Rasmussen poll on Fairness Doctrine: 41-41
posted at 12:12 pm on July 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Worrisome, although only 37% say they’re following stories on the subject very or somewhat closely so there’s plenty of educating to be done here. Bush has promised to veto it if it becomes before him, but the means next to nothing given that the House has already voted against it. The real concern here is what happens after Bush, with a Democratic president, a more Democratic House and public opinion polls which, even if opposed to the Doctrine, are split closely enough to make legislation viable. Possibly anticipating that, Senate Dems moved yesterday to block a GOP anti-Fairness measure.
Contain your shock as the partisan crosstabs are revealed:
An interesting dynamic of the public debate is that liberals are more supportive of the “Fairness Doctrine: than conservatives. Liberals support the measure by a 51% to 33% margin while conservatives are opposed by a 48% to 40% margin.
Those numbers might come under the “be careful what you wish for” category.
Indeed they might. Follow the link up top and see what the results were for applying the Doctrine to the Internet. Way closer than it should be, which is bad news for free speech and terrible news, potentially, for the nutroots’ online advantage.
Doubtless if it ever did come to a vote the Dems would carve out an exception for their Internet masters, but what would it look like hypothetically if they didn’t? Would lefty and righty blogs of similar size try to satisfy the balance requirement by merging?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages:
A lot of people support things like the Fairness Doctrine because they confuse the right to free speech (which is enshrined in the Constitution) with the right to be heard (which isn’t.)
Big S on July 14, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Remind me again who the fascists are?
LakeRuins on July 14, 2007 at 12:19 PM
I’m not entirely worried, as I think that if any group (like Salem or EIB) challenges it that the Supreme Court would strike it down in a heartbeat.
That, and I think the public outcry that the “Right Wing noise machine” and “generators of simplicity” could rally against this thing might be even more powerful than the outcry against the immigration legislation.
Viewtifulgare on July 14, 2007 at 12:20 PM
LOL…..wait til they read an actual bill. Oh wait I forgot, the bills get written after the vote.
The part about forcing web sites to do the same….good luck.
Limerick on July 14, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Shouldn’t that be Demonocratic?
Tennessee Dave on July 14, 2007 at 12:22 PM
This is typical. liberals are so convinced that they are correct(and frankly that they are not liberal ) that they throw a temper tantrum whenever anything doesn’t go their way. when they can’t fight a fair fight, they resort to trying to ban anyone els form daring to speak against them.
Yet somehow, this will be Bush’s fault
LordDaMan on July 14, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Those numbers may be that high only because many, if not most, people don’t realize what the Fairness Doctrine implies. Remember, it was Senator Voinovich who himself was in favor of it thinking it meant free speach but was surprised to learn what it actually meant when it was explained to him by Hannity, I think it was, on his phone in radio show.
I believe this same dynamic of ignorance permeates the public. If a senator doesn’t know what it means, how can we expect Joe Six Pack to know? After all, how could anyone be opposed to anything with the word “fairness” in it?
jihadwatcher on July 14, 2007 at 12:27 PM
We need a more accurate term for this abomination… “Fairness Doctrine” is hopelessly euphemistic.
“Shamnesty” is to “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” as “X” is to the “Fairness Doctrine”.
Purple Fury on July 14, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Not a surprise. The salt-of-the-earth, average Joe Big Mac is trusting. If it has “fairness” in its name, it has to be good.
albo on July 14, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Bring it on!!! I would love to see the heterophobes, from the NEW DIRECTION DEMOCRATS, continually have to defend, the depravity of one’s mind desiring to put their erect pe*#$ into another guys a&%* pore. That would be so much fun. BRING IT ON!!!!
DfDeportation on July 14, 2007 at 12:40 PM
And I’m a Moderate Democrat!!
DfDeportation on July 14, 2007 at 12:41 PM
And we can count on the MSM for their willful collusion in promoting such misleading labels, which mean the exact opposite of the actual intent of the legislation.
infidel4life on July 14, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Percentage in favor of “Fairness Doctrine” who understand what the First Amendment is: .0%.
profitsbeard on July 14, 2007 at 12:43 PM
When so many Democrats in the House voted against this (un)Fairness Doctrine, why is it that their Senate colleagues are having a tougher time coming to their senses?
