link]
  42. Warren, Timothy (February 26, 2009). “Senate votes to give D.C. full House vote”. The Washington Times. Retrieved February 26, 2009. The Senate roll call is here.
  43. Senate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine The Associated Press, February 26, 2009
  44. “The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio”, Free Press, Center for American Progress
  45. John Eggerton, “Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine”, Broadcasting & Cable, June 25, 2008, retrieved on October 30, 2008, citing an e-mail from Obama’s press secretary, Michael Ortiz.
  46. “White House: Obama Opposes ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Revival”. Fox News. February 18, 2009.
  47. 47% Favor Government Mandated Political Balance on Radio, TV, Rasmussen Reports press release, Thursday, August 14, 2008 and Toplines – Fairness Doctrine – August 13, 2008 (Questions and answers from the survey).
  48. Gautham Nagesh, FCC sets August target for striking Fairness Doctrine, “Hillicon Valley” blog, The Hill, June 28, 2011, quoting Republican Representatives Fred Upton (R-Michigan), Chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee, and Greg Walden (R-Oregon), Chairman of its Telecommunications Subcommittee

The Mickey Mouse Mainstream Media;

Share

Mr. Bannon We Salute You

Mr. Chiarini asks what folks think of this scumbag now….

Share

Depop Poisons In Foods And Containers

Share

The International System of Depopulation Explained

 

 

 

Share