’)It seems that the top topic on conservative blogs is about the Fairness Doctrine. Nevermind that the issue hasn’t been brought up by any Democratic leaders – especially President-elect Obama – but its sort of telling that the first thought in conservative minds is “We have to defend Rush, Laura, and Hannity!”
That sort of priority setting is what has helped the GOP into their current state. So, keep it up I guess.
Fairness Doctrine.
From Conservatives.
That’s adorable.
It seems more telling that Oliver doesn’t consider Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi(!) to be “Democratic Leaders”
Excuse me, but over the last year and a half, the following Democrats have all expressed their desire to bring back The Fairness Doctrine:
Nancy Pelosi (June 2008)
Harry Reid (June 2007)
Dick Durbin (June 2007)
Charles Schumer (November 2008)
Dianne Feinstein (June 2007)
John Kerry (June 2007)
Jeff Bingaman (October 2008)
Now, the last time I checked, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin were ummm….you know……LEADERS in the Democratic party.
Barack Obama has said he’s not in favor of bringing back TFD. But do you think he’d veto such a bill were it to come out of a Pelosi/Reid Congress?
And opposition to TFD is not about protecting conservatives. It’s about protecting free speech. The left doesn’t like that conservative speech dominates talk radio. Their own attempts to get in the game have largely been abysmal failures. So they’ll use the battering ram of the FCC to force their views on radio.
Now, if Obama is as pragmatic as he says he is, he’ll tell Rahm to pass a note to the Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber telling them to shut up about this nonsense.
But don’t say it hasn’t been brought up.
Yes, the conspiracy rumors are starting. I saw a Newsmax.com headline stating Obama wants to end talk radio. I did not go and read the propaganda page yet, I was already amused today by Redstate creating a leper colony for GOP members that oppose Palin.
The anti-intellectual slobs that talk on AM radio and Fox News should be allowed to continue to blab on. They are a constant reminder to me of why I am no longer a Republican.
Jay,
A quick google search for “Pelosi fairness doctrine june 2008″ brings up a bunch of right wing sources all essentially referencing themselves in a group freak out about Pelosi supporting the Fairness Doctrine and wanting to reinstate it.
The original source for the June 2008 quote, as near as I can tell, is some guy from Human Events, John Gizzi, who reported that Pelosi told him during a private, one on one conversation that she supported the fairness doctrine.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185&s=rcme
If you search Pelosi’s website for “fairness doctrine” exactly nothing comes up.
Could you please provide some actual links to the quotes your referring to with some stronger sources than some guy at Human Events?
And if you could cite any actual legislation proposed by the Dems to reinstate the fairness doctrine, that would be helpful too.
Talk of reinstating the fairness doctrine seems to exist almost exclusively in the blogosphere. You only see support for bringing it back on liberal blogs. By contrast, fear of it being reinstated has spilled over into the mainstream of conservatism. When you read of Democratic leaders advocating reinstatement, what you actually see is Democrats exercising their free speech rights to criticize talk radio hosts for outrageous statements. In fact, legislation preventing the FCC from reinstating the fairness doctrine by itself (without congressional approval) passed with bipartisan support.
However, right-wing organizations, in desperate need of funds from their gullible audience, are generally forced to fearmonger their audience about the fairness doctrine. I’d find this morally suspect, but the truth is that “you can’t con an honest man.” Conservatives are only duped by these appeals because they’re fundamentally dishonest to begin with.
“Conservatives are only duped by these appeals because they’re fundamentally dishonest to begin with.”
I think they’re actually fundamentally paranoid. At least the modern conservative movement has become infected with a deeply nativist paranoia that is readily exploited by conservative leaders, be they Republican politicians or radio talk show hosts.
“Could you please provide some actual links”
Google – (1.7 seconds)
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/schumer-defends-fairness-doctrine-as-fair-and-balanced-2008-11-04.html
Why are deomctrats so afraid of free speech?
william,
I hate to break it to you, but Schumer and Palin are actually two different people. One is House Speaker and a Rep from Sodom of the West; the other is a Senator from Gomorrah of the East.
The real reason conservatives don’t want to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine is that then they would have to stop whining that their views don’t get represented on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC.
Who’s afraid of free speech? You guys have been blathering at full volume for 16 years.
they would have to stop whining that their views don’t get represented on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC.
Wait, what?
ABC with Charlie Gibson and John “70’s Porn Star” Stossel?
CNN with Glen “douchebag supreme” Beck AND Nancy Grace?
MSNBC with Scarborough and requisite commenter Pat Buchannan?
Am I missing something?
Thanks for the link, William, and the bonus snark.
Dianne Feinstein: “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
Dick Durbin: “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Now, can anyone actually present a valid, rational argument against either of those ideas?
– that those who profit from using public resources have a responsibility to serve the public well
– that the public is served best when they get the complete story
Why would anyone NOT want this?
Nobody is being censored here. Go ahead and say what you want. But make sure the public hears the other view as well. Seems to me the only ones opposed are those who are concerned that their views won’t stand up to examination and would prefer to shout and interrupt whenever anyone else speaks. E.g., nearly everyone at Fox.
william: Why are deomctrats so afraid of free speech?
But the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t say you can’t speak. It says you need to let others speak , too.
So tell me, william, which side is actually trying to silence folks?
