Download THE NINTH HONORABLE MENTION: THE “FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

THE NINTH HONORABLE MENTION: THE “FAIRNESS DOCTRINE” AND BRIAN “THE BIGOT” JENNINGS
The “Fairness Doctrine” is a past policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
which was originally introduced in 1949. The Commission’s stated purpose for initiating such a policy
was to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by broadcast stations would be “balanced and
fair.”
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934. It is the successor to the Federal Radio
Commission Act of 1927, and it is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio
spectrum (which would include television broadcasting, interstate telecommunications [wire, satellite,
and cable], and international communications that originate and/or terminate within the United States).
(The FCC is an independent agency of the United States government. The majority of its commissioners
are appointed by the current U. S. President. Its “mandated jurisdiction” includes the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and the U. S. possessions. It has 1,898 “full-time equivalent” federal employees
with an annual budget of 335.8 [2011]).
The “Fairness Doctrine” should be differentiated from the “Equal Time” rule. As stated above, the
“Fairness Doctrine” involves the presentation of “balanced points of view” on matters of public interest.
On the other hand, the “Equal Time” rule states that U. S. radio and U. S. television broadcast stations
“must provide an equal opportunity to any opposing, political candidates requesting it.” The rule does
not apply when the broadcast is: (1) a documentary; (2) a news interview; (3) a scheduled newscast;
and/or (4) an “on-the-spot” news event.
The rule originated in the Radio Act of 1927, and it was superseded by the Communications Act of 1934.
The rule was created (by the FCC) in order to prevent “stations” from manipulating the outcome of
particular elections.
In 1969, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) upheld the FCC’s general right to enforce
the “Fairness Doctrine” where broadcasting channels were limited. But, it did rule that the Commission
was obligated to enforce the doctrine (in Red Line Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications
Commission). In 1987, the courts ruled that the FCC was not “obligated” to enforce the doctrine (in
Corp. v. FCC).
Because of “SCOTUS’s” ruling, the FCC eliminated the doctrine in August of the same year.
(Before the Commission’s action, U. S. Congress voted to put the “Fairness Doctrine” into law (spring,
1987). The Congress was attempting to generate a statutory doctrine by which the FCC would be forced
to apply it. The “oligarchic”, President Ronald Wilson Reagan [1981-1989] vetoed the legislation based
upon his world view: deregulation was “good” for business and what was “good” for business was
“good” for the nation [and what is “good” for the nation was “good” for the world].
The Congress did not have the votes to override his veto [two-thirds vote in both the House and in the
Senate].
In 1991, the “oligarchic”, President George H. W. Bush’s [1989-1993] political “clout” stopped another
attempt by the U. S. Congress to enact a “Fairness Doctrine” statute. Historically, the U. S. Congress has
overridden less than 10% of all presidential vetoes.)
The “oligarchs” and their “familiars” really, really hate both the “Fairness Doctrine” and the “Equal
Time” rule. When these FCC policies are present and when these policies are applied fairly, the “rich
and powerful” have a much more difficult time “in their controlling of the messaging” to the American
many.
(“SCOTUS” is the court of the “oligarchs.” This was the reality of the court in 1987, and this is the reality
of the court in 2011. For example, “SCOTUS’s”, recent rulings in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission [2010] and in Wal-Mart v. Dukes [2011] are a reflection of a “broken”, federal, judiciary
system. These “fixed” and “regressive” rulings (by a “corrupt”, conservative majority of the court)
continues to undermine the “creditability of” and the “trust in” this branch of the U. S. Government.
Now, unlimited, “election engineering” processes and “to big to discriminate” [make it more “difficult”
and make it more “expensive” to initiate a class action suit] concepts “rule” the nation.)
To re-emphasize, the American corporations control the United States of America. At this point in the
nation’s history, they are in control of all three branches of the U. S. Government (as well as of its state
governments): the judiciary, the legislative, and the executive.
The “O” in “SCOTUS” stands for “oligarchs.” Or, more accurately, this “acronym” should be changed to
the following: SCOTUSFTO (Supreme Court of the United States for the Oligarchs). And, Chief Justices
William H. Rehnquist (1986-2005) and John G. Roberts, Jr. (2005-present) are want to be “oligarchs”
who will never be forgiven for their “biases” for their American few.
Brian Jennings is “credited” with being the “founder of conservative, talk radio shows.” His “seminal”
work, Censorship [2009], is the primary source for this generalization (along with the “assertions” of
some of his friends). His work was published by Threshold Editors, Simon & Schuster’s conservative
brand, whose Chief Editor is Mary Matalin, a well known Republican operative for the extreme “right.”
(Threshold Editors, which is owned by the “oligarchic” CBS, publishes such “authors” as Hannity, Beck,
Rove, Cheney, and Corsi’s. Threshold’s principal, publication standard is the political extremism of its
“authors”: in this case, the extremism of the “right”.)
Censorship’s principal “thesis” is that the “others” (anyone who does not believe in the “imprint” of
“exclusive” thinking) are attempting to “censor” the First Amendment freedoms of the “leading
programmers of the extreme right.” That is, the supporters of the “Fairness Doctrine” and the
supporters of the “Equal Time” rule are attempting to limit their ability to “attack diversity” in its various
forms.
(The following, “hypothetical” statement would be a “vivid” example of Jennings’ typical mantra of hate
[in this case, toward “Native” Americans] :
After all, are not all the “Native” Americans trying to “take over” the United States by “demanding that
‘our’ lands should be given back to them”? Removing them forcibly, especially from their purchased
lands [you know, the ones with the casinos], would be an act of “self-defense” as well as an act of
“mercy” on the part of the “true” Americans [namely, us]: you know the ones that came from Europe in
the “olden-days.”
Because of the “self-evident, superiority of the ‘white’, European Americans”, Jennings has advocated
the “seizing” of all their lands.)
Brian “the Bigot” Jennings’ “straw man” approach (“making up” extreme realities which are false and
then arguing against them: a propaganda technique of Dr. “Joey” Goebbels) can be seen in his attempt
to accuse “others” of trying to re-institute the FCC polices which, de facto, would limit the “right’s”
ability to “articulate” their hatred of those who are “inferior” to the “true” Americans.
Parenthetically, the actual issue was the election of a Senator from IL by the name of Obama (2008). In
order to undermine Obama’s ability to become President of the United States, “the Bigot” claimed that
Obama would support the re-institution of these, past, FCC policies in order to “censor” the viewpoints
of the extreme “right.”
That “the Bigot” would think that Obama’s alleged support of these FCC policies would “undermine” his
ability to be elected is just another measure of “the Bigot’s” exclusive thinking. Obviously, there is no
genuine, political process which is designed to accomplish this goal: the “oligarchs” will never, never
allow this goal to be achieved.
(The “oligarchic”, President Barack Hessein Obama II [2009-present] lacks the will to “stand against” his
campaign, financial supporters (the American corporations contributed a combined 50% of all of his
campaign funds). And, Obama has been really, really “good” for the American corporations’ record,
bottom lines.)
In summary and in the form of “oligarchic”, exclusive thinking, note their following, “hypothetical”
statement:
Imagine, the American many demanding “a level playing field”? Do not the American many know their
“place” in “our” social structure? My God, SCOTUSFTO almost “dropped the ball” in 1969 and in 1984.
And, the U. S. Congress’ attempts in 1987 and in 1991 really, really angered us: do not these political
“persons” know that they are “our”, hired help?
To hell with the “oligarchs” (the American mega-corporations) and their “familiars” (the judiciary
[SCOTUSFTO], the executive [“oligarchic”, presidents], and the legislative [the over-paid and “corrupt”
politicians] branches of the U. S. Government),
Fromoneofthemany