The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor An in-depth monetary, economic, geopolitical and preciou
The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor
An in-depth monetary, economic, geopolitical and precious metals
IN THIS ISSUE: OCTOBER 1993
I. THE HISTORY OF THE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" IN AMERICA.... P. 2
II. EXPANSION IN BROADCAST COVERAGE SINCE REPEAL OF THE
"FAIRNESS DOCTRINE"...................................P. 4
III. THE NEW "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE": THE "HUSH RUSH" LAW......P. 4
IV. ARGUMENTS AGAINST (AND IMPLICATIONS OF) THE NEW
"FAIRNESS DOCTRINE"...................................P. 6
V. CONCLUSION............................................P. 8
VI. WHAT TO DO: AN ACTION PLAN............................P. 9
VIII. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS..............................P.15
CENSORING FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA: THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTEMPT TO SHUT DOWN
CONSERVATIVE/CHRISTIAN RADIO AND T.V. PROGRAMMING
(AN ANALYSIS OF THE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE")
"My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge." Hosea 4:6
[ED. NOTE: Control of the media by the political left in America
has been a fact of life for decades. Over the past five years, since the
repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine", there has been a proliferation of
conservative, traditionalist, contrarian talk shows and Christian
programming (especially on radio) that has begun to break the liberal
monopoly of the media. Tens of millions of Americans have begun to
become informed on the vital issues of our day and to become involved in
public affairs. Now the liberals in the Congress and the Clinton
Administration are moving to impose censorship of the airwaves in America
by reimposing a new "Fairness Doctrine". This report attempts to analyze
this liberal move to censor and shut off conservatives and Christians
from the airwaves, and suggests how incredible this attack on our free
speech can be stopped. Please study it closely, copy it and circulate
it to friends, to associates, and people in the media, and take the
action steps in Section VI below. The new "Fairness Doctrine" can be
stopped if enough concerned Americans will act now.]
For years American liberals (and socialists) have claimed "that
they stood foursquare for the airing of both sides of every issue, for
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of the air waves, etc.
They have, however, only championed freedom of speech when it was their
own speech -- certainly not that of conservatives, traditionalists or
Christians, which today are not deemed to be "politically correct."
It has been no secret that for several decades liberals have
overwhelmingly dominated the American media (i.e., the television
networks and their news desks; the large newspapers; news magazines; and
the wire services -- as well as Hollywood and the film making industry.)
Surveys have been done which show the vast majority of the people working
in the media are liberals, vote Democratic, support abortion-on-demand,
the radical feminist agenda, homosexual rights, expansion of big
government in almost every way, are pro-disarmament, etc. The vast
majority of media owners and top management are also quite liberal.
However, since 1987, a major loophole has developed in the
liberal/left's decades-long information monopoly -- namely the emergence
of public affairs oriented radio and television talk shows (especially
radio) on both secular (non-religious) and religious stations, with
conservative, traditionalist, Constitutionalist, and Christian talk show
hosts, guests, and audiences.
It is estimated that four out of ten Americans regularly listen to
such talk show programming (i.e. Rush Limbaugh alone has 20 million
listeners each week) and while some programs are politically or
religiously neutral, most are decidedly conservative, liberal, or
Christian oriented and many deal with controversial issues (i.e.,
abortion, homosexuality, lesbian adoption of children, prayer in schools,
government interference in Americans' lives, political shenanigans in
Washington or on a state or local level, the New World Order and much
Most of these talk shows add dramatically to the public's
understanding of, and to public debate on public affairs issues. As a
result of the talk radio phenomenon in America today, tens of millions
of Americans are better informed on many issues of public concern, and
know more about our government's misdeeds or mischief than at any time
in decades. And this is driving liberals in the Congress and the Clinton
Administration crazy, as they see their misdeeds, their tax and spend
boondoggles, and their bureaucratic mischief brought to light and
subjected to public scrutiny and anger.
Hence, liberal Democrats (and some Republicans) in the Congress and
the Clinton Administration are moving to institute legislation, called
in Orwellian "double-think" terminology the "Fairness Doctrine" -- which
is designed to shut down virtually all conservative and Christian talk
radio and programming (including Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Pat
Buchanan, Marlin Maddox, Chuck Harter, Tom Valentine, Dr. James Dobson,
D. James Kennedy, Charles Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Chuck Colson, Hal
Lindsey, and hundreds of other conservative and Christian talk show hosts
and programs) which reach 15-25 million Americans each day. The fact is
that these programs are the alternative viewpoint -- they help to balance
the left-wing reporting on the major networks and in the major newspapers
of the country. The liberals who run Washington want to intimidate radio
stations into silence, and this legislation will do it.
The "Fairness Doctrine", which has no more to do with "fairness"
than Planned Parenthood has to do with family planning, has been tried
before (for almost 40 years) and stifled controversial, conservative,
traditionalist, Christian public affairs programming to the extent that
it was neutered and became almost non-existent. It was lifted in 1987
by the Reagan Federal Communications Commission and there has been a
proliferation of public affairs and Christian talk shows ever since.
