Video: Feinstein “looking at” reviving the Fairness Doctrine

posted at 7:45 pm on June 24, 2007 by Allahpundit

Why? Because talk radio’s been spectacularly effective in drumming up opposition to the amnesty bill — so much so that Jon Kyl’s trying to integrate Hugh Hewitt’s suggestions into the legislation. If the nutroots had managed the sort of grassroots uprising that Limbaugh et al. have pulled here, Harry Reid would be posting sycophantic YouTube videos of himself singing hosannas to “people-powered politics.” Since it comes from the right, Feinstein naturally wants to stomp it. But fine. If the left is stupid enough to try to force ideological balance on broadcast media, I’m sure there are a few smart conservative lawyers who’d be only too happy to work within the paradigm, as it were. We’ll start here, with “fairness” within broadcast news divisions. Next will be trying to extend the principle to non-broadcast media like, oh, for instance, the Internet. That’d be tricky for various reasons but if, like Feinstein, you “believe in fairness,” why let nitpicking like the First Amendment kill the dream?

The clip begins with a minute or two of Trent Lott, who’s still trying to pretend like critics don’t know what it’s in the bill but has, at least, inched far enough away from the ledge to oppose the Fairness Doctrine. He’s also smart enough to let Feinstein do most of the honors in defending the bill. Exit question, per her lament that the status quo amounts to “silent amnesty”: Who’s to blame for that status quo anyway?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Yup and when the left media, new and old, rallies, you get a Lamont moment.
She can ….., oh, I don’t want to be banned so fill in your own worst epitath.

bbz123 on June 24, 2007 at 7:49 PM

So why are you supporting a bill that nobody knows what’s in it?

Pablo on June 24, 2007 at 7:53 PM

Sen F, “IT” doesn’t push people to extremes, you and your ilk PUSH US. Talk radio reflects and gives voice to the very citizens you claim to serve, cuz lord knows y’all are not listening.
What’s fair about shooting the messenger?

Tru2my2 on June 24, 2007 at 7:57 PM

Fairness as in hubby business gets government contracts?

Wade on June 24, 2007 at 8:02 PM

I’m guessing DiFi has never listened to ‘talk-radio’

And how freakin’ arrogant to assume that the little people cannot understand this bill.

“apparently there are problems” says DiFi

Yeah, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, et al

Bring it Dems!

BobH on June 24, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Diane and Trent seem to get along well. Just in that you know there’s a problem.

Feinstein thinks talk radio is one sided? She has a problem with one sided media? Has she watched television recently? Basically she and her cronies are angry that Liberal radio can’t get enough visitors to even stay on the air. What’s her solution? Shut down the other side, as well.

amerpundit on June 24, 2007 at 8:06 PM

‘pushes people to extreme views without a lot of information’…whew, that was close. At least I’m smart enough to know she insulted me.

Spirit of 1776 on June 24, 2007 at 8:09 PM

Fienstien has a very disturbing bone structure…. She’s like the big sister of the Crypt Keeper…. Ug…..

Its like Mark Levin said; if the liberal message was interesting/entertaining/marketable, if people wanted to hear it, they would listen.

Illustrating how inept congress is you would figure with approval ratings lower then the presidents they’d take an introspective moment and say “gee, maybe its us.”

liquidflorian on June 24, 2007 at 8:18 PM

The “Fair and Balanced” station invited two turds from the same side on two extremely important issues and then proceeded to waste so much time on the same side of the issues.

There’s something for the HuffPoo types to contemplate…

Entelechy on June 24, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Progressives Liberals Unite! Dissent must be crushed!

CP on June 24, 2007 at 8:23 PM

I kept waiting for Chris Wallace to ask them if THEY had read the whole bill. How can they even consider ending debate on such an important bill if they have not read it entirely?

BTW, looks like Feinstein visited the same doc that Pelosi goes to.

ctmom on June 24, 2007 at 8:28 PM

I kept waiting for Chris Wallace to ask them if THEY had read the whole bill.

Me too ctmom.

One wonders if what’s in the bill is even important to them.

BobH on June 24, 2007 at 8:36 PM

I really don’t think the elites have any idea what talk radio means to millions of Americans. I am a “Rush baby.” My father always listened to Rush and others while I was growing up. Many of the topics that Rush would discuss would spawn great conversations between my father and me. So talk radio became, and still is, a great part of my family dynamic. Now I have my own son, who is two, and since I work out of my house, I have the freedom to listen to talk radio all day. I really hope they aren’t dumb enough to actually try to get the ball rolling on this. Because if they do…well…let’s just say that the reaction will not be what they anticipated.