Will newsstands be required to carry equal amounts of liberal and conservative papers and magazines? How about protests…will the Government require that, say, an anti-war protest give equal time to pro-war advocates?
JetBoy on July 14, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Much about very little…
If the demos hinder talk radio, they cannot touch XM or Sirius. Internet talk radio will surge forward. Bloggers will take over where AM-FM talk radio programmer are forced to leave off.
The demos are quite ignorant about the power of free speech, just like their evil cousins in Red China. They will never get it. And, this is actually good for conservatives. Don’t panic about fairness doctrine. Waste of your energy.
saved on July 14, 2007 at 12:46 PM
“Shamnesty” is to “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”
as
“Forced Speech” is to “Fairness Doctrine“.
profitsbeard on July 14, 2007 at 12:47 PM
First, wouldn’t it be Constitutionally impossible to apply the “fairness doctrine” to anything but radio and broadcast TV? The only reason it can be applied in those cases is due to limited publicly owned airwaves (spectrum) which requires broadcasters to be licensed by the government, and therefore, granted limited monopolies (a monopoly of a frequency within a geographic area). There is no analogous situation on the Net, newspapers, Cable TV, etc.
Second, people have no idea what it is or what it means. Remember when Hannity asked Voinovich about it a few days ago during the immigration debate and Voinovich said, “I’m all for fairness.” He had no idea what Hannity was even talking about.
TheBigOldDog on July 14, 2007 at 12:49 PM
The fact that this thing is called the “fairness” doctrine is probably why most people say they support it. Hell, George Voinovich supported it before Hannity set him straight.
WisCon on July 14, 2007 at 12:50 PM
By the logic of this “Doctrine”, every Farm Report would have to be countered by suggestions on how to spread plant rusts and crop molds and weevils and beetles and other pests and plagues in order to destroy crops.
Cos ya gotta be fair to the poor parasites and cankers.
profitsbeard on July 14, 2007 at 12:51 PM
The NEW DIRECTION DEMOCRATS are not ignorant about the power of free speech, they just hate opposing views from their own. I think EVERYTHING should be “on the table” for discussion. That makes alot of people nervous.
DfDeportation on July 14, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Democrats never wonder why no one wants to listen to their views. They would rather Air America go bankrupt than get new talkers with new ideas.
How about Doctrine of Enforced Diversity?
Zach on July 14, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Fairness to politicians and the MSM means “control of a rigged game”. They’re losing their control and they’re nervous, very nervous!
DfDeportation on July 14, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Let’s get MEChA’s ideology out there in the open for all to see. Bet it would lead to the termination of taxpayer dollars going to RACIST HATE GROUPS like them. Whadddya think?
DfDeportation on July 14, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Thanks for the early-warning. When I was young, I was told that no-one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of their audience.
And “Fairness” wears a diaphanous gown. ;)
Randy
williars on July 14, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Or we could just call it Muzzle…but I prefer a name using Soviet-style language.
Zach on July 14, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Does the Fairness Doctrine mean that Ann Coulter will be co-hosting Countdown with Keith Olbermann?
Does the Fairness Doctrine mean that Michelle Malkin will be co-hosting Harball?
burnitup on July 14, 2007 at 1:14 PM
“The real concern here is what happens after Bush, with a Democratic president, a more Democratic House and public opinion polls…”
No problem. Civil war.
drunyan8315 on July 14, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Only one of them would be leaving that set alive.
WisCon on July 14, 2007 at 1:28 PM
If this ever passed, it might lock in the ‘liberal’ label to all the MSM outlets we already know lean left. If they’re solidly identified among the vast majority of people as liberals, there goes the credibility of MSNBC, CNN, et. al. I mean, that credibility they still retain among the general populace that wouldn’t know a liberal if he took away their rights. Please note also the liberal media goes to great lengths denying its slant.
I say let the debate begin in earnest in the Senate, though I doubt they want it. If this thing had a real chance, the obsolete media would be celebrating the recent Senate vote all over the airwaves. That they haven’t, far as I see, is telling at this point. It’ll keep coming back, but now isn’t a time the Left wants to push it.
