PDA

View Full Version : Poop Return of the fairness doctrine


triple
10-20-2008, 02:50 PM
Exhibit A of why you should be worried about Obama never breaking with party


DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT
by BRIAN C. ANDERSON
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dems_get_set_to_muzzle_the_right_134399.htm
October 20, 2008

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."

Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful.

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.

Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage?

For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of "fairness" might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer "equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary," with 39 percent opposed.

Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of "fairness" is seductive.

Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn't sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.

He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters' public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater "local accountability" on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.

Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.

It's worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children's programming.

Regrettably, media freedom hasn't been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real - and profoundly disturbing.

Brian C. Anderson is editor of City Journal and co-author, with Adam Thierer, of "A Manifesto for Media Freedom," just out from Encounter Books.

SBK
10-20-2008, 02:53 PM
Don't debate and win on ideas, clear the playing field free speech be damned.

dirk digler
10-20-2008, 02:55 PM
I don't see Obama doing this even though he would probably like to punish Fox for their 24/7 smear fest on him.

InChiefsHell
10-20-2008, 02:55 PM
None of this matters to anyone sadly...we're just a bunch of paranoid right wing sore losers...nothing to see here...move on Komrade...

triple
10-20-2008, 02:57 PM
I don't see Obama doing this even though he would probably like to punish Fox for their 24/7 smear fest on him.

What leads you to believe he won't just do what Pelosi says?

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-20-2008, 02:58 PM
What leads you to believe he won't just do what Pelosi says?

The fact that he's the motherfucking president.

dirk digler
10-20-2008, 02:59 PM
What leads you to believe he won't just do what Pelosi says?

Obama is not radical even though some here try to paint him as one. He is a pragmatist and realizes this would further divide the nation instead of uniting it.

triple
10-20-2008, 03:00 PM
The fact that he's the mother****ing president.

So, what leads you to believe he won't just do what Pelosi says?

triple
10-20-2008, 03:00 PM
Obama is not radical

ROFL

memyselfI
10-20-2008, 03:01 PM
Wow, this could be a bonanza for liberal talk show hosts wallowing on satellite or internet radio. Rachel Madcow could be the next Baba O' Reilly.

I wouldn't mind hearing Bill Press or Lynn Samuels on regular radio.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-20-2008, 03:01 PM
No they will head straight for the reeduction camps!

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2008, 03:04 PM
This would be completely idiotic.

It woould also be a tremendous waste of political capital by Obama, because there would be a huge right wing (and moderate) backlash IMHO.

Obama is smarter than picking this fight. I hope so anyway.

dirk digler
10-20-2008, 03:05 PM
This would be completely idiotic.

It woould also be a tremendous waste of political capital by Obama, because there would be a huge right wing (and moderate) backlash IMHO.

Obama is smarter than picking this fight. I hope so anyway.

Yep even though tards like triple think otherwise.

SBK
10-20-2008, 03:11 PM
Obama is not radical even though some here try to paint him as one. He is a pragmatist and realizes this would further divide the nation instead of uniting it.

You're a lot smarter than this. LMAO

dirk digler
10-20-2008, 03:28 PM
You're a lot smarter than this. LMAO

I would be willing to bet Obama governs much closer to the center then Bush ever did.

Dave Lane
10-20-2008, 03:30 PM
You're a lot smarter than this. LMAO

And your inside info would be?

penchief
10-20-2008, 03:33 PM
Don't debate and win on ideas, clear the playing field free speech be damned.

That would be true if there was not a monopoly on the flow of information by a corporate media that continues to consolidate its hold on how information is disseminated. The corporate media sold us on the invasion of Iraq because the entire media was operating from the same script. Clearwater ran its Kerry hit job uncontested all accross America because it was part of the corpo-republican establishment.

I would prefer a breaking up of the monopoly that the right wing establishment has on information through ownership. Otherwise we are only going to continue getting one side of the story through our mainstream media.

whoman69
10-20-2008, 03:40 PM
The fairness doctine was always applied unevenly. When actor George Takei ran for office in California the local TV stations had to stop showing Star Trek or have to show equal time to his competitor. There was no way they were going to give five hours a week to one candidate. Yet the same standard was not applied to Ronald Reagan when he ran for governor or president.

It is a can of beans that does not need to be opened again. There does need to be a way to dissallow such one sided programming to go forward whether that be from Fox or MSNBC or talk radio.

Adept Havelock
10-20-2008, 04:33 PM
Here's a question.

The Original Fairness Doctrine was struck down by the Supreme Court, as it's founding rationale (a variety of viewpoints is desirable, but needed to be protected due to the very few media outlets available in the 40's-50's.) no longer applied. It was struck down by a court far more liberal than todays SC, or more liberal than it would be even with 3 Obama SC appointments.

Given this previous SC decision, how could the doctrine be re-established and upheld as constitutional?

In short, it won't, but the rhetoric plays well. Much like the left claiming McCain will lead us into many new wars, etc. :shrug:

The return of the fairness doctrine is for the left what anti-abortion rhetoric is for the right. Something trotted out at election time, but oddly, little to nothing ever gets done about it.

JMO.

However, feel free to join Brian "Chicken Little" Anderson in worrying about it. ;)

Baby Lee
10-20-2008, 04:50 PM
I would be willing to bet Obama governs much closer to the center then Bush ever did.

That's exactly what we're ALL betting. Hope we win. Though Biden's "people are gonna hate us six months in for the hard choices we make, but stand by us and it'll all be good in time" remark is truly scary.

ClevelandBronco
10-20-2008, 04:59 PM
I would be willing to bet Obama governs much closer to the center then Bush ever did.

And I would be willing to bet that you see the center very differently than I do.

clemensol
10-20-2008, 05:13 PM
I read this article earlier today and I was stunned. The author admits that Obama opposes the fairness doctoring but then goes on to say that it's likely he would reinstate it and writes the rest of the article based on this assumption without any evidence to back it up. Even for the NY post this is pretty pathetic. Naturally the lack of any journalistic integrity is what got the article on drudge for the entire day.

jidar
10-20-2008, 05:40 PM
Hopefully nothing like this comes to pass.

Edit: Luckily a few minutes of research shows that Obama has come out against the fairness doctrine on more than one occasion. I don't think this is going to be an issue.

ClevelandBronco
10-20-2008, 05:50 PM
Hopefully nothing like this comes to pass.

Edit: Luckily a few minutes of research shows that Obama has come out against the fairness doctrine on more than one occasion. I don't think this is going to be an issue.

Unfortunately, I don't believe a word the man has ever spoken.

SBK
10-20-2008, 06:22 PM
I would be willing to bet Obama governs much closer to the center then Bush ever did.

Well based upon his views of abortion, taxation, health care, energy policy, gun control, education, and national security I can't agree more. LMAO

Bush is very much in the center, which is why nobody likes him. Liberals hate him cause he's too far to the right, and conservatives hate him cause he's too far to the left.

Adept Havelock
10-20-2008, 06:22 PM
Hopefully nothing like this comes to pass.

Edit: Luckily a few minutes of research shows that Obama has come out against the fairness doctrine on more than one occasion. I don't think this is going to be an issue.

It won't, as the original was struck down (correctly, IMO) by the SC.

SBK
10-20-2008, 06:23 PM
Unfortunately, I don't believe a word the man has ever spoken.

I believe him when he says he's raising taxes.

WilliamTheIrish
10-20-2008, 06:25 PM
Is this the "Oh look!! A shiny object"!!! controversy for today? I heard this BS six years ago. It's the new abortion argument.

Adept Havelock
10-20-2008, 06:28 PM
Is this the "Oh look!! A shiny object"!!! controversy for today? I heard this BS six years ago. It's the new abortion argument.

That sounds familiar. ;)

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5135926&postcount=19

WilliamTheIrish
10-20-2008, 06:30 PM
Sorry Adept.

I read the header and posted before reading the entire thread.

tiptap
10-20-2008, 08:14 PM
Well based upon his views of abortion, taxation, health care, energy policy, gun control, education, and national security I can't agree more. LMAO

Bush is very much in the center, which is why nobody likes him. Liberals hate him cause he's too far to the right, and conservatives hate him cause he's too far to the left.

No the left and right hate him because he is the village idiot.

StcChief
10-20-2008, 08:32 PM
No the left and right hate him because he is the village idiot.and Obama is the Havard Chicago slum lord idiot proped up Dem stoolie....p

Adept Havelock
10-20-2008, 09:32 PM
Sorry Adept.

I read the header and posted before reading the entire thread.

No need to apologize. You were correct. ;)