Weight of Glory on June 24, 2007 at 8:36 PM

It’s funny, we call these Dem senators ALL THE TIME and ask them to be guests on our show but they never take us up on it. They don’t want fairness, they want to shut us up, plain and simple.

Monday morning, we will be calling Senator Feinstein’s office and asking her to join us, if her people say no (which they will), she is a hypocrite.

Verbal Abuse on June 24, 2007 at 8:39 PM

I keep forgetting how the Left has a totalitarian mindset.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 24, 2007 at 8:48 PM

So this means that Rush will get a 30 minute show on CBS every night?

1sttofight on June 24, 2007 at 8:52 PM

Exit question, per her lament that the status quo amounts to “silent amnesty”

My question is this: Who said anyone wants the status quo? It sets up a false dichotomy to say: its this bill, or the status quo. No, it isn’t. There is another option – to ditch this bill, and not let the status quo alone, but draft a bill that actually secures the borders and doesn’t reward criminal activity – and, to actually enforce the laws on the books. To actually enforce the laws, as opposed to not enforcing them, is a departure from the status quo.

I think it is stupid and insulting to set it up like that. She’s my senator, though. Ugh.

nailinmyeye on June 24, 2007 at 8:59 PM

Trent “Empty” Lott and Feinstein ARE FULL OF CRAP!

The MSM is one sided…why is that OK, Di?

This is just an other desparate attempt to control the airwaves to prevent dissent against the amnesty bill and what ever else they want to shove down our throats.

And they will go after Mark, Laura, Sean, Rush, Savage, and probably Michelle!

We better be ready for this one!

The False Dervish on June 24, 2007 at 9:00 PM

Just because Air America failed they want to change to rules.

If they pay me, I’ll listen to Al Franken.

But it’ll have to be the $2.5 million they don’t want to give to the Saudis.

Yearly.

profitsbeard on June 24, 2007 at 9:00 PM

1sttofight said:

So this means that Rush will get a 30 minute show on CBS every night?

Right On!
Good one.

BobH on June 24, 2007 at 9:02 PM

So this means that Rush will get a 30 minute show on CBS every night?

Nope. Dr Savage gets the time.

Wade on June 24, 2007 at 9:17 PM

If the left is stupid enough to try to force ideological balance on broadcast media, I’m sure there are a few smart conservative lawyers who’d be only too happy to work within the paradigm, as it were. We’ll start here, with “fairness” within broadcast news divisions.

So good it needed to be said again.
Many times. By the radio big guns. Tomorrow.

Stephen M on June 24, 2007 at 9:20 PM

I want this extended to Hollywood too. I want a ratings board that will label a film as a D-rated or R-rated and I want an equal number of Democrat leaning movies as Republican ones.

Then for every whiny “save the earth” song Sheryl Crow does, she has to sing something about, oh say, the right to life.

wryteacher on June 24, 2007 at 9:29 PM

She has balls (literally). I think her little tirade on FOX was aimed at those of us who deluged her phone lines and email with our concerns. She’s been whining about the abusive language etc. I’m sure she’s heard worse in the Senate elevator with Babs and Rodham.

If you want to see Di’s vivion of America come on out to Mexifornia where our high schools are currently graduating the most ignorant children in the country.

http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/01.03.html

repvoter on June 24, 2007 at 9:31 PM

If you want to see Di’s vivion of America come on out to Mexifornia where our high schools are currently graduating the most ignorant children in the country.

Well, that would explain the re-election issue.

BobH on June 24, 2007 at 9:34 PM

Libs don’t want fairness; they want conservative views completely kept out of the public airwaves. That’s why they hate FOX so much. They don’t care if there are tons of libbies on FOX spewing their dribble. The fact that there are any conservatives being heard just kills them.

Lefties are not for tolerance and understanding. It’s their way or the highway. That’s why they have the love of Castro, Chavez, Che and all the other charming despots. Libs want total control.

There is nothing fair about the “Fairness Doctrine”. It is merely a way to force liberal views to be heard on a format that libs have failed at time and time again. I don’t see NPR making any effort to show conservative views. Nor did Air America.

katieanne on June 24, 2007 at 9:34 PM

Savage has stated many times that he has some of the best first amendment lawyers in the country ready to roll if the fairness doctrine gets any traction.