Liam on July 14, 2007 at 1:28 PM
This may not be even a moot point because satellite radios are coming into existence more and more everyday. Just as everybody is anticipating which newspaper will become the first internet newspaper and that the paper version will be gone.
Still, this F.D. is a bunch of hooey. And deserve to be shot for the sake of mercy.
Kokonut on July 14, 2007 at 1:34 PM
I have a hard time understanding how any politician, regardless of which side of the aisle he or she happens to occupy, would be brainless enough to even consider voting for and passing the (Un)Fairness Doctrine. They’d have to know that to do so would bring the wrath of the people of this country down on their empty heads and that they would be committing career suicide in the process. The only people who support this idiotic bill right now are renaissance dinosaurs who have been in Congress way too long to the point of being beyond relevance anymore, or double-talking politicos who are spending less time listening to the people who got them into office in the first place and more time listening to the kooky-loopy off the chart “They’re-Coming-To-Take-Us-Away-Ha-Ha” blatherings of left wing fringies like George Soros, Moveon.org and Daily Kos.
pilamaye on July 14, 2007 at 1:40 PM
CNN reported this morning:::: All journalist and reporters are being told to leave the town of Laredo,Texas..It appears the Mex.drug cartel has given orders “shoot to kill” them. Right here in the good old US of A…..Soon you won’t have to worry about a fairness doctrine…Just like city after city has fallen to the cartel…soon it will be state after state…and every journalist or reporter will need to beware just to go out and about…After all thats their next move..to silence the news media…Mexico is the #1 country in the whole big wide world for the torture and killing of reporters and journalist and thats a fact, jack.
Legions on July 14, 2007 at 1:46 PM
I’m hoping that’s the money quote here. I would hope that it will be far harder to flim-flam the public than it was in the Shamnesty debate. However, I was reading this morning how the far leftist view of “diversity” has been forced into almost every thread of the American fabric, as described at Townhall by Carl Horowitz here. I’m afraid of how this sort of PC mau-mauing could be effectively applied in this arena.
eeyore on July 14, 2007 at 1:49 PM
I think the poll numbers show the misnomer of the the title, people think it’s fair because it says so.
That could change when truer aspects are shown in the proper light.
If HillBill becomes Presidente there will be an increase of bias in reporting due to their FCC meddling, count on it. Hill would nationalize TV stations just like Hugo if she could get away with it.
Speakup on July 14, 2007 at 1:50 PM
So, 63% of the people are generally in favor of fairness. No huge surprise there.
Seriously though, politicians have to keep in mind that FOLLOWING polls can be a trap. You have to think about what the backlash would be AFTER you passed it.
- A handful of the craziest moonbats will get a quick smirk out of knowing that some shows they never listened to have been censored, and an even tinier bit of comfort in knowing that Air America will go bankrupt slightly slower than it had been.
- Then the TENS OF MILLIONS of fans of the censored programs will show you exactly what non-psychotic “activists” can do if properly motivated.
logis on July 14, 2007 at 1:53 PM
I would agree, but some legislative prankster might have some fun by including the public airwaves used by cellular carriers for their data transmissions in the new and improved Fairness Doctrine. The regular internet tubes would not be regulated, but the content of the wireless internet tubes might be regulated using the public nature of their transmission medium as justification.
rw on July 14, 2007 at 2:16 PM
The Barnett/Moulitsas blog! History demands it!
Dean Barnett on July 14, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I move to call it “The Progressive Doctrine”.
Entelechy on July 14, 2007 at 2:19 PM
‘Progressives’ demand it.
Entelechy on July 14, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Let’see, if the Dems get the White House Plus a larger majority in 08, we’re gonna be facing Universal Health Care, free universal day care, certainly another Amnesty attempt, repeal of the Bush tax cuts, the raping of oil company profits, a return to the pre-911 approach to radical islam, and an assalt on free speech, both on publicly-owned airwaves plus the internet.
And we will have let it happen.
