Rep Hinchey reintroduces bill to break media monopolies, reinstate Fairness Doctrine

[Greeby]

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Rep._believes_Democratic_media_reform_bill_0121.html

Concerns about monopolies and fears of a possible "fascist" takeover of the US media have prompted a Democratic congressman to push to restore the Fairness Doctrine, RAW STORY has learned.

"Media reform is the most important issue confronting our democratic republic and the people of our country," Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) said at the Free Press National Media Reform Conference held in Memphis, Tennessee last weekend. "This is a critical moment in history that may determine the future of our country…maybe forever."

Hinchey told RAW STORY he plans to reintroduce the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA) that would break up media monopolies and restore the Fairness Doctrine, which was eliminated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under the Reagan administration.

“If Rush shoots his mouth off, he must give equal access to our side,” Hinchey said. “The American public will begin to get both sides or all sides of an issue. That is basic—fundamental to a democracy.”-snip-

[Cass]

1. Excellent news! We need this so badly!

:thumbsup:

[ReadTomPaine]

2. Maurice Hinchey's bipartisan appeal will serve him well here.

For a man with such a liberal voting record, he had bucked the GOP trend since the mid 90's and kept his seat pretty safe to boot. He's a perfect Rep for this job, as he will be able to sell the idea across the political spectrum. I'm glad to see he's dedicated about this issue as well - he first introduced the bill in 2005.

It should be interesting to see how modern media's diverse structures will be dealt with in this legislation.

[napi21]

3. The only thing that scares me about this is the fairness doctrine.

I was listening to Thom Hartmann the other day, and he said the fairness doctrine could mean the END of all talk radio. Sure, we'd be rid of Rush, Boortz and the like, butwe'd also be rid ofHartman, Elliott, Malloy, etc. I sure don't want THAT!

[Ian David]

5. I'm not concerned, and I'll tell you why

If each station them splits 50/50 between liberal and conservative talkers, then listeners could simply "flip" to a program that appeals to them.

The only way to get "screwn" is if all the stations conspire together to air only conservative programming during the drive-time hours, and relegate liberal programing to the overnight spots.

The "problem" is, you won't be able to have an all-liberal or all-conservative formatted station, and the guys selling the advertising will have to offer multiple advertising plans. The guys in ad-sales will have to sell spots on actual shows, not just the stations.

And people won't simply tune-in one station and leave it there all day-- they'll switch around the dial for the format that appeals to them.

This is easier now, because most people seem to have digital tuners with station pre-sets.

Oh, my god... consumer choice and market forces!

[originalpckelly]

15. You point out the problem, it won't really change anything.

The opportunity is out there now for these mindless drones to hear our side, but it's the fact they are unwilling to listen and deal with those whom oppose them that is the real problem.

They will simply tune out the liberal programming, and tune in when their side in on.

And if they can't use radio, they'll move to the internet. And I know I certainly don't want the government regulating the internet.

[Ian David]

26. Yes, but now we will have ACCESS to OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES. n/t

[originalpckelly]

30. You know on second thought, I agree.

There are only so many radio frequencies within the receiving capablility of FM or AM radio, that it does indeed make sense.

[EstimatedProphet]

43. Fair point, but those people won't listen anyway

So it really doesn't nmatter what happens with them. What will come from this that is positive is the average listener, not the idealogue, will now be exposed to multiple viewpoints.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

47. It'll make a huge difference. There is not a single, liberal talk show here

I'm in Richmond, VA. The metro area has a population approaching a million. It's not the most enlightened place in the world, but it isn't the sticks either.

Every AM station in the area is all Hate Radio all the time.

Having Franken opposite Rush here would be huge. People who are in the middle would have somebody else to listen to. I'd die to have Randi Rhodes to listen to on the way home. As it is, I pull off my earphones at work and I'm done listening to Air America until I'm at home.

[MGKrebs]

32. It's more likely stations would just avoid anything partisan

or controversial and therefore not have to worry about or deal with the flak of not being balanced.
Some sort of fairness doctrine would be good, but it should be different than the last one.