He says he’ll flip it around on them and demand that he gets equal time on ABC/CBS/NBC.

Because we all know this “fairness” won’t apply to anything else except talk radio. because the “progressives” need a monopoly on though and the media in order to push socialism down the throats of Americans.

V15J on June 24, 2007 at 9:36 PM

Hugo Chavez shuts down TV stations to stifle dissent.

Liberals trying to legislate “Fairness” doctrine…

Do I detect a pattern?

franksalterego on June 24, 2007 at 9:37 PM

So she is upset that Talk Radio leans to the right, but has no problem with all the other forms of media leaning to the left?

My Lord, the Founding Fathers must be in heaven telling Christ how they wished to have never created the Constitution of they knew #(*$&es like her and Lott were going to have a part running the Country.

Tim Burton on June 24, 2007 at 9:46 PM

When Lott and Feinstein agree on something like an immigration bill all of the red lights in town need to come on.

They do have differing points of view, Lott is a (spineless) back peddling panderer and Feinstein is an unapologetic Communist.

Right now the their manifesto should read bring all them goats you want (Trent Lott’s metaphor not mine) and viva la proletariat!

Liberal talk radio can’t hack it in the market place of ideas because just like their notion of “fairness”, the only idea(s) liberals have is…give us your tax money, don’t worry depend on us, to keep you, poor…if you’re a minority, don’t worry we’ll take their tax money and depend on us, to keep you…poor.

Speakup on June 24, 2007 at 9:46 PM

I know why libs hate Fox so much. Just look at the expressions on her face. Libs get the chair with tacks in the seat.

mjkazee on June 24, 2007 at 9:56 PM

Leftists interpret fairness the way Muslims interpret peace. When the whole world is converted to Dar al-Islam there will be peace. When the entire American media is represened by left-wing opinion there will be fairness.

aengus on June 24, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Feinstein is an alien robot sent here to make all women look bad. So far she’s been wildly successful to that end in the Senate.

Griz on June 24, 2007 at 10:09 PM

Exit question, per her lament that the status quo amounts to “silent amnesty”: Who’s to blame for that status quo anyway?

Well, since Ted Kennedy has been wrecking immigration since 1965, I nominate him.

INC on June 24, 2007 at 10:12 PM

I can’t wait to see an excellent post tomorrow (w/ video) about Luis Gutierrez huffing and puffing during his debate with Pat Buchanan on Meet the Press.

truthmattersfa on June 24, 2007 at 10:30 PM

Feinstein (Socialist Elite-United Nations) and Trent Lott (D-Sonora) have to be complemented for calling Americans too foolish not to know that they are doing what is best for us. And if it means getting rid of that pesky Constitution, well, I am sure that these fair minded people intend to restore it when Americans behave. Besides, no can read it anyway. The language is so archaic our own Supreme Court has problems.

pat on June 24, 2007 at 10:37 PM

Wait. According to Feinstein, no one on talk radio has said anything about the flaws of our current immigration status quo? Now there’s a woman who knows what she’s talking about. She’s talking about echoes in the Progressive echo chamber that is her awareness horizon. I’d like to see a video of her explaining to, say, Michael Savage, how he had never said anything about the negatives of the immigration status quo before this bill came up out of the shadows. I might even pay to see that video.

Regarding the Orwellian-named “Fairness Doctrine,” I am an optimist. I think the genie of political freedom on the airwaves is out of the bottle, and there’s no putting it back. Before the “Fairness Doctrine” was repealed, you could pretend that it was pro-free-speech somehow. Now that argument is simply impossible to make. The contrary evidence is too clear. Even Feinstein probably knows this — it’s probably just another substanceless pander to the netroots.

Splunge on June 24, 2007 at 10:49 PM

I predict these two can pack their bags. I particularly enjoyed watching them try to explain the 14% approval rating of congress right now. They both said IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ … Guess what, it’s not Iraq. It’s your nanny-state, down-talking, pass laws and do nothing to enforce them ways that have you in the trash heap. We listened to your silly fix for illegal immigration in 86 and you lied to us. We ain’t goin for it no more. Enforce the borders first losers.

warriorlawyer on June 24, 2007 at 10:59 PM

WOW since when does Micheal Savage get air time on Fox News? He at least sounded a little tamer than his sometimes outragous rants. He cracks me up when he goes on a tirade. The total transcript of the Chris Wallace interview is available at foxnews.com. Its a long read but interesting. I’m guessing Lott and Feinstein will be toast on talk radio tomorrow.

sonnyspats1 on June 24, 2007 at 11:02 PM

Well, that would explain the re-election issue.