Dork B. on July 14, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I bet they got this idea from their buddy Hugo- isn’t that
what he is doing down in Venezuela? I can’t wait for conservatives to have their say after Keith and Chris have their 30 minute diatribe of “I hate America and every conservative that lives here.” It’s about time we get equal time on all the mainstream media. /I hope it doesn’t put Rush out of business though./
Vanquisher on July 14, 2007 at 2:46 PM
I find it interesting that the airwaves are considered to “belong to the people.” This term is crap, and came up time and time again during my years as a broadcaster. It is a false premise designed to lend sympathy to content control.
The only interest the government has regarding airwaves is traffic control…making sure that there is proper frequency separation across the bands. As long as technical rules are followed, sending my electrons with my content across the sky is my business.
The equipment is privately owned. The content is privately generated. There is NO reason for government to be involved when it comes to regulation of content. NO REASON.
The liberal mantra of “turn it off”, or “change the channel” applies to all content offensive to the viewer or listener.
But that is asking too much of the Animal Farm.
portlandbob on July 14, 2007 at 3:15 PM
It would be worth the price of admission if they tried to impose the “fairness doctrine” across the board to include the print media, network TV, cable TV as well as talk radio. The screams of First Amendment violation would be unbelievable.
duff65 on July 14, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Whenever I see this debate about the Fairness Doctrine, not enough people stress what TRUE “fairness” would have to be. People seem to think that “fairness” is making sure the “right” and the “left” have equal time, as if the only opinions out there are “right” and “left”. But this is not the case…
We must also give equal time to the opinions of Communists, White Supremacists, Black Supremacists, Libertarians, Terrorist organizations, 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists, Pro-Abortion/Anti-Abortion groups on abortion issues, pro-illegal immigration/anti-illegal immigration groups on immigration issues as well as pro-reconquista groups, Hamas and Hezb’Allah supporting groups, every single religious group out there including radical Atheists who would like to strip the United States of every aspect of its religious heritage, etc etc etc ad naseum…
Which makes me wonder whether or not those who support “fairness” realize this or not. If they don’t, they are naieve. If they do, then that means they realize that holding certain media outlets to a standard of “fairness”, it will completely dilute those outlets and the message will be completely lost, since so many different viewpoints, including radical conspiracies and those from radical interest groups such as CAIR and Hamas and Hezb’Allah, will be given equal time and, as a result, equal credibility.
Meanwhile, the MSM will be free to continue to propagandize their special interests.
Michael in MI on July 14, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Problem is they will describe those zealots (Mathews/Olberman) as moderates and demand that spokesman for Hamas, Hezbola and AQ get a voice.
SIJ6141 on July 14, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Problem is what the MSM considers conservative, is hardly a true conservative opinion. We would need to fight to get our real conservatives on the air with Olby, Matthews and the like. Example: Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who is considered by many to be a true hardline conservative. She hardly represents all of my “views.” While she did a valiant job with RosieO, many times stupidity that flowed from RO was not answered by fact from Lis. I know she’s not a newsperson, but that’s what passes for a real conservative opinion to a lot of people. While great to look at, I don’t want someone like her to be my answer to Olby
PowWow on July 14, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Better than what we have now, nothing…just saying. But this is worst case. I am completely opposed to the FD. Just wanted to be clear
PowWow on July 14, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Fatwa works so well for Islam that one can’t help noticing and appropriating it for the aid of one’s own kind. Therefore: Taking away or even encumbering our free exercise of rights of speech, press, and assembly is haram, forbidden, and whoever attempts it is murtad, apostate, traitor.
I don’t know about you, but I feel better already.