[rinsd]

42. Yes but stations may decide to hell with it and do away with political talk radio

You seem to think the balance will be an easy thing to maintain, while I seriously disagree. Both sides of partisans will issue a multitude of complaints, some legit, some not so. What that will likely lead to is headaches for the now "local" station owner who might just say screw it we're only doing sports talk radio and jazz music.

So the fear of the death of political talk radio is not chicken little.

Prior to 1987, how many political talk radio shows were there?

Does anyone know?

All that said as long as some misguided genius doesn't decide to extend the tentacles of the FCC into cable as a means of attacking FoxNews, I have no issue with the fairness doctrine.

[Book Lover]

6. Not necessarily

The company that produces, for example, Rush may decide it's no longer going to participate in the business, but the company that produces, for instance, Malloy could then, in compliance with the Doctrine, bring on a reasoned conservative voice. You must admit, a company that produces Malloy is far more likely to do so than the company that produces hate/right-wing radio.

For those who are interested, here's a link to the bill: http://www.mediaproblem.com/congress/bills/hr_3302.pdf. Nevermind the 20-page count; it's a quick and clear read.

[Liberty Belle]

12. I doubt that; the Fairness Doctrine would not require balance on every show,

but merely from each broadcaster. So a radio station could "balance" Rush by also airing a Randi Rhodes or Al Franken program, for example.

I'm not certain, but it might also be possible for a broadcaster that owned multiple stations in a single market to devote one to conservative and another to liberal talk radio; you just couldn't dominate the airways in a single town with only one side.

[Peace Patriot]

13. No, I don't think it will have that effect. What it will do is create BALANCED

programming. The corporate news monopolies can react in one of several ways--and their profits (and/or avoidance of penalties and disrepute) will weigh in the balance: 1) pull all political programming; 2) provide "equal time" at odd hours (a sort of token of fairness); or 3) provide more balanced programming, so, if they have a Rush Limbaugh, they have to have a Mike Malloy (or they may try to provide a more lame left alternative, as they are already starting to do). I think politics/government policy remains of high interest, and they will not pull political programming. There is also a component of the "Fairness Doctrine" having to do with serving the public interest. They can't just use the public airwaves to sell products. They have to provide SOME political/issues programming (public interest programming). I think they will go with #2 and #3--and try to provide public interest programming that is the least damaging to corporate profits and power. And this will require long term vigilance, and a lot of specific battles over what satisfies the "Fairness Doctrine" and what doesn't. In other words, they don't want to miss the opportunity to influence public policy through use of the public airwaves, so they will tone it down a bit, and try to satisfy the requirement with tokenism. I'd say Rush Limbaugh/Mike Malloy was a fair exchange. To me, that would satisfy the "Fairness Doctrine." Would they give up Rush Limbaugh in order to prevent Mike Malloy? That will be the battle.

[napi21]

18. There's another issuetoo. WHO decided what's fair and balanced?

We all know that FOX has been claiming that since they started, but none of US believe it! I watchedsome program the other day where they were pointing out that FOX uses people like Hannity, who is attractive, forceful, and a decent speaker for their RW point of view, while they use someone like Colmes, who is not that attractive, certainly not forcefful, for their LW host. It's done specifically to encourage RWers to watch the programs and the LWers lose interest quickly.

Personally I don't like hearing all the hatered no matter which side it's coming from!I have no idea how you'd ever make it go away though!

[originalpckelly]

19. Yes, I'm glad you see the real problem. It's not in the media...

that's merely a reflection of the people. We need to talk to and convince the majority of these mindless idiots to listen and deal with people whom oppose them.

We forget that there is the internet, if Rush is pushed out of radio, he'll move on to podcasts (if he hasn't already done that.)

The solution lies with changing the actual minds of these people, not silencing them.

[rinsd]

44. I would say 1 is the most likely since 1 is what we have experience with

Satisfying public good isn't limited a partisan host screaming about his ideas followed by his iedological opposite. Simply doing the news and perhaps a for and against 2 minute editorial would satisfy those requirements.

Something tells me #1 was good enough for broadcasters who rather avoid headaches of irate partisans.

I am not old enough to remember talk radio in the 70's and early 80's, were there political talk shows that didn't air at odd hours? Or was it more the point-counterpoint 5 minute editorials I used to remember on our local stations.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Yes! Yes! YES! Excellent post. Bring back the "Fairness Doctrine"!