I’m for it, but would want to read the fine print. The Repugs might try to throw a last minute bit of legislation titled: Free Airwaves for America that would, in effect outlaw liberal speech. Part and parcel of their nature to lie, cheat and steal. Let’s not let them rehabilitate themselves until after we get them incarcerated for war crimes, etc. ad. nauseum.
Enjoy.
Duros 62:
Don’t forget admitted ditto-head Brian Williams. Yes, Williams had admitted to listening to OxyCotin man every day because he likes him.
“Why are deomctrats so afraid of free speech?” asked William.
The stuff I hear sounds more like hate speech than free speech. They have no self control, their associations are slim at best and they have incited potential violence against people different then themselves. To call someone a terrorist in these times is like a Fatwa, and they know it. I know, I know, radios don’t kill people, but people with radios kill people. I think that alot of the talk radio folks have no respect for free speech and abuse the responsibility that comes with the right to use it.
^Yeah, like liberal pundits never engage in name-calling the other side. Doubt any lib on here would admit to the fact have failed liberals miserably in talk radio (just Google “Air America”), thus why should radio stations be forced to air something no one listens too (kind of like Keith Olbermann)?
Monitor and prosecute.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/hate-crime-laws-canada.html
Mrgreyghost: Doubt any lib on here would admit to the fact have failed liberals miserably in talk radio
You’re wrong.
What else ya got?
thus why should radio stations be forced to air something no one listens too
Ah. Lies and mis-representations.
Typical.
more culture war Soma by the righties. The only people talking about the fairness doctrine are some message board posters. Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann and the progressive hosts are all against it
>Nobody is being censored here. Go ahead and say what you want. But make sure the public hears the other view as well.
Huh? You really can’t come up with any reason why this might not be a good idea? Like, say, enforcement? How would you decide that a broadcaster is meeting the “fair” requirement? Some kind of fairness committee? The courts? A political appointee? You really think the government can objectively determine what is fair and not have it be a partisan circus? Methinks you are being a bit naive Sean..
“Some kind of fairness committee? The courts? A political appointee?”
Nice work. All of them good ideas.
Unfortunately, canadian, no, they are terrible ideas. Only in fairy tale land are they good ones.
Don’t forget admitted ditto-head Brian Williams. Yes, Williams had admitted to listening to OxyCotin man every day because he likes him.
Dammit! I like Brian Williams, too.
Yes. If *only* there was some sort of Commission which looked at Communications on a Federal level.
Oh well, we can dream.
Haplo9: You really think the government can objectively determine what is fair and not have it be a partisan circus?
Yes. Are you suggesting there is nothing government can do that doesn’t turn into a partisan circus?
>Yes. Are you suggesting there is nothing government can do that doesn’t turn into a partisan circus?
Not quite, I’m suggesting that the government cannot judge the content of politically related speech in a fair way. (And it is a terrible idea to give it that power.) I don’t think building a bridge has quite the partisan implications as the fairness doctrine.
So tell me Sean, since you seem to think this is a good idea – how would you implement enforcement of the fairness doctrine such that it:
1. wouldn’t be biased in favor of whichever party held the reins of power at the moment and
2. wouldn’t be subject to endless bickering about what the definition of “fair” is? Keep in mind that what you might consider fair may not be what I would consider fair. How would enforcement of this doctrine reconcile these differing beliefs, and if someone has to lose in a such a dispute, how would this not have a chilling effect on political speech in the airwaves?
The 2nd point in particular makes the idea impossible to implement IMO. Asking the govt to mediate disputes in the perception of political leanings strikes me as a terrible idea.
So tell me Sean, since you seem to think this is a good idea…
I do think a fairness doctrine is a good idea, but will admit I don’t know how it should specifically be formulated, evaluated and enforced to achieve the best result. But just because a thing is difficult or can never be perfect doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried.
Your concern seems to be with how it can be fairly implemented. You haven’t objected to the idea of having things really “fair and balanced”.
So far I haven’t see anyone actually answer the question I posed earlier:
Now, can anyone actually present a valid, rational argument against either of those ideas?
- that those who profit from using public resources have a responsibility to serve the public well
- that the public is served best when they get the complete story
It does not serve the country well for our people to be un- or mis-informed. Making sure additional and opposing viewpoints are heard is a good thing. Government has been able to develop and enforce subjective standards in the past and, while partisanism can, and often does, come up it can be guarded against and kept from completely overriding things.
The FCC has regulated the use of the airwaves for decades including monitoring what is allowed to be broadcast. Why not let them return to handling the Fairness Doctrine? Public companies are required to get independent audits of their financial statements to assure investors and the public that the info presented is accurate. Perhaps have a independent non-partisan factcheck.org-type entities “audit” what is broadcast and provide a report on the accuracy of what has been said?
There are half a dozen different ways to try to approach the question of how do we make sure the public is best served by the information that flows over the public airwaves. Is there a perfect, obvious solution? No. But that doesn’t mean that anyone with a license should be allowed to say whatever they want without any accommodation for truth or accuracy.
Making sure additional and opposing viewpoints are heard is a good thing.
I agree in principle, but in practice the right wing has made an industry out of abusing this principle as of late. Hearing an opposing viewpoint is healthy and the friction created sparks progress. Hearing lies and cartoonish fiction, or hate speech, does nothing to help us grow, but golly it sure feels good to lay a beating on those noodle-necked libtards.
I think hate speech has to be separated from free speech. You start by defining the former in order to protect latter. It’s a good place to start and then build from there. Harder than it sound, I’m sure. But then all document worth the paper they are written on were difficult to write. Just a thought.