Kralizec on July 14, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Better, but it still runs the risk of being approved by idiots who don’t understand what “progressive” really means. Call it what it is: The Leftist Authoritarian Doctrine”
Kensington on July 14, 2007 at 5:24 PM
The problem is not that all viewpoints will have to be represented, but that due to the HASSLE of having to track the exact amount of time for each viewpoint, radio stations will just not present ANY VIEWPOINTS at all. That way they cut out all the paperwork requirements and save tons of money. Since radio is the medium used most successfully by conservatives, conservatives will SILENCED on radio. I’m not talking about possibilities, I know that this is what happened between 1949 and 1994 when the “Fairness Doctrine” was halted. Radio didn’t broadcast political viewpoints and thus avoided all kinds of undesirable events. They didn’t violate the “Fairness Doctrine” because if you don’t do political viewpoints the FD doesn’t apply. They avoided lawsuits by people who would have claimed that their viewpoint didn’t get “equal time”. They didn’t have to hire one or more employees whose only job would have been to track the amount of time one viewpoint got and then make sure that all other viewpoints got “equal time”. Any businessman would do the same thing and NOT touch that “live wire” with a ten foot pole. If the “Fairness Doctrine” is resurrected, there WON’T BE any talk radio. We’ll get music 24/7/365 on FM and AM may just shut down completely because the quality of music is better on FM.
TruthToBeTold on July 14, 2007 at 5:54 PM
OK, so let me get this straight. Liberals think that once child porn is on the internet, the government shouldn’t be able to do anything about it (i.e., it’s “free speech).
But, on the other hand, they think that once a conservative puts an opinion on the internet, the government SHOULD be able to do something about it (e.g., balance it with some left-wing whacko).
Liberals. Hypocrites. Google it.
BigOrangeAxe on July 14, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Kensington on July 14, 2007 at 5:24 PM
You didn’t think I meant that seriously, I hope.
Entelechy on July 14, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Why not? Progressive Doctrine is closer to the truth of it than the Fairness Doctrine. I just don’t think it’s quite close enough.
Kensington on July 14, 2007 at 6:39 PM
I recommend the term “Monitored Broadcasting” to replace “Fairness Doctrine”. Has a slight Orwellian subtlety to it. Never tells you who is doing the monitoring or why, but it’s certainly implied.
The Unabrewer on July 14, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Then again, “Fairness Doctrine” is already Orwellian.
The Unabrewer on July 14, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Isn’t this the stuff the ACLU should be concerned with?
krabbas on July 14, 2007 at 9:19 PM
I can’t wait to see Ann Coulter rebut Katie on the CBS evening news.
This might be a good thing. ///sarc
BacaDog on July 14, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Right. That’s why we absolutely must insist that if they want to bring this back, it will need to apply to print, cable, broadcast TV, radio and internet. No form of media should be exempt.
Once those dimwits at the NYT realize they’ll have to draw a big black line down the middle of their page so we can have 1/2, they’ll put so much pressure on Dingy Harry and Nancy it’ll die a quick death.
BacaDog on July 14, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Purple Fury on July 14, 2007 at 12:31 PM
How about the Stalin admendment?
unseen on July 15, 2007 at 12:33 AM
It’s profoundly disturbing that Stalinist measures such as the FD can be openly advocated by anyone, especially anyone in Congress.
It’s even more disturbing that it’s advocacy isn’t overwhelmingly repudiated.
petefrt on July 15, 2007 at 1:04 PM
This is enough to explode my brain, not because of what might happen to sites like this and talk radio, but what the people mean when they participated in this poll.
I let it go when i thought, (logically), that the way the question was posed it meant that perhaps conservatives want a balanced format on TV news—which SHOULD be the purpose of the ‘fairness doctrine’. Some of the idiots on the left and the RINOS want to get rid of talk radio and free speech online, but that won’t happen–until the Clinton regime continues with the construction of their Brave New World.
Christine on July 15, 2007 at 1:46 PM
It should be: ‘what people meant’.
Christine on July 15, 2007 at 1:46 PM
The first method of insinuating any socialist doctrine into a free society is the use of the word FAIR, or FAIRNESS, in describing said doctrine. This is meant to disguise an otherwise obviously totalitarian method using a guilt response. Nobody wishes to be thought of as UNFAIR, and will sometimes thoughtlessly agree with an otherwise BAD concept if they believe opposing it makes them UNFAIR.
Other major socialist codewords include the aforementioned PROGRESSIVE, UNIVERSAL, PEOPLE’S, WORKER’S, etc.
The only recent application of FAIR that I am aware of which is not a promotion of socialist doctrine is the Fair Tax
Freelancer on July 16, 2007 at 9:14 AM
Comment pages: