Hot Air » Blog Archive » FCC Chair: “Fairness Doctrine” not needed

FCC Chair: “Fairness Doctrine” not needed

posted at 8:50 am on July 27, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

This is good to hear, but we still need legislation to head off the Democrats’ threat to basic free speech. FCC Chairmen come and go, as do congressional majorities and presidencies. Freedom speech shouldn’t come and go at the whims of the likes of Reid and Pelosi:

The Federal Communications Commission has no intention of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine imposing a requirement of balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said.

Martin, in a letter written this week to Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and made public Thursday, said the agency found no compelling reason to revisit its 1987 decision that enforcing the federal rule was not in the public interest.

Several Democratic lawmakers suggested that Congress take another look at the doctrine after conservative radio talk show hosts aggressively attacked an immigration reform bill when it was on the Senate floor, contributing to its defeat.

It’s the Muzzle Rush and Laura and Hannity Doctrine, not the Fairness Doctrine. In invoking “fairness,” the Democrats are entirely disingenuous. It’s not about fairness, but control. Control over who can say what and when on public policy is what they want, and it’s what they should never have.

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:

Freedom speech shouldn’t come and go at the whims of the likes of Reid and Pelosi:~~Well said.~~

Wade on July 27, 2007 at 8:57 AM

Thank God.

Looks like Reagan won’t be turning over in his grave after all.

flyawaybird on July 27, 2007 at 8:58 AM

Caffine has not kicked in yet, sorry

Freedom speech shouldn’t come and go at the whims of the likes of Reid and Pelosi:

Well said.

Wade on July 27, 2007 at 8:58 AM

The fairness doctrine (sic) is not needed? Is defeat in Iraq needed? What does need have to do with power politics?

The fairness doctrine (sic) is wanted, defeat in Iraq is wanted, and Nancy and Harry want political power.

Keep up the good fight.

TunaTalon on July 27, 2007 at 8:59 AM

It’s not about fairness, but control. Control over who can say what and when on public policy is what they want, and it’s what they should never have.

Control is what they had for 30 years, before the turn of the century. Now that they have competition in the marketplace of ideas they find they liked a monopoly a lot better. Do you remember when they talked about a “fairness doctorine” for the internet a few years ago?

jaime on July 27, 2007 at 9:04 AM

“Congress shall make no law…”

Mr. Bingley on July 27, 2007 at 9:11 AM

I just want to go off-topic for a moment here. That WaPo article in the headlines section reads:

The magazine’s editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is “part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer.” Foer also said Beauchamp “has put himself in significant jeopardy” and “lost his lifeline to the rest of the world” because military officials have taken away his laptop, cellphone and e-mail privileges.

As both the military and the magazine investigate Beauchamp’s allegations, a personal blog surfaced in which Beauchamp said last year that each morning he feels “retarded for joining the army,” “a little more liberal than the day before” and “a tool for global corporations.”

..
Beauchamp did not provide any documentation for his three published columns. He is married to a reporter-researcher at the New Republic, Elspeth Reeve.

….

As conservative bloggers yesterday continued to challenge the veracity of Beauchamp’s accounts, Foer said: “It is really unfortunate that someone like Scott, who was really only trying to tell his particular story, has become a pawn in the debate over the war and the Weekly Standard’s efforts to press an ideological agenda.”

amerpundit on July 27, 2007 at 9:13 AM

If democratically elected officials are openly debating whether a Fairness Doctrine is needed, a Fairness Doctrine isn’t needed.

Duh.

That settled, I hereby demand that all sitcoms be 50 percent sit and 50 percent com.

saint kansas on July 27, 2007 at 9:19 AM

What is the liberal left squawking about? They have their own radio station, Air America: it went bankrupt. They have their own TV news station, MSNBC: it’s losing viewers by the droves. They have their own newspaper, The New York Times: it’s subscription numbers are now in the toilet. So why are they yelling? It’s not our fault that people would rather have their news and information fair and balanced, instead of leaning towards moonbat ranting and raving.

pilamaye on July 27, 2007 at 9:20 AM

Right you are. Except what does fair have to do with power politics. If we all pooled our tax dollars we could keep Airhead America on the air. Ok, so that would not be fair, but it could affect power.

TunaTalon on July 27, 2007 at 9:27 AM

Tuna’s right, and the Dems are once again on the wrong side. They want to muzzle free speech, they want to lose the war (which is already been won) they want to raise taxes knowing damn well that to do so would stifle the economy, they want to appease the enemy trying to destroy us, they’re against school vouchers but call themselves “pro-choice”, and on and on. Is there ANY issue out there that the Dems are NOT on the wrong side of? They do it on purpose, just to be the oil to the Pubs’ water.

Tony737 on July 27, 2007 at 9:27 AM

What do you expect? Its a lot of work to only hear what you want to hear, and ignore the rest. They just figure it will be less work if they muzzle those they want to ignore. If that doesn’t work then they will just have them arrested.

Wyrd on July 27, 2007 at 9:47 AM

re Amerpundit

So, his wife’s on their payroll, and that’s how they know he’s a credible writer, who wouldn’t dare stretch the truth to, say, help his wife move forward in their business or push their ideology.

All that’s left is to end that article with, “In accordance with the prophecy.” Talk about out to lunch. If being in the Army weren’t such a noble profession, I’d quit just to keep from being associated with the human fiasco that is Pvt. Beauchamp.

Spc Steve on July 27, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Spc Steve on July 27, 2007 at 9:55 AM

That seems to be their philosophy. There’s evidence to prove that simply being married to someone who works for you, doesn’t make it true. Heck, you have to fact-check the very person that works for you. Look at Reutergate, Rathergate, etc.

amerpundit on July 27, 2007 at 10:12 AM

Spc Steve, good on ya! You know the canard that in any group of people there will be a few bad apples? BowChump is one of those bad apples. Glad he was proven to be a little tool of the moonbats.He does not need to be fouling the pool of great men like yourself.

bbz123 on July 27, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Spc Steve, thank you for your service.

Back in my day (1961 – 1967) we had scum as well. Heck, we had (and still have) Kerry. How would you like to have something like that watching your back?

SORRY FOR THE OT BUT I HAD TO THANK STEVE.

BobK on July 27, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Funny. I thought liberals would be for liberty.

But then again I live in the 21st Century, so I should know better.

Darnell Clayton on July 27, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Amazing how they didn’t see a need for it during the Clinton years.

tree hugging sister on July 27, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Actually it would have been amazing if they had seen the need for it in the Clinton years, but as is typical of liberals/socialists and their social experimentation they never grasp the notion that that actions have consequences.

Somehow for example, they actually believed that paying poor families to break up would magically eliminate poverty and bring about a Utopian society. Instead the welfare program they created had almost the exact opposite affect as it was suppose to.

In fact just about ever single social program they have created has turned into a bloated monster that had unforeseen (to them)consequences for which (to them) there is no acceptable way of correcting.

Considering this myopic blindness on their part it is no wonder that they think that the Fairness Doctrine would be a desirable and beneficial program.

doriangrey on July 27, 2007 at 12:07 PM

Let’s not forget the finger pointing that went on after the Oklahoma federal bombing incident. The Clinton white house blamed right wing talk radio extremist as the root cause. Given a chance, the Dems will bring it back.

Kini on July 27, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Several Democratic lawmakers suggested that Congress take another look at the doctrine after conservative radio talk show hosts aggressively attacked an immigration reform bill when it was on the Senate floor, contributing to its defeat.

Every effort to discount the “We the People” aspect is being made.

Talk show hosts (and bloggers) are talking just the same as always but the immigration issue is a high priority (perhaps the highest) with Americans regardless of media outlet, much to the chagrin of institutionalized politicians.

When issues arise, expect Americans to arise also.
Don’t blame the only media outlet available to many Americans for giving a voice to concerns that Politicians should have been listening to all along anyway.

Speakup on July 27, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Comment pages:

You must be logged in to post a comment.