The liberal Congressional Democrats and the Clintonistas are now
moving to silence that voice of debate and dissent in America, much as
Hitler moved to install the censorship of the media and free speech in
Germany in the 1930s, and as Lenin and Stalin did in Russia in the 1920s,
'30s, and '40s (and their successors up through the '80s). If the
liberals and political left are allowed to silence free speech on the
U.S. airwaves, they will next move to censor free speech in the print
media (starting with controversial, non-Establishment newsletters and
moving quickly to newspapers, news magazines, religious publications,
computer bulletin boards, etc.). This is the way it began in Germany in
the '30s and in Russia from the '20s forward, It is beginning in America
This report will analyze the historical background of the "Fairness
Doctrine"; its fallacies and weaknesses; its implications in the current
era for the ending of Constitutionally protected free speech in America;
and what to do to stop this dangerous attempt at media censorship and the
silencing of conservatives, traditionalists, and Christians in America.
I. THE HISTORY OF THE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" IN AMERICA
The "Fairness Doctrine" was first imposed on broadcasters in 1949,
calling for the giving of people or groups with sharply differing views
a chance to air those views on the airwaves with "equal time." On the
surface, what could sound fairer? But, as the "Wall Street Journal"
(9/1/93) pointed out: "In practice, it mainly gave incumbents leverage
over their opponents. The Reagan Administration killed it in 1987 after
proving that Congress hadn't authorized it. It was dreamed up by Federal
Communications Commission staffers in 1949, and was quickly dubbed the
Blandness Doctrine. 'It led to timid, don't-rock-the-boat coverage,'
recalls Bill Monroe, the former host of NBC's 'Meet the Press.'"
When the "Fairness Doctrine" was imposed in 1949 by the FCC, the
argument was that there was only a limited number of radio and T.V.
stations and that no single viewpoint should dominate them. (Actually,
when the earliest form of the "Fairness Doctrine" went into effect in
1934, there were only 583 licensed radio stations in the U.S.). So, the
"scarcity" of radio frequencies was thought to justify government
regulation that otherwise would have been clearly unconstitutional.
However fair this may have seemed in 1934 or 1949, technology leapfrogged
the rule by bringing multitudes of new stations on stream. Today,
stations are springing up everywhere. The FCC reports that 11,420 radio
stations have licenses and another 1,395 have permits to begin
operations. Similarly, 1,517 television stations are federally licensed
and another 165 could start broadcasting tomorrow.
In the period between 1949 and 1987 (when the FCC repealed the
"Fairness Doctrine" in '87) it was used aggressively by the Kennedy,
Johnson and the Nixon Administrations to stifle political opposition.
As the FCC wrote in its 1985 Fairness Report: "It is now known that two
Presidential Administrations promoted active campaigns to utilize the
'Fairness Doctrine' to undermine the independence of the broadcast press
and that a third at least considered the implementation of such a
Kennedy used it in the early 1960s to silence the growing
anti-communist movement on the airwaves (i.e., Carl McIntyre, a strongly
anti-communist Christian preacher was on over 600 radio stations in the
early '60s. The Kennedy Administration used the "Fairness Doctrine" to
frighten those stations with the threat of losing their broadcast
licenses and virtually all of them dropped McIntyre. The same thing was
done to Dr. Fred Swartz and other strong anti-communists of that period).
A senior Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, boasted to the
"New York Times" that: "We had a massive strategy to use the 'Fairness
Doctrine' to challenge and harass the right wing broadcasters and hoped
that that would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and
decide that it was too expensive to continue." During the Kennedy and
Johnson years, radio stations that broadcast anti-Administration
view-points were inundated with "Fairness Doctrine" complaints as part
of a comprehensive strategy to shut off all conservative opposition.
The Nixon White House considered establishing an office that would
urge the FCC to make life miserable for stations that provide "unfair
coverage" (i.e., anti-Nixon coverage). As the "Wall Street Journal"
(9/1/93) said: "The Nixon Administration used it to torment left-wing
broadcasters, and the Kennedy Administration used it as a political
In the 25 years following the Kennedy era, until the repeal of the
"Fairness Doctrine" by the FCC in 1987, the FCC, and liberal government
politicians and bureaucrats pulling the FCC strings, as well as
liberal/left pressure groups, harassed, intimidated, and pressured
station owners into neutral, pabulum-like noncontroversial,
milquetoast-type programming with the "Fairness Doctrine's"
loss-of-license penalty hanging (like a sword of Damocles) over their
Reporters, editors and even the managers of powerful networks felt
a chilling effect that worked this way: If you aired a controversial
opinion (i.e., lesbians should be able to adopt children, or kids should
be able to pray in school), and a listener filed a complaint with the
FCC, the station (or network) owner or manager would then have to prove
that the treatment of the issue conformed to the FCC's views of fairness.
Documents would then change hands, expensive lawyers and court battles
would then move into gear. It would be better to leave controversial
issues alone than to jeopardize renewal of your station's license. As
veteran NBC reporter Bill Monroe put it: "It was thoroughly understood
in the industry that the most likely outcome of bold journalism was
trouble with the FCC."
The FCC (under President Reagan) dumped the "Fairness Doctrine" in
1987 after determining that it actually "stifled free and open discussion
and inhibited free speech." Many stations steered clear of controversy,
even on tame subjects, so as to avoid legal harassment by groups
determined to get their say, or to prevail with their own agenda. The
FCC (in '87) cited examples: A Pennsylvania station killed a series on
B'nai B'rith; an Iowa farm network plowed under a public service series
on the effects of inflation; a Houston television affiliate censored a
discussion of public-employee pay hikes.
