Iran Rule By Islam Sharia Law Appears,
Shows Iran’s Leaders as Dictators So Clear!
The Newspaper Freedom of Press We Hold Dear,
Iran Ending by Rate of 12 Plus Press Closures Per Year!
Revolutionary Government now rules Iranian People by Fear,
A criticism of Ahmadinejad’s failures they are not allowed to Hear!
July 6, 2008
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
I suspect, if Obama wins the November election, it will not be too long until a Democratic congress will pass some type of legislation under a “fair and balanced coverage act,” which will legislate that an equal time must be allotted for the opposing viewpoint on a newscast or talk show.
Two News Excerpts Follow
Begin Excerpt 1
International Herald Tribune Reuters Excerpt
Iran bans daily critical of Ahmadinejad
Reuters
Sunday, June 22, 2008
TEHRAN: An Iranian newspaper has been banned after carrying articles critical of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s economic policies, the state Press TV satellite station said on its website.
A government media body revoked the licence of Tehran Emrooz on Saturday, Press TV said.
It said the newspaper was launched 18 months ago and was seen as being close to Tehran Mayor Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf, a conservative who analysts say is a potential rival of Ahmadinejad in next year’s presidential election.
Tehran Emrooz’s publisher was summoned to a court on Sunday to answer charges of “printing pictures and editorial material insulting to the president and propagation of lies with the intention of agitating public opinion”
, Fars News Agency said.
The daily last week published a special issue on the third anniversary of Ahmadinejad’s election that included articles criticising the government’s economic record, Press TV said.
The daily’s editorial board acknowledged in a statement on Sunday it had gone beyond fair criticism of the government and issued an apology, the official IRNA news agency said.
“We declare (that the special issue) … was devoid of a fair and moderate stance, and the daily’s editorial board hereby apologises to the government officials … ,” IRNA quoted the board’s statement as saying.
Ahmadinejad, who came to power in 2005 on a pledge to share Iran’s oil wealth more fairly, has come under mounting criticism from parliament, the media and the public over a failure to rein in inflation now running at around 25 percent annually.
Although Iran says it allows free speech, journalists say they have to tread carefully to avoid being closed down.
Earlier this month, Fars was shut down for three days, accused of publishing “lies” about the possible dismissal of the central bank governor, one of its editors said.
Since 2000, Iran has closed more than 100 publications, accusing many of being “pawns of the West”. Many subsequently reopened under different names.
(Reporting by Hashem Kalantari; Writing by Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Charles Dick)
Begin Excerpt 2
Excerpt from Culture and Media Institute
Unmasking the Myths Behind the Fairness Doctrine
Executive Summary
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” (Voltaire)
Political activists and even certain U.S. senators have argued that the federal government should reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, which would require broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. Opponents charge that Fairness Doctrine advocates are trying to reduce the impact of conservative talk radio.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has introduced The Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR 2905), which would bar the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
The controversy touches on America’s most fundamental civic values. Do we still cherish freedom of speech, or are some of us succumbing to the tyrannical impulse to stifle the speech of political adversaries? Do our leaders trust us to accept responsibility to govern ourselves, or do they wish to control which information we receive?
Three principal arguments support resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine. First, the “scarcity” argument holds that the airwaves are public property with a limited number of broadcast frequencies, so government can and should intervene if the public debate is out of balance.
Second, the “censorship” argument holds that major corporations are muzzling liberal opinion on the radio, so Americans are not hearing both sides of issues. Third, the “ public interest
argument holds that the Fairness Doctrine would increase the amount and variety of opinions available to the public.
Are these arguments valid
? They are myths.
1. The scarcity argument. Is conservative dominance of commercial talk radio distorting the national debate about public policy issues?
Americans have never enjoyed so many professional sources of news and opinion. Americans can choose from a dozen or more daily network television news shows, 10 separate 24/7 cable news and public affairs channels, 1,400 daily newspapers, and more than 2,200 radio stations airing news/talk.
The Internet has exponentially increased the availability of news sources. Thanks to the Internet, Americans are no longer limited to local media. Any St. Louis resident with a modem can read the Sacramento Bee and listen to political talk radio stations in Washington, D.C. The World Wide Web has pushed the number of daily news sources available well into the thousands for anybody with Internet access, and 70 percent or more of Americans are on line.
Only 7 percent of American adults consider radio to be their main source for news and information. Fifty-five percent rely prim arily on television news,
a ratio of nearly 8 to 1.
The Newspaper Association of America says 57 percent of American adults read a newspaper every day.
2. The censorship argument. Are Americans hearing both sides of debates about controversial public policy issues, or are liberal voices being shut out?
Liberal voices are well represented in talk radio, and are available to
anyone with a modem or an FM radio. Six of the top 25 commercial talk radio hosts are liberals. The commercial Air America network, created to spread liberal ideas, has 55 stations broadcasting over the air. Twenty-six of these stations also stream over the Internet, as do hundreds of public radio stations.
Noncommercial public radio has more than 800 stations with a total weekly news/talk audience of 14 million. At least 850 of the 2,200 talk stations air mostly liberal programming.
Radio is only one slice of the pie. Major liberal-leaning sources of news and opinion reach a far greater audience than conservative-leaning sources. Audience reach and circulation statistics illustrate the liberal domination of the five major information media, two of which have no conservative sources:
Broadcast TV news, millions/day Liberal 42.1 Conservative 0
Top 25 newspapers, millions/day Liberal 11.7 Conservative 1.3
Cable TV news, millions/month Liberal 182.8 Conservative 61.6
Top talk radio, millions/week Liberal 24.5 Conservative 87.0
Newsweeklies, millions/week Liberal 8.5 Conservative 0
3. The public interest argument. Would the Fairness Doctrine increase or reduce discussion about public policy issues? History says speech would be curtailed.
When the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, talk radio avoided controversial topics. Most stations programmed only general talk and advice.
Politicians repeatedly have used the Fairness Doctrine to chill speech. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson both used the Fairness Doctrine to stifle criticism, suppress the speech of political adversaries, and force radio stations to provide free air time.
Conclusion
Efforts by liberal politicians to restore the Fairness Doctrine bring to mind the worst moment of Israel’s King David. David was not satisfied with his many wives and concubines; he also had to have the beautiful Bathsheba, the only wife of one of his soldiers.
American liberals already dominate four of the five most important news and information media, and they are determined to take over the fifth medium as well.
America has so many sources of news and information available that no federal regulation of broadcasting content can possibly be justified on the grounds of public interest. The Fairness Doctrine has an ugly history of political abuse directly intended to restrict the free exchange of ideas. As liberals propose and agitate for a resumption of the Fairness Doctrine, history may repeat itself.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.