You youngsters may not realize this, but back in the '60s and '70s, before Reagan, any TV news show that strayed over the line to advocacy on a political issue was OBLIGED to provide EQUAL TIME to the opposition, as a condition of their license to use the public airwaves. I remember those late-night, just before they went off the air, commentaries by various citizens and groups which presented the other side on many issues. But more even than those late-night tag-on's (which were something of a subversion of the law, because the "time" given was at an hour when much of the public was not tuned in, and also the networks were selective in who they permitted to have some time), the "Fairness Doctrine" created a CLIMATE of fair play, which warned the corporate networks not to use their license to use the PUBLIC airwaves to lobby the public in the interest of network/CEO/investor profit.

I am so glad to see the "Fairness Doctrine" back in play! Thank you, Rep. Hinchey--and all who made submission of this bill happen. And thanks to Raw Story for bringing us the news--and to Greeby for posting it.

I tend to think we won't get the "Fairness Doctrine" re-instated until we have restored transparent elections, and can elect a fully representative Congress. Hinchey, it should be noted, is from a state, NY, that has so far fought off electronic voting machines run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations. Still, whatever its chances in this Congress, I don't care. Just as with transparency in vote counting, fairness in use of our public airwaves is a FUNDAMENTAL necessity of democracy, and will be very popular with the people and will continue to be spoken of, and lobbied for, until we get it. But somebody had to start the ball rolling. It is a very special moment to see that happen. I hope it rolls right through Congress ASAP. But even if it doesn't, it will put the war profiteering corporate news monopolies on notice that they had better shape up, and start fulfilling their responsibilities to the public, or they are are going to be punished. Nobody listens to them any more anyway. Their propaganda has failed. The people of this country don't like being lied to. And they've got a lot of ground to make up on the matter of credibility--if they want to keep their audiences, and their licenses.

Thanks again to all who have been active on this issue, and have brought us this news! HOORAH!

[thecrow]

7. Should be: Media Ownership Reform Act LEGISLATION

or..... MORAL

I agree wholeheartedly

[Nutmegger]

8. Kicked and recommended!

:kick:and:thumbsup:!

[Gregorian]

9. This is worth getting excited about.

Even if all it does is open up debate. Finally, it seems as though the Reagan hammerlock is coming off.

[blm]

17. That's the way I seeit, too, Gregorian. The last 15 years of fascist spew has been

disgusting in every way possible.

[porphyrian]

10. About fucking time. - n/t

[Tom Joad]

11. It was the Clinton presidency that brought us the Telecommunications Act

Maybe if Hillary gets in she can undo this legislation, and give the media conglomerates the power they deserve (and paid for in campaign contributions.. :P)
... if by some miracle it passes.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2457

Media conglomerates hijacked tele-communications policy with millions in PAC contributions.

By Jim Naureckas

There's a Latin phrase that people use--cui bono--that translates as "for whose good?" It means that you can figure out who is responsible for a situation by looking at who benefits from it. Sometimes, though, it's easier to figure out who benefits by looking at who is responsible.

This rule greatly simplifies the task of comprehending the sweeping Telecommunications Act recently passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Supporters widely praised the bill as beneficial to the public at large. It would lower prices and improve service, they claimed, by allowing the giant conglomerates of the telecommunications industry to compete with one another. Vice President Al Gore went so far as to call it an "early Christmas present for the consumer."

But the law was not created with consumers in mind. In effect, the bill was bought and paid for by the very telecommunications conglomerates it is supposed to bring under the discipline of the market. Far from mandating competition among telecommunications companies, the act encourages already-mammoth corporations to pursue further mergers and allows businesses to form alliances with their supposed rivals in other sectors, greatly reducing the risk that new technologies will provide consumers with meaningful choice. "This was conceived as: How do you get all the industries on board? You give every one what they want legislatively," says Anthony Wright of the Center for Media Mucation, an advocacy group that tried to blunt the bill's worst excesses. "You just give as many carrots as you can. Unfortunately, the consumers weren't invited to that feast." This kind of special-interest lawmaking has often been the norm in Washington, but the congressional class of 1994 seems to have scaled new heights in eliminating the awk wardness of public discussion from the legislative process.