BobH on June 24, 2007 at 9:34 PM

You may have meant that tongue-in-cheek, but it is right on the money. Cameron Diaz could qualify for Mensa here.

infidel4life on June 24, 2007 at 11:40 PM

Bush urges Congress on immigration bill

“We have an obligation to solve problems that have been piling up for decades,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “The status quo is unacceptable.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070623/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_1

With the Presidents very strong support for a bill that has already increased illegal migration and promises too even more, we can only assume that the status quo obviously is not acceptable.

Exit question, per her lament that the status quo amounts to “silent amnesty”: Who’s to blame for that status quo anyway?

That’s the helluvit and why a great many ex RNC supporters are so red faced.
We expect liberals to undermine us but since so many so called Republicans have been flushed out of the closet into the sunlight the true level of guile and deceit has been exposed for all to see.

It’s embarrassing, for now.

Speakup on June 25, 2007 at 12:14 AM

WOW since when does Micheal Savage get air time on Fox News? He at least sounded a little tamer than his sometimes outragous rants. He cracks me up when he goes on a tirade.

Levin’s bashing of Lott was good stuff, but compared to Savage’s rant it was nothing.

V15J on June 25, 2007 at 1:04 AM

Throughout the entire conversation, no one ever thought that congress approval ratings had anything to do with amnesty. The elephant in the room. According to both Lott and DiFi, partisanship is the reason for all that. There is no partisanship in Washington. Both sides are in love with one another as pictures of Mel Martinez, Miss Lindsey, and Kennedy together have shown. It’s just a big show. They’re all there to give themselves as much power and money as possible. Both Lott and DiFi are absolutely dangerous. Why can’t they just go quietly into the night like the rest of the Worst Generation?

PRCalDude on June 25, 2007 at 1:12 AM

I heard that Savage rant the first time… that clip was nothing.

Watching Lott gives me a warm fuzzy. it’s like watching a movie when you know the main character dies later… he’s so far GONE, he doesn’t even know it…

BadBrad on June 25, 2007 at 5:51 AM

apparently “Overwhelming one way” is bad… but only if it’s not YOUR way.

I wonder if the Dems would be pushing this if the shoe was on the other foot… methinks not…

BadBrad on June 25, 2007 at 5:54 AM

Does this mean Michelle will become the editor and chief at the NYT?

right2bright on June 25, 2007 at 7:50 AM

If Air America had been a success…would Commrade Feinstein be so critical? NO! She wouldn’t. The “Fairness Doctrine” violates free speech. But that doesn’t matter to the Communist Democrats…..little annoyances like individual rights and free speech must and will be legislated away. Always be very aware when you hear Democrats using the phrase “the common good”….that is the clear sign that they are moving to take away individual rights in this country. Before you know it, we will all be forced to start carrying Cameron Diaz’s Mao bags.

lynnv on June 25, 2007 at 8:09 AM

This is just another “attack the messenger to distract from the truth” tactic. (I’m surprised that some people around here don’t understand that since they engage in it on a regular basis.)

DiFi is scared because she can’t control what others say AND she can see that the truth is actually getting out to the point where it puts a cramp in her (and the rest of the congress for that matter) culture of lies and pandering.

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 8:10 AM

She wasn’t the scary one! We all know that she supports this and will vote for it. The scary one was that idiot Trent Lott who tried to deny his support for it! He’s been for it since the late 80′s but denied it Chris’s face! Poor Trent!

sabbott on June 25, 2007 at 8:14 AM

Hey Feinstein, here’s an idea for fairness. Let other people win some of your government bids instead of your husbands businesses.
Your not only unfair, you are dishonest…a twofer.

right2bright on June 25, 2007 at 8:24 AM


When is Lott up for reelection? Why do we listen to him and his ilk? No surprise from Feinstein and her compadres in the DNC. Fairness Doctrine reemergence is their new talking point, and won’t go away after the shamnesty bill.

trainwife1962 on June 25, 2007 at 8:40 AM

trainwife — Please don’t boldface your comments.