The late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (himself a
liberal) laid out the argument a number of years ago that the "Fairness
Doctrine" violates the Constitution, when he wrote: "The 'Fairness
Doctrine' makes the broadcast licensee an easy victim of political
pressures and reduces him to a timid or submissive echo of the dominant
political voice." In other words, it enforces "political correctness."
In a 1969 decision that let the "Fairness Doctrine" continue, the
Supreme Court conceded that the Fairness Doctrine "might be
unconstitutional if it failed in practice to encourage public debate."
Indeed it did fail to encourage public debate as countless broadcasters
attest -- and as the FCC itself concluded before dropping the "Fairness
Doctrine" in 1987, after acknowledging that "the regulations hindered
free speech, and therefore contradicted the 'Fairness Doctrine's'
During the Reagan Administration (in '87) the FCC held extensive
hearings on the "Fairness Doctrine", repealing it on the findings that:
1) Dramatic expansion of the information marketplace insured that the
public would be sufficiently informed on controversial issues without
relying on government-imposed regulations of programming (or censorship);
2) The operation of the "Fairness Doctrine" actually had the effect of
reducing the diversity of viewpoints presented to the public; and 3)
Administration of the "Fairness Doctrine" created a danger of politically
motivated intimidation by government officials.
What has been the effect of the repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine"
in 1987? An unprecedented flourishing of talk radio (both liberal and
conservative) and Christian programming, with total radio audiences up
5 to 10-fold.
II. IN THE FIVE YEARS SINCE THE DOCTRINE WAS REPEALED, THERE HAS BEEN
SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN BROADCAST COVERAGE OF CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES.
The FCC was plainly correct in its prediction that repeal of the
doctrine would open the way for more expansive broadcast coverage of
controversial issues of public importance. Indeed, in the five years
since the doctrine was repealed, the country has witnessed a veritable
explosion in the kink of "uninhibited, robust, wide-open" debate that the
First Amendment was designed to promote.
The most dramatic illustration of this development is provided by
the emergence of broadcast call-in shows as a major force in shaping the
nation's discussion of public issues. As "Newsweek" Magazine (2/8/93)
reported, ""Call-in democracy ignited the presidential race. Now it's
shaking up government, rattling Clinton -- and driving Washington's
agenda." This medium has promoted direct citizen participation in the
political process in a way that was never before possible. Issues that
once might have been quietly resolved by politicians themselves on an
"inside the beltway" basis can now (according to the "Washington Post"
(1/23/93) "generate tidal waves of switchboard-clogging calls and
Call-in is now the fastest growing radio format, accounting for
nearly 10% of the nation's radio stations. In addition, television
networks, which experimented with call-in formats during the '92
political campaign, are studying ways to use them again.
In the meantime, television stations themselves have substantially
expanded their coverage of public issues in other formats. National
networks have added regular prime-time public affairs programs, such as
CBS's "48 Hours" and "Dateline NBC." In addition, ABC, CBS, and NBC
affiliates now feature overnight newscasts that integrate local news with
features supplied by the networks. Also, some 130 stations carry the CNN
Headline News overnight feeds.
Moreover, in recent years, news on independent stations has
expanded so rapidly and attracted such large audiences that the
independents are now threatening the domination of network affiliates in
For the foregoing reasons, it is clear that the FCC was entirely
correct in its conclusion that the "Fairness Doctrine" was inconsistent
with both the First Amendment and the public interest. Indeed, as the
agency predicted, the repeal of the doctrine has been followed by an
expansion in the kind of robust debate that promotes the principles on
which this country was founded. As Supreme Court Justice Stewart has
stated: "Those who wrote our First Amendment put their faith in the
proposition that a free press is indispensable to a free society. They
believed that 'fairness' was too fragile to be left for a government
bureaucracy to accomplish."
III. THE NEW "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" -- THE "HUSH RUSH" LAW
Twice since 1987 (i.e., in '88 and '89) liberal Congressional
Democrats have reintroduced and passed "Fairness Doctrine" legislation
designed to censor conservative and Christian radio programming, and each
time it was vetoed by either Presidents Reagan or Bush. Congressional
liberals have again introduced "Fairness Doctrine" legislation (i.e.,
"The Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993" -- H.R.1985 and S.333) but
this time they have an ultra-liberal in the White House who is very
hostile to conservative and Christian talk shows and programming
(especially to Rush Limbaugh -- who has been more than mildly critical
of the President and his first Co-President) and who has indicated that
he will sign the new censorship bill. It's called "shut up the
conservative opposition and get the Christians off the air."
S.333 was introduced February 4 by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC),
Senator John Danforth (R-MO), and Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and HR
1985 was introduced on May 5 by Rep. Bill Hefner (D-NC), Rep. John
Dingell (D-MI), and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA). "The Wall Street Journal"
has dubbed this latest attempt at liberal censorship of the airwaves the
"Hush Rush Law," in honor of America's most popular talk show host and
tormentor of liberals, socialists, and Clintonistas -- Rush Limbaugh.
As the Journal pointed out (9/1/93): "The problem for liberals, of
course, is that most of the popular talk show hosts -- Limbaugh, Pat
Buchanan, Gene Burns, and G. Gordon Liddy -- are conservatives. Liberals
have a lower market share because, according to listeners, conservative
talk radio provides information that isn't carried, or is mocked, in the
mainstream media and press."