[Peace Patriot]

21. True enough. MORA needs to be combined with busting up the corporate

news monopolies--for a complete transformation back to the "Fairness Doctrine," and the proper use of the public airwaves. It's not just the fascist slant of all news and opinion, it's that the five fatcat billionaire CEOs who own it all can promote their views across entire media markets--all radio, TV and newspapers in a region (plus other kinds of monopolies and conglomerates that involve movies, TV shows, books, AND all news and opinion outlets--not to mention news conglomerates invested in the war industries). BOTH the monopoly AND the lack of a "Fairness Doctrine" lead to a vile news product and a controlled cultural swamp serving the interests of the Corporate Rulers. (The recent controversy about Fox/24 is an interesting case in point. Although I do think that 24 has creative interest--it's not all bad; it stirs up some interesting political and ethical issues; and perhaps fulfills a need in our society to deal with certain fears (in the Greek drama sense of catharsis, and the Bettleheim sense of the therapeutic function of violence in fairy tales)--the show does tend to support the Faux News political agenda on war and "terror," at least on a superficial level. Should a news/opinion business also have control of entertainment?)

[originalpckelly]

14. No. The problem doesn't lie with the idiots spewing propaganda...

it lies with those not capable of turning the radio off, or knowing full and well that it is propaganda.

There will always be Rush Limbaugh types, but the people of America need to know they are bad for our democracy and that they do not represent our principles.

People should be willing to turn off talk radio and refuse to listen unless there are two sides represented.

The problem is that there are a number of people in America who trust Rush and his truly awful friends.

We cannot achieve democratic ends with undemocratic means, that is exactly what this is. The government has no right telling anyone what they should own or how much someone speaks.

We the people must end the monopolies and one sided propaganda of talk radio. Unless we talk to every single one of Mr. Limbaugh's listeners, there won't really be change, they will just tune into the time when he is on, and tune out when the person representing our side speaks. We must help them understand how vitally important it is to hear opposition.

[davekriss]

35. I respectfully disagree

You say, "We cannot achieve democratic ends with undemocratic means, that is exactly what this is. The government has no right telling anyone what they should own or how much someone speaks." I disagree. (I repeat from a post of mine from back in November...)

We have this concept in our enlightened civilization called the public commons. We the People own the commons and we are each equally free to make use of them. The airwaves are one such commons. So when We the People allow businesses to appropriate portions of the commons for private benefit (profit), we attach a quid pro quo -- 'yes, Mr. Businessman, you can treat x bandwidth as if it is your exclusive private property, but only for these agreed purposes and only if you agree to abide by these rules and regulations.' In the early days, broadcast radio and TV could use 23.5 hours a day to attract and retain audiences to sell to advertisers via programming that met the norms of the community, but 0.5 hours of the day had to be dedicated to sharing honest news about events of interest to the community. This news had to conform to the Fairness Doctrine, to the Editorial Rule, and the businessman had to agree not to grow the business beyond the constraints of the Rule of Sevens (all gone now). If the businessman didn't like those terms, he or she was free to take their capital and invest elsewhere; for those that agreed, personal fortunes were made. Not a bad deal, this appropriation of the public commons for private benefit!

Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there
government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and
life and property are his who can take them.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Annapolis Citizens, 1809

[originalpckelly]

36. I agree, I was thinking about it from the wrong perspective...

and what actually changed my mind was this SCOTUS decision on the Fairness Doctrine:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html

However a poster in another thread about the fairness doctrine posed a question to me:
"so what's the answer?

Dictate the percentage of left/right talk that is allowed in a market?

Sounds like a big challenge. Important yes, but seems tough."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3173370&mesg_id=3173530

What should we do on this matter? How should we go about it?

[kentuck]

16. That would be one of the best things this Congress could do...

It would also have an effect on the big money being spent on political campaigns because politicians that make false comments about their opponent would know that that opponent would have an opportunity to respond in kind without charge. It would also help to restore the "civility" that so many politicians speak about. It is a positive step toward free speech - not as Limbaugh and others would have us believe.