Allahpundit on June 25, 2007 at 8:42 AM

When you look at Air America, you have to see that they had to buy time rather than earn it compared to conservative radio stations. Now that Air America is losing, them and the democrats want to pull everyone else down with them to.

hinduconservative on June 25, 2007 at 8:55 AM

Trent Lott’s attempt to lie his way out of the fairness doctrine was feeble at best. Finestein, on the other hand, made no attempt to hide her contempt for talk radio. She, in her omnipotence, proved without a doubt what is wrong with Congress as it is now. She does not and will not listen to the voters. Being a liberal, she really does not feel others that are not on her self conceived level can decide for themselves. She had so much contempt for the average American that she has blatantly broken several federal laws that would make Duke Cunningham look like a pimp.

volsense on June 25, 2007 at 8:57 AM

There needs to be a new generation of Republican leadership come forward that will take it to the arrogant socialist Democrats such as Feinstein. Enactment of the Fairness Doctrine today would be nothing less than a selective attack on conservative talk radio, which is one of the most vibrant parts of our free society. There is no need for the Fairness Doctrine with all the altenative print, broadcast and internet media available, and the Fairness Doctrine would get the Government involved in content regulation, which is wholly contrary to basic First Amendment values.

Phil Byler on June 25, 2007 at 9:49 AM

Drudge had a caller last night say that she believes that Congress is bringing up the Fairness Doctrine to distract talk radio from the amnesty bill.

Plausible?

jeremiad on June 25, 2007 at 9:55 AM

How much does anyone want to bet that somewhere in the background, George Soros is actually the one who is orchestrating this sudden revival of interest in the Fairness Doctrine?

pilamaye on June 25, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Heck, I don’t even know how to hyperboly. I think I have the context thingy down pat though.

captivated_dem on June 25, 2007 at 10:53 AM

How much does anyone want to bet that somewhere in the background, George Soros is actually the one who is orchestrating this sudden revival of interest in the Fairness Doctrine?

pilamaye on June 25, 2007 at 10:30 AM

I believe George Soros is the Number enemy to America.

GREENTURTLE on June 25, 2007 at 11:02 AM

‘pushes people to extreme views without a lot of information’
Sounds like she’s talking about CNN and the New York Times here. Thank goodness we have an offset to the liberal dinosaur media or we would truly be lost. Seems fair to me. I don’t even listen to talk radio, I’m all about the blogs. I wonder how she proposes to make the internet ‘fair’?

Keli on June 25, 2007 at 11:10 AM

Unfortunately the [un]Fairness Doctrine only applies to radio – not print media, not network news, only talk radio. It is deliberately aimed at the people who actually discuss the issues with their listeners as opposed to tell them what to think (MSM).

CrazyFool on June 25, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Senator Feinstein Goebbels and her vision for neo-Reich Ministry for Propaganda, or her euphemism “the fairness doctrine.” Is the Web next?

saved on June 25, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Just when I think I have nothing more to call my so called senator about, she goes on the Sunday news show and gives me more ammunition.

Mojack420 on June 25, 2007 at 2:06 PM

Come on, now, something must be done. It can’t possibly be the Liberals’ fault that their radio hosts are so awful that not even fellow Liberals want to listen to them. We simply must be too stupid to comprehend their lofty ideals. Ms. Feinstein is just trying to help us, as we can’t do anything without the Government holding our hand and leading the way. /snark

Lori_Z on June 25, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Ah, my dim witted wingnut!

Don’t you know that the Fairness doctrine will make everything fair. Don’t believe me? Just ask Russia!

Darnell Clayton on June 25, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Don’t you know that the Fairness doctrine will make everything fair. Don’t believe me? Just ask Russia

We need that 50% good news rule for reporting from Iraq.

B26354 on June 25, 2007 at 4:39 PM

I can hardly wait to hear Telemundo use the correct term, “Illegal Alien” 50% of the time. That’ll be fun!

DfDeportation on June 25, 2007 at 8:26 PM

When is someone going to look into Ms. Fairness Doctrine’s votes to make her husband richer than he already is? Do we have to wait two years like Jefferson? This woman is a criminal and should be wearing an orange jump suit and doing time!

NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on June 25, 2007 at 8:27 PM

What about NPR and PBS? I can hardly wait.

DfDeportation on June 25, 2007 at 8:30 PM