"What's really behind the proposed 'Hush Rush' Rule is that members
of Congress just don't like the wide interest in public policy matters
that talk radio generates...During the recent debate on the Clinton
budget, talk shows did indeed help generate 100,000 calls an hour into
Capitol Hill. Its switch board briefly broke down...The Beltway is
trying to pull the plug on its effective critics..." As H.R.1985
co-sponsor Rep. Bill Hefner says: "Talk radio scares me. The negative
attacks on Congress [ED. NOTE:i.e., on the liberals, like Hefner] are
getting to the point where we are not able to govern." [ED. NOTE:
Translated, that means "our liberal, socialist agenda is getting exposed
by talk radio and blocked by our constituents.".]
Certainly the "Hush Rush" Law is designed to silence Rush Limbaugh,
who has a weekly audience of 20 million Americans (with 4.5 million
people listening to him at any given moment of his three-hour-a-day,
five-day-a-week program) and a nightly audience of 300,000 viewers of his
30-minute late night T.V. talk show.
As syndicated columnist William Rusher recently wrote: "The legal
effect of the new 'Fairness Doctrine' would be to require radio stations
that now carry Rush Limbaugh to make equal time available to liberals to
counter him. Of course such programming would exist already if there
were enough willing listeners (and thus commercial sponsors) to support
them. But, since there are not, many stations would be forced to drop
Limbaugh rather than run three hours a day of liberal drivel that nobody
wants to listen to or sponsor.
"All this justified in the name of 'fairness' on the ludicrous
theory that the American people are being denied a chance to hear the
liberal point of view! Imagine that the vast barrage of liberal
propaganda that blares out at us from our T.V. sets every morning and
every night, from every network is somehow not being heard by the
American people, so Rush Limbaugh (and other conservative and Christian
programming) must be muscled off the air lest their counter-barrage prove
too persuasive. Give me a break!"
But Rush is by no means the only, or even the main target of "The
Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993". Christian radio programming,
which highlights traditional family and Biblical values and reaches 5 to
10 million listeners per day, is also a major target for censorship
(i.e., total silencing or exclusion) by the Congressional liberals and
As Stu Epperson, Chairman of Salem Communications (which owns 20
large radio stations) and an Executive Committee Member of the National
Religious Broadcasters, recently wrote in the July/August issue of
"Religious Broadcasting Magazine": "Reenactment of the 'Fairness
Doctrine' today would be a threat and problem for all broadcasters,
especially religious broadcasters. In this time of political
correctness, part of the elitist agenda is, knowingly or unknowingly, the
suppression of free speech that is not , in their opinion, 'correct.'
"The most politically non-correct speech today comes from religious
radio and television stations broadcasting the programs of James Dobson,
D. James Kennedy, Charles Colson, and a host of others, including almost
anyone who forcefully advocates traditional family values, our
Judeo-Christian heritage, and a biblical world view. These views, not
so controversial in the sixties and seventies, are very much so now.
"If the proposed bill is passed into law, the results could be
disastrous for religious broadcasters. For example, if a religious
station broadcasts a discussion on the desirability of a normal,
Christian family, and activist group such as Queer Nation could request
time to present its views on this 'controversial' subject. Well, one
request probably could be handled, but how about 10 or 20 requests a
month? Today's activist groups are better educated, organized, financed,
and politically positioned than at any other time in history. Sooner or
later, the station will simply have to stop broadcasting 'controversial'
programming because of the bombardment from activist groups."
Epperson's opinion is that the new "Fairness Doctrine" is the
greatest threat ever to the continuation and very existent of religious
broadcasting as we know it. He also points out that the Clinton FCC
could reinstate the doctrine by regulatory fiat even prior to any
[ED. NOTE: The intimidation factor for broadcasters should not be
underestimated. Not only can they lose their license if they buck the
government censors, but, according to Virginia Postrel, editor of Reason
Magazine, "Stations that fail to comply with regulator's interpretation
of the vague provisions on 'affording reasonable opportunity for the
discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance; could
lose their license or pay fines of up to $250,000 per offense. Radio
stations with their diverse niche markets are far more vulnerable than
mass-market television broadcasters." A $250,000 fine would shut down
most small and medium sized radio stations.]
IV. ARGUMENTS AGAINST (AND IMPLICATIONS OF) THE NEW "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE"
There are numerous compelling arguments against reinstatement of the
"Fairness Doctrine", which include the following"
1) The "Fairness Doctrine" violates the First Amendment
Constitutional prohibition against government censorship of the press and
restrictions on free speech.
2) Talk radio attracts millions of people (some liberal, some
conservative, some apolitical) with its uninhibited discussion of issues.
This is positive for our political system whether they listen to Rush
Limbaugh or National Public Radio.
3) Washington bureaucrats DO NOT know better than ordinary people
what is good for the nation to hear. Dictators like Hitler, Stalin,
Lenin, and Castro always think they know what is best for the people to
know. But they don't.
4) The "Fairness Doctrine" WILL lead to an abuse of power by
Washington, as it did under the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon
Administrations (and all others from '49 to '87). Talk radio is exposing
the tax/spend/people control mendacity of our political leaders in
Washington and they want to go back to doing their dastardly deeds in the
darkness, out of sight of public scrutiny.
5) The "Fairness Doctrine" WILL lead, in short order, to the
silencing of virtually all conservative and Christian radio talk shows
and programming. Most liberal programming will be allowed to continue
as it did from '49 to '87. Remember, enforcement is in the hands of the
"politically correct" liberals and socialists who hate the traditional
values of conservatives, Constitutionalists, and Christians.
6) The "Fairness Doctrine" WILL NOT restore fairness or balance to
the airwaves -- the liberals already control the major television
networks, they control the biggest radio stations in America, there are
far more liberal radio and T.V. talk show commentators and newscasters
in America than conservative or Christian (i.e., Larry King, a liberal,
has the largest T.V. talk show), and no one would accuse Phil Donahue,
Oprah Winfrey, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, or Tom Brokaw of being
conservative. Studies show that the vast majority of media personalities
vote Democratic and support the liberal/left agenda from A to Z. Most
conservatives (or traditionalists) have been blacklisted from key
positions in the networks, or in Hollywood. The liberals simply want
100% of the airwaves -- they want back the information monopoly which
they enjoyed for decades.
7) The original intent of the "Fairness Doctrine" was to allow
legitimate political candidates access to a limited number of broadcast
outlets. It was never intended to dictate what program content stations
could air, in violation of the First Amendment.
8) Religious radio as we know it will be virtually wiped out.
Christian stations, for example, will be required to provide air time to
people of all faiths; Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, secular
humanists, cults, occultists, witches, etc. It will no longer be
feasible to have a radio station owned by any one religious group to
service a community. As it is now, any religious group, Christian,
Jewish, or otherwise can apply for a station license if they want their
9) Talk shows with a particular bias will have to allow opposition
(which could be any kook, weirdo, or extremist group) equal time to
express their views. This will become a time-keeping nightmare for radio
stations, especially when talk show hosts (or people calling in) express
a series of different opinions over a two- or three-hour show each day.
(Many shows cover a number of topics in a given program, or have an open
call-in format whereby callers can talk about anything.) Does each
opinion voiced create the legal obligation for an opposing response time?
QUESTION:Who's is the final arbiter of what is equal time, of what
represents an opposing viewpoint, etc.? ANSWER: Government bureaucrats
appointed by Bill or Hillary Clinton, or a judge after a lengthy and
expensive legal litigation.
10) Stations are usually identified by their "sound." Many
stations are liberal, some conservative, some religious, some of other
persuasions. The "Fairness Doctrine" would trash all that by making each
station a mish-mash of ideas.
11) There is already fairness in radio and T.V. programming in that
thousands of different stations or owners provide a wide spectrum of
ideas and products in the broadcast market today. There are thousands
of radio and T.V. stations (i.e., 11,420 radio and 1,517 T.V. stations,
up to 500-channel cable companies and communications companies that will
soon be airing programming over fiber-optic telephone lines, up to 60%
of the nation's homes now receive cable television with an average of 35
channels of basic programming, and there are dozens of satellite
Though the liberal viewpoint is the dominant one, every shade of
political philosophy persuasion and ideology, Christian and other
religious persuasion is already being aired. If you don't like or agree
with one station, channel, or program, simply spin the dial until you
find one you like. [ED. NOTE: The Clintonistas and Congressional
liberals want to take that freedom of choice away from the public. Why
freedom of choice in the aborting of babies, but not in the choice of
what kind of programming you wish to listen to or view? Is that not a
12) If the government can censor programming on radio talk shows
or Christian programs, will it also be able to censor the content of
local and national television newscasts -- determining which material is
proper for public exposure, which is not, is reporting balanced and fair,
etc. Where does media censorship end?
13) H.R.1985 and S.333 are replete with vague, hazy, generalized
wording (like "The Crime Control Act of 1993", like RICO and conspiracy
statutes and so many of the environmental, privacy, and other people-
control laws which are being pushed in the current era) which leaves open
broad, arbitrary and open-ended interpretation and enforcement powers
to overzealous regulatory bureaucrats.
For example, "reasonable opportunity," as stipulated in H.R.1985
remains undefined. How will it be applied when a station is charged with
a violation of this law? Does this mean that if Rush Limbaugh or James
Dobson have a much larger audience in a given market, that challengers
could say that the test of "reasonable opportunity" has not been met?
The station might have to move Rush or Dobson to a less favorable time
slot, or give a liberal program or host a longer program. Or a station
might just decide that the hassle and risk is not worth it -- and simply
drop the "controversial" shows.
Finally, exactly which issues are open for rebuttal and by whom
under the "Fairness Doctrine" is unclear. For example, if a religious
broadcaster airs a program discussing the need for greater adherence to
their faith, who is entitled to response time? All other denominations?
Or just a select few? Or perhaps only public officials? The answer to
this question is unclear under legislation in both Houses. Fairness is
never properly defined. The only requirement discussed in the
legislation is that broadcasters, "afford reasonable opportunity for the
discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance."
Unfortunately, determinations of "reasonable opportunity" and what is "of
public importance" will be left to a handful of FCC bureaucrats.
14) Conservative talk shows, as presently constituted, make it very
likely that Bill and Hillary will not be re-elected as Co-Presidents in
1996. Too much information about their personal and political
shenanigans is coming out via talk radio, which has put the Clintonistas
in a sort of "gold fish bowl," where much of their mendacity can be
quickly exposed for what it is, and understood by the public. Letting
the government judge the "fairness" of political commentary (via the
"Fairness Doctrine") would for the Clintonistas be like "manna from
15) Reenactment of the doctrine would present a grave danger to the
free exercise of religion. In today's cultural environment, traditional
or "orthodox" religious teachings are increasingly "controversial" and
would be subject to governmental regulation under a restored "Fairness
Doctrine." Conventional Jewish and Christian teachings relating to such
matters as marriage, parental responsibility, sexual immorality, and the
sanctity of human life are now hotly contested by an increasingly
"secularized" society. In this environment, reinstitution of the
"Fairness Doctrine" would lead to an unconstitutional "entanglement" of
government regulators in religious matters.
16) If the government can censor the airwaves, will it next censor
the print media (i.e., newspapers, news magazines, newsletters, religious
publications, books, videotapes, audio tapes, etc.)? Once it begins,
where does the censorship end? In Nazi Germany, it reached the extremes
of book burning and ultimately total censorship of all political thought.
Ditto for Russia.
If scarce broadcast frequencies are a justification for airwave
censorship via the "Fairness Doctrine" (but as we have seen --
frequencies are no longer scarce), it should be remembered that
newspapers are far more scarce than radio or television stations or
frequencies, and therefore, according to the convoluted logic of
congressional liberals and the Clintonistas, may also need to be
regulated or censored to "spare the public the pain or suffering of
Perhaps this is why the liberal "Washington Post" has come out very
strongly against the "Fairness Doctrine". On 9/8/93 the Post wrote: "We
do share his (Rush Limbaugh's) opposition to any resurrection of the
deceptively labeled 'fairness doctrine' in broadcasting...The FCC was
right to scrap this antiquated rule, which had set up the government as
monitor of programming on public interest issues as well as of air time
allotted to opposing views...
"Present efforts in Congress to codify a 'fairness doctrine' in the
name of diversity and availability of information would mean government-
ordered doses of ideas, aired by formulas..."Fairness Doctrine' backers
in Congress think that interference is a way to produce free,
independent, and fair communications of points of view...They are wrong.
The federal government should not be the program manager of public
"Free, independent, and fair communications of points of view isn't
made better by government supervision and sanctions. Most viewers and
listeners have mastered the controls that turn off the programs of cruise
the bands and channels for diversity. They don't want or need government
guidance for these decisions."
[ED. NOTE: The Post is right! The Post also owns broadcast
facilities in other cities and perhaps they know that they could be next
if this media censorship drive gains momentum. There have also been
other liberals who have come out against the "Fairness Doctrine" (i.e.,
Mario Cuomo), fearing it could also be used to squelch their free speech
on the airwaves.]
America is plunging toward socialism and toward what the globalists
like to call the New World Order. Hundreds of new laws are passed each
year (i.e., 2,500 in 1992), along with tens of thousands of new rules and
regulations to implement these laws -- many carrying with them criminal
as well as civil penalties ranging from heavy fines, to property
seizures, to jail sentences. There were, according to USA Today, 52,000
such seizures of property by government regulators (totaling over $800
million) in 1992, for violation of some new law, rule, or regulation.
These new laws, rules and regulations involve privacy; the use of
cash; the environment; discrimination against so-called minorities; whole
new definitions of child abuse; hate crimes (i.e., thought crimes); gun
control violations; and a host of restrictions on most businesses and
individuals which are unconstitutional and would have been unheard of in
an earlier day in America.
Americans are progressively finding themselves in the predicament
which Gulliver found himself in when he lay down to take a nap in the
land of the Lilliputians. While he was asleep, the tiny Lilliputians
(who were certainly very small and inferior in strength to Gulliver)
began to wind small threads around the giant and did so until he was
bound up like a mummy or a man in a straight jacket. This is how tens
of thousands of new people-controlling laws, rules and regulations have
been binding the American people in recent years -- until, like Gulliver,
we will soon have almost no freedom of movement or action.
People control (i.e., controlling every aspect of the American
people's lives) is what the socialists of our day, who control the major
levers of power in America (i.e., in government, the media, the
educational system, etc.) have in mind for the American people.
It can be seen in the proposed new Crime Control Bill of 1993 (which
defines most forms of political dissent, including speeches, writings,
and assembly, and so-called efforts to influence government policy, or
to intimidate the public as "criminal terrorism"). It can be seen in the
proposed new mandatory inoculations bill, which labels parents who refuse
to get their children government-mandated inoculations as criminal child
abusers -- subject to prison sentences, government seizure of their
children, or fines. It can be seen in the new gun control,
environmental, cash reporting, privacy, and hate crimes laws.
However, there are still a number of loopholes and obstacles which
stand in the way of their socialist agenda for America. Home schooling
and private Christian schools are a loophole in the liberal's educational
monopoly. Widespread gun ownership by Americans is another major
obstacle to the socialist agenda. The right to trial by jury, the right
of political dissent, the right to freedom of religion, and parents
control over their children are all Constitutionally-guaranteed rights
which are major obstacles for the socialists and their agenda for
America, and which are under growing attack by the liberals today.