[Lasher]

20. Back when I was dreaming we would regain control of Congress, this is one reason why

Break up the mega-media corps, get ownership away from the relatively few rich conservatives who control them, and bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Right now our news is little more than the propaganda of those who have the most money.

[originalpckelly]

22. Why not boycott them until they put on opinions from both sides equally?

[Lasher]

23. Boycotts won't work. It's gone too far for that.

If you're going to boycott a TV news stations whose programming is slanted to favor conservatives' points of view, you will be left with nothing to watch. And good luck trying to start up a liberal TV channel. We tried that with Air America. Rich conservative advertisers and radio stations torpedoed them.

It's an oligopoly.

[originalpckelly]

25. We don't need to listen to conservative talk radio.

No one does.

The problem I don't think you recognize, is that there are people who won't boycott it. That means there must be a market for it, and that it's not just these big companies which are the problem. The people who listen to it are the problem.

[Lasher]

33. I don't listen to conservative talk radio

And yes, I do recognize that there are those who do. And some don't want to watch any other station on TV besides Faux Snooze, which I won't watch. I agree there is a market for it. I'm not saying I want it all banned. What I'm saying is, both sides of the story are not being told and something needs to be done to change that.

There will always be people who listen to this drivel, but there are more of them today because the conservative side has been about all there's been to watch/listen to. Rich conservatives are controlling the agenda of our media and have been successfully using it to drag public opinion to the right. If all the media consolidation of the past decade or so hadn't been permitted it would be much harder for rich conservatives to manipulate the news than it is now.

[mzmolly]

24. BRAVO!

:toast:

[BigBearJohn]

27. This is high in importance IMHO -- right next to voting rights. K/R!!!

[Zhade]

28. HELL YES!

NT!

[burythehatchet]

29. A really funny Hanshitty and Colmes segment

I think HInchey was the guest and Colmes was arguing against the Fairness Doctrine. :rofl:

[mdmc]

31. Moe!

:kick:R

[ooglymoogly]

34. indeed it is the most important issue facing our nation and our time

that and serving the loon and his cronies articles of impeachment and then prosecute under us code 18 rico laws.

[Contrite]

37. That is the best news I've heard in a while.

This is just so vital to saving our country. So many people still attach themselves and their views from MSM--even those who have been "schooled" by some of us. It's like they don't believe us!

[JCMach1]

38. Media companies should be independently owned from any other

type of company!

[StrictlyRockers]

39. Oh, this is a very good idea. Faux news could not get away with their crap bias.

All sides would have to be given equal time. It's a good idea. Give the Green Party some time too, though.

SR

[FourScore]

40. YAHOO!!! HE'S MY CONGRESSMAN!!!!!

I LOVE HINCHEY!!!!!!:bounce: :kick: :loveya: :headbang: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :patriot:

[WinstonSmith4740]

50. What district does he represent?

I'd love to thank him. I tried writing to Harry Reid about this after the takeover, but never heard back. This may give him a push.

[FourScore]

53. The 22nd Congressional District of NY n/t

[GoneOffShore]

41. Great news

I'll have to shoot off a letter to my rep telling him to get on board, if he's not already.

[bobthedrummer]

45. It currently is part of a propaganda system that closely resembles

what some extreme RW Holy Warriors envisioned in the 1996 USAF Air University think tank contributions to AF 2025 regarding information warfare, specifically this one:

Worldwide Information Control System (WICS)
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v1c2/v1c2-1.htm

This was also required for things like John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness/TIA network, the NSA and NRO, and that wacky RW Holy Warrior from US Space Command Simon P. Worden's "closed" Office of Strategic Influence. Worden is director of NASA's Ames Research and has access to NASA's most powerful supercomputer as well as public private and military communications and other satellite systems.

It's here but control of it is subject to ongoing power struggles which, in realpolitik, are called military coups or dictatorships or revolutions. But not in HOMELAND(tm) where the pieces of paper of our experiment in democracy, the pieces of paper that prevented torture, war crimes, wars of agression, nuclear war etc. were done away with by this unelected administration that occupies the WH.

That's my .02 on what happened to the MSM-it became part of the C4IW network of BFEE's HOMELAND (tm)just as planned. It's fascist and moving towards totalitarian, Rep. Hinchey and many others have known that for quite awhile.

There is a thread from a year ago that discussed this-it can even help people understand what acronyms like C4IW mean at this late date.

"Reality vs. perception management: the tinfoil controversy" 1-6-2006
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x71919

[Mind_your_head]

46. Great News!!!!

K & R'd :kick:

[WinstonSmith4740]

48. Reading some of your comments...

I get the feeling a lot of you are too young to remember when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. First of all, the fact that it was eliminated under the Reagan Administration should tell you something. It was, of course, sold to the public, using true Orwellian newspeak about how this would "open up" the airwaves and allow more voices to be heard. Y'know, War is Peace.

Before this doctrine was eliminated, radio and TV stations, AS PART OF THEIR BROADCAST LICENSE, were required to air opposing view points. Because they were given the rights to broadcast on the public airwaves, they were required to "serve the public good." So you didn't have the Limbaughs, Coulters, O'Reilly's, ad nauseum, simply being able to spew their hatred and lies. (Imagine a world with Ann Coulter. Ah-h-h, that feels good.)The station would have had to allow equal time for an opposing viewpoint...and not on another station somewhere on the dial, it had to be on the station that broadcast the screed in the first place. There were also regulations in place that would not allow the same media outlet to buy up all of the stations and papers in any one market. Our major cities used to have 3 or 4 newspapers daily. Most metropolitan areas now have one, maybe two if they're lucky. That makes it pretty easy to control what the public sees and hears. Rupert Murdock simply would not have the ability to publish and broadcast his crap without an opposing side being heard. The Clear Channel Network would probably not exist.

Was it perfect? Of course not. But there was also a different mind set back then...even the most conservative (or liberal) station manager recognised his or her responsibility to INFORM the people, not try to brainwash them, so most of the time, rebuttals were heard in the same time frame as the original statement. There was a great "Murphy Brown" episode about how she had pissed off a woman who then organized a boycott against one of "FYI's" sponsors. They were both scheduled to make their case to the company owner at the same time, and when they walked into his office, it looked like a neo-con had decorated it...American flags everywhere, pictures of Reagan and Bush, eagles...all the icons were there. Murphy thought she was toast, but the owner sided with her because of free speech. Trust me. Before Reagan, Bush the Elder, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrinch, and the rest of the neo-con loony-tunes, even conservatives understood what America was all about. I really think it's one of the reasons they're peeling away from Junior as fast as they are now. The scales have fallen from their eyes, and I think it's finally beginning to sink in that the same laws they've been hiding behind can be used against them when someone else takes control of the reins of power. We've all been railing about the corporate controlled media for years. The end of the Fairness Doctrine is what made it possible. Do you REALLY think we would have had this nightmare for the last 6 years if we had a strong independent media? Let's not forget that it was Junior's COUSIN at Faux News that announced him as the winner first in 2000, and the rest of the drones fell in line. From that point on, Gore was a "sore loser".

The Fairness Doctrine MUST be re-instated. I think it's our only hope to become a democracy again.

[IWantAChange]

49. Repug BizzaroWorld will spin out of orbit if this happens.

[Xithras]

51. If only it were that easy

Let's be realistic folks. Equal time? Sure, ClearChannel is gonna do THAT without a fight. We'll still end up with the likes of Rush and Savage on the radio all day, but we'll end up with the cheapest pseudo-liberal hacks they can find to fill in that ever important middle-of-the-night timeslot. You'll also get lots of moderates posing as the "other side" to offer the counter view. I seriously doubt you're gonna get Clear Channel to air an Al Franken to counter Rush Limpballs. You'll get four hours of Rush, followed by some unconvincing low paid shill who will simply confirm for their conservative viewers that the liberals "don't know what they're talking about". Even better for them, the airtime will probably be filled by conservative callers trying to "educate" the host about the "right" way to look at things.

They will only be dragged into this kicking and screaming...and you can GURANTEE that any enforcement actions will end up tied up in court for a decade.

[Vidar]

52. Cheering for Hinchey.

[mdmc]

54. Hinchey!

:patriot:

[Hubert Flottz]

55. If the GOPers gripe about it, just tell them it's a bipartisan effort to

help them stop that unfair "Left Wing Media Bias" that they have cried about for the past 25 years!