Perhaps the most important loophole of freedom which the American
people still have today is the loophole in the liberal's
information/media monopoly, a loophole which has grown enormously since
the repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Today, in spite of
liberal control of most of the U.S. media, tens of millions of Americans
are hearing an alternative, non-liberal, traditionalist message, via
hundreds of radio (and T.V.) talk shows and additional hundreds of
It should be understood that control of the media by the political
left has been their number one tool in moving America toward a socialist
society and the New World Order. Now the gaping loophole in their
media/information monopoly which has been brought about by talk radio and
Christian radio and T.V. programming is endangering their plans. From
the political left's viewpoint, they must get their information monopoly
back, or potentially see their socialist/globalist plans derailed by an
informed and enraged public. All would-be dictators must have a monopoly
on information if they are to successfully impose their dictatorship.
A national forum for public debate and discussion of government
policy; direction; people control measures; and attacks on our
Constitutional and traditional, family, and Biblical values has emerged
over the past five years. And it is driving the liberals crazy. Talk
radio could derail their people-control, big tax and spend, globalist
agenda for America, set it back by decades, or even terminate it totally;
therefore (from the liberal's viewpoint) it must be stopped. Hence, they
have resurrected the "Fairness Doctrine" and are pushing hard to slam-
dunk the new "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993" on the American
people before they can mobilize opposition to same.
As analyzed above, this legislation has nothing to do with fairness,
or balance, or diversity in broadcasting. It is purely and simply a
political and religious censorship bill, designed to stifle (i.e., to
shut up) the conservative, traditionalist, Constitutionalist, and
Christian opposition to the liberal agenda for America. It is an anti-
free speech, unconstitutional initiative which is designed to re-
establish the liberal's total monopoly over the U.S. airwaves.
Censorship of the print media will follow. Shades of the Nazi Third
CONSERVATIVES, TRADITIONALISTS AND CHRISTIANS HAVE NOT FULLY
UNDERSTOOD WHAT A POWERFUL TOOL THEY HAVE HAD IN THEIR HANDS (I.E., TALK
RADIO AND FREE ACCESS TO THE AIRWAVES) AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE POTENTIAL
FOR IT TO EXPOSE AND DERAIL THE LIBERAL AGENDA IN AMERICA. BUT, THE
POLITICAL LEFT UNDERSTANDS (JUST AS THEY DID IN THE KENNEDY/JOHNSON ERA)
AND ARE TRYING TO STRANGLE IT.
IF THE LIBERALS ARE ABLE TO SLAM-DUNK THIS MEDIA CENSORSHIP BILL,
CHRISTIAN RADIO PROGRAMMING AS WE KNOW IT, AND CONSERVATIVE RADIO TALK
SHOWS WILL BE OFF THE AIR (OR FORCED TO BROADCAST ON A HIGHLY LIMITED AND
RESTRICTED BASIS BY SHORTWAVE OR FROM OUTSIDE OF THE U.S.). NINETY-EIGHT
PERCENT OF CHRISTIAN AND CONSERVATIVE PROGRAMMING WOULD DISAPPEAR UNDER
DR. JAMES DOBSON, D. JAMES KENNEDY, CHARLES STANLEY, CHARLES
SWINDOLL, RUSH LIMBAUGH, AND HUNDREDS OF OTHER CONSERVATIVE,
TRADITIONALIST AND CHRISTIAN VOICES WILL FALL SILENT ON THE U.S. AIRWAVES
IF THE LIBERALS SUCCEED IN INSTALLING THE NEW "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE." THE
LAST MAJOR OBSTACLE TO THE POLITICAL LEFT'S DRIVE TO ESTABLISH A
SOCIALIST AMERICA AND A NEW WORLD ORDER WILL HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
THIS CENSORSHIP DISASTER FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE
AIRWAVES, AND FREEDOM OF POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION COULD BE A
FAIT ACCOMPLI WITHIN THREE TO SIX MONTHS (IF NOT SOONER)!
VI. WHAT TO DO: AN ACTION PLAN
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do
nothing" Edmund Burke
Good men and women have been doing nothing for a long time in
America and the political left are taking (or have taken) over almost
every aspect of our country; the government, the mainline media, the
mainline churches, the educational system, etc. Jesus said, "Ye shall
know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Christians,
conservatives, and traditionalists are about to lose their freedom to
propagate the truth on the U.S. airwaves -- a privilege which they have
really only had in a meaningful way for the past five years.
WHAT CAN BE DONE TO STOP THE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE"
1. Re-read and study this report.
2. Make copies of it (or order extras from the address on this
report -- 1-99 at $1 each; 100 or more at 50 cents each). THERE IS NO
COPYRIGHT ON THIS REPORT!
3. Send copies of this report to every radio or television station
in your area (i.e., to owners, station managers, program directors, and
talk show hosts), to national radio or television talk show hosts or
commentators, as well as to newspapers in your area.
4. This writer is willing to be a guest speaker on radio talk shows
on this topic with any radio talk show in your area. (call 1-800-525-9556
to schedule a show.)
5. Send copies of this report to conservative and Christian
publications, newsletters, and organizations, and encourage them to
reprint it (in part or all of it). NO permission from the author is
6. To stop this abominable legislation, we must create a deluge (or
an avalanche) of millions (or tens of millions) of irate phone calls,
telegrams, letters and faxes to our Congressmen and Senators in
Washington. Every Congressperson or Senator who even thinks about
supporting or voting for the new "Fairness Doctrine" needs to know that
there are thousands, or tens of thousands of his or her constituents back
home that are fuming mad about this new Congressional attempt at media
censorship, and that those constituents will work insatiably for the
defeat of that legislator in the next election (in '94, '96, or '98) if
he or she supports the "new censorship."
7. The local offices in the home states and districts of the
Senators and Congresspersons should also be contacted by phone, letter,
fax, mailgram, telegram or personal visit and the support of that
legislator in defeating this new censorship initiative solicited.
Information from this report can and should be utilized in letters,
faxes, mailgrams, or phone calls to legislators, but the report itself,
which is too long for most legislators to read, will be much less
effective than your own personal correspondence perhaps utilizing a few
pertinent points from the report.
It should be remembered that many (perhaps most) of the legislators
contacted (especially the liberals) will not be swayed by arguments,
facts, or principle (especially not the liberals who want to silence the
conservatives and Christians and their critics on the airwaves). They
will be influenced by fear of what can happen to them in the next
election if thousands, or tens of thousand, or hundreds of thousands of
their constituents are hot about this issue and diametrically opposed to
it. As the late Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-IL) used to say: "When we feel
the heat, we see the light." One hundred U.S. Senators and 435 Congress
persons should feel the heat on this vital censorship/free speech issue!
8. Letters by the thousands in opposition to the new "Fairness
Doctrine" need to be sent to the editorial departments of every local and
regional newspaper in America. They should be short enough (and
articulately written) to merit reprinting in the editorial section of the
newspaper. It is important to understand that politicians closely watch
the editorial opinions and letters in their local papers to detect any
groundswell of negative public resentment which can hurt them in the next
election. The local papers also need to be reminded that if the airwaves
can be politically censored by Washington, then the print media (and
especially the newspapers) may not be far behind.
9. Every radio talk show host, political commentator, and religious
group who utilizes the U.S. airwaves (radio or T.V.) should be strongly
urged by every recipient of this report to get on their public soap box
(while they still have one); to discuss the dangers to free speech from
the "Fairness Doctrine"; to vocally and vigorously oppose same; and most
importantly, to get their listeners or viewers to launch a telephone,
letter, mailgram, blitz to every Congressperson and Senator (at their
local or district office AND in Washington) expressing anger and
opposition to the "new censorship." The Washington telephone switch
board number for U.S. Representatives and Senators is 202-224-3121.
(The majority of these efforts should be directed at the Congress -
- not the White House. Bill and Hillary Clinton desperately want to Hush
Rush and the rest of their conservative opposition and are very unlikely
to respond to conservative/Christian grass roots pressure. The Congress,
on the other hand, should be the primary target for this grassroots
opposition to the "new censorship." Their jobs are (or should be) at
Time is of the essence! Millions of irate phone calls, mailgrams,
letters, and even personal visits to legislator's offices need to be made
over the next 30 to 60 days (i.e., October and November) before
Congressional liberals are able to SNEAK the "Fairness Doctrine" through.
This is an issue which lovers of free speech and the Constitution can
win! We have the muscle to stop this effort to muzzle free speech in its
tracks, or (as the abortionists might say, "to strangle this 'new
censorship tarbaby' in the crib." Will we use our muscle to protect and
perpetuate talk radio and free speech on the American airwaves, or will
we roll over and play dead for the new liberal censors? Much more than
just talk radio is at stake here. All of our freedoms may be at risk if
we lose our freedom of speech on the airwaves.
WHAT CAN OR WILL YOU DO TO PROTECT FREE SPEECH ON OUR AIRWAVES AND
STOP THE NEW CENSORSHIP? WILL YOU, IN NANCY REAGAN'S WORDS, "JUST SAY
NO" TO THE LIBERAL/CLINTONISTA ATTEMPTS TO CENSOR OUR FREE SPEECH? WHEN
IS ENOUGH, ENOUGH?
[TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: The original newsletter continues at this point with
several more pages commenting on various economic, medical, and political
briefs. Because of the necessity of getting this information out in a
timely fashion, the rest of the report is being omitted. Please contact
the author of the newsletter to receive the rest of the report. The
rest of the issue may be made available next month or so.]
The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor editor by Donald S. McAlvany is a
monthly analysis of global economic, monetary, and geo-political trends
which impact the gold and precious metals markets and is explicitly
Christian, conservative, and free-market in its perspective. Information
contained herein has been carefully selected from sources believed
reliable, but absolute accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, P.O. Box 84904, Phoenix, AZ 85071
subscription rates: Domestic--6 mos. $56, 12mos. $95, 24 mos. $165
Foreign Air Mail: 6 mos. $72, 12 mos. $125, 24 mos. $221
Subscription information: 800-528-0559 in Arizona call 602-252-4477
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, MAIL PROBLEMS
The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor
P.O. Box 84904
Phoenix, AZ 85071
In Arizona call 602-252-4477
The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor
P.O. Box 5150
Durango, CO 81301
Editor: Donald S. McAlvany
GOLD, SILVER, AND RARE COIN BROKERAGE &
International Collectors Associates
P.O. Box 5150
Durango, CO 81301
For quotes or orders call 800-525-9556
In Colorado call 303-259-4100
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank