Technology has made the Fairness Doctrine obsolete: Dems
posted at 11:10 am on November 6, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
The time for a Fairness Doctrine has passed, two Congressional Democrats tell CNS News in an interview today. Senator Ben Cardin and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, both from Maryland, appeared skeptical that an initiative to reinstate the old control on political broadcasting could pass, and would be effective in any regard:
The government “has the responsibility” to make sure there are a “variety of opportunities for people to get information,” said Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) when asked about the Fairness Doctrine at the Democratic Senatorial Committee election night party on Tuesday.
Cardin and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) were asked if a station like the Washington, D.C.-based WMAL, which has a lineup of conservative hosts, including Chris Plante, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Marc Levin, should be controlled by the government so they offer more balanced content.
“Well first of all, I think that a station should have a balanced approach. I think they are doing their listeners a service when they provide all sides to an issue, but quite frankly, there is more variety today than we’ve had in recent years,” Cardin said. “We have a lot of radio stations that are providing all different types of points of view, and I think there’s a lot of self-selection here. There’s a lot of listeners who are saying, ‘Look, we are going to listen to stations that are balanced,’ so I think the market in some respects is working this out.” …
“I think it’s increasingly difficult because it’s kind of like a balloon. In other words, even if you wanted to go there — and I’m not saying we do — but if you wanted to go there, when you squeeze one end of the balloon, you know, simply the conversation can just go to others,” [Van Hollen] said. “I think even if you wanted to go back to the Fairness Doctrine, technology may have passed it by.”
The Reagan administration ended the Fairness Doctrine twenty-one years ago, leading to a revival of the AM broadcast band, which had begun to die off with the explosion of access to FM and its superior signal quality for stereo music. At that time, the Internet didn’t exist as a commercial entity, and cable television was still primarily a rural phenomenon, although it had already begun gaining ground in suburbs and cities. Most people got information either through newspapers or regulated broadcast stations in television and radio.
Now, as Van Hollen points out, the world has changed. With inexpensive broadband increasingly available to all consumers, information flows in many channels. The Internet does not have federal content regulation or licensing requirements. Except for explicitly illegal content such as child pornography and expressions of violent overthrow of the United States, anyone can express any opinion on the Internet, with only self-imposed limitations. Cable and satellite television now dominate markets, most of which technically avoids FCC licensing regulations as well. Satellite radio has begun to make its own inroads in markets as cable TV did a generation ago.
Only broadcast channels such as terrestrial television and radio fall under the FCC’s aegis now. Imposing greater restrictions would inevitably lead to the demise of broadcasters, especially in the AM band. Without politics, most of these stations would cease to exist, and Van Hollen correctly notes that the content would just move to another medium. The FD would not keep anyone from accessing information that they wanted to get — it would just ensure job losses and irrelevance for AM radio.
It’s interesting to hear this from two Democrats. While they didn’t want to take a firm position against the FD, it seems that a reinstatement is only popular with a subset of Democrats and not with the party as a whole. Common sense about technology appears to be winning over partisan hackery — or at least we hope it does. Make sure to let your representatives in Congress know that Cardin and Van Hollen are right.
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: 1 2 Next »
Well these two votes from Dems in the Senate should offset McCain and Graham’s votes in favour of a Fairness Doctrine.
CanadianGuy on November 6, 2008 at 11:12 AM
He looks like he forgot to put his teeth in..
dangitt on November 6, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Personally I think it’d be great if they tried to push this. The hearings would be AMAZING! Rush, Sean, Laura, and Levin testifying. I want to see that.
D0WNT0WN on November 6, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Ha Ha They know noone will listen if the reinstate the so called Fairness Doctrine. They will all flock to places like Hot Air cause they can’t regulate the internet. They are screwed because of the net.
Brat4life on November 6, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Levin has stated they have backdoor ways into doing this without passing the fairness doctrine.
jp on November 6, 2008 at 11:14 AM
The Dems just won big which in their minds ought to make them believe that talk radio isn’t as powerful as they thought.
DerKrieger on November 6, 2008 at 11:14 AM
People will flock to internet sites like Hot Air. The newspapers and radio stations will fail.
Brat4life on November 6, 2008 at 11:15 AM
They’ll get the Net…you watch…. the GOOGLEtards will aid htem in any way they “require”.
You watch.
seejanemom on November 6, 2008 at 11:15 AM
The government has no constitutional authority to dictate the shape of information flow, regardless of medium.
The whole “public airwaves” rationale behind the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is a rhetorical fraud.
The electromagnetic spectrum is no more a public resource than are the longitudinal pressure waves I emit from my mouth when I speak.
‘Fairness Doctrine’ is the product of the quintessential nazi/commie fascism playbook.
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Exactly. That’s what worries me more. All the stuff they will do under the radar. I like having the public debate on their crazy proposals. Just like I think Code Pink and Keith Olbermann are good for us. It’s people like Rahm Emanuel that worry me.
D0WNT0WN on November 6, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Translation:
We’ll update the fairness doctrine to include new forms of technology.
Engelwood on November 6, 2008 at 11:16 AM
People like Levin should be taken out that backdoor and disposed of.
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Masters of free enterprise.
Under this concept Victoria’s Secret will sell athelete’s foot powder. One stop shopping to keep the people happy.
Limerick on November 6, 2008 at 11:17 AM
“…anyone can express any opinion on the Internet, with only self-imposed limitations”
Today that is true. In 2012? Don’t bet on it.
angryed on November 6, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Peculiar how the left’s agenda has suddenly shifted since Monday. Own it, baby, own it. Looks like their mouths have dried up and there’s no more spit for those paper wads they were shooting at Bush for eight years.
robblefarian on November 6, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Chris Van Hollen is a congressman not a senator. But anyway they will push it because it doesn’t make common sense.
rockyp on November 6, 2008 at 11:19 AM
If the Fairness Doctrine comes back, would it also regulate satellite radio?
I cannot do without my talk radio.
Oink on November 6, 2008 at 11:19 AM
O/T: Anyone else having to wait a long time for a page to load when it has that farkin’ Wall Street Journal ad in the sidebar? Annoying.
MikeZero on November 6, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Their mouths have dried up because they have no ideas, Hope and Change are concepts not Ideas.
rockyp on November 6, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I understand they want to impose limits on the net. How do they do that if your site is not registered with the US. They can’t tell citizens that they can’t open up a consertive web page in France for example. Then we would have a problem with having a one world government. I guess with BO that’s what he wants. Then that is just plain scary.
Brat4life on November 6, 2008 at 11:21 AM
From the back seat to driving it off the cliff in two short generations.
***sigh***
seejanemom on November 6, 2008 at 11:22 AM
They aren’t going to do anything right now except plan.
The very first thing on their agenda will be to send a basket of cash to the plebs. This will keep the plebs quiet and the politicians can focus on knocking down the next domino.
Limerick on November 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM
There’s no way the dirty liberals would want the Fairness Doctrine passed. Their reign over the MSM would come to an end. They’d actually have to get the Republican POV on these liberal stations (i.e. MSNBC, CNN, etc.).
Rambler on November 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Incidentally, now that all TV channels are going digital, will the FCC lose all its (unconstitutional) regulatory censorship control over them?
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Oh no no no….remember, some media are more fair than others ;)
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 11:24 AM
The good news is that they realize its a fight they cannot win or at least to fight it would be far too costly. The bad news is that they have plenty of other fights that they will take on….
Texas74 on November 6, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Those are big words, tough guy. You ready to start? I don’t think you are – but some of us await.
rhodeymark on November 6, 2008 at 11:25 AM
That was my first point with the Libtards I (am ashamed that I) know. I would ask them…
What is “Change” but what I am doomed to be left with when the wheels come off Obama’s (short) bus?
“Change” is not a solution. It is a sound byte.
seejanemom on November 6, 2008 at 11:25 AM
He’s letting Bawney Fwank use them today.
gracie on November 6, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Ahh but you see, MSNBC, CNN, etc is already mainstream and balanced. Katie Couric is as tough on Dems as she is on Reps. How do I know? Because CNN told me and it was confirmed by the also non-partisan NY Times.
angryed on November 6, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I think this is their weasel way of saying that if the Democrats were stupid enough to try and pass something like this, there would a howling among their own constituents that could end up in their own individual careers being threatened.
pilamaye on November 6, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Time to get an XM/Sirius receiver…..
JVelez on November 6, 2008 at 11:28 AM
I know the Dems aren’t exactly swift, but even THEY should realize that the FD is a losing proposition.
You KNOW that Rush, Hannity, et al along with companies like ClearChannel already have a game plan set if the FD passes.
They’ll immediately file an injunction that will stop the implementation of it and eventually the courts will rule that the FD is unconstitutional.
The intention is wrong, the scope is way too broad and the implementation and policing will be well nigh impossible (how do you gauge “equal” – number of shows? number of minutes? what is ‘balance’ – republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals? what about libertarians and green party?)
Not to mention that IF, somehow, the FD gets ruled constitutional, you KNOW that Rush et al will be first to sue when NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. aren’t forced to add balance.
Religious_Zealot on November 6, 2008 at 11:28 AM
HEY>>> I saw that plotline on HBO’s ROME. Kweeeel. Since all his acolytes are Jerry Springtards, the whole idiot box connection could work….great thought Limerick. ;)
seejanemom on November 6, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Cardin was on WBAL in Baltimore Tuesday night after Obama was declared the victor. He seemed absolutely convinced that the Fairness Doctrine would not be on the agenda. He was pressed pretty hard by the hosts, too.
nukemhill on November 6, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Since the Supremes have totally ignored the Ninth and corrupted the Tenth amendment for the last two hundred years I wouldn’t hold out for a change.
All that public good nonsense….yada yada yada.
All your rights belong to us.
Limerick on November 6, 2008 at 11:29 AM
What hearings? Just like the clowns at the Clinton administration said “Stroke of the pen law of the land” There will never be any hearings it will be be done behind lock doors.
grapeknutz on November 6, 2008 at 11:29 AM
There’s podcasts and live streaming and shortwave radio, broadband internet, dialup internet, cellphone internet etc.
Rush has the means to work all of those resources. The Russkies tried to jam Radio Free Europe and Radio Marti (and/or its predecessor) but there were too many alternate frequencies and means of distribution well before the internet. Who knows what a whacked out socialist FCC might try; the demand to access something besides Obama-prop on the old DNC approved networks will find a way to do so.
viking01 on November 6, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Common sense?
There’s blood in the water and the Left wants some or the conservative carcass. And if the Obama Administration has to scale back – if not toss aside – some of their more extravagant parts of its domestic agenda because of the shaky economy, the core supportes will want – no demand – something.
At the top of the list from the netroots crowd, I imagine the FD is if not at the very top, certainly near it.
This will be a good early indicator as to whether we will have some semblance of bipartisanship or a Jacobin free-for-all.
SteveMG on November 6, 2008 at 11:31 AM
An Aussie socialist has come to power on the mantra of—wait for it—-change.
Look what they’re trying in Australia now:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081024-aussie-govt-dont-criticize-our-terrible-net-filters.html
That’s right…..government ‘net censorship.
Wake up folks….they’re coming….let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on November 6, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Passing the Fairness Doctrine would be utterly disastrous for the Democrats – it would get millions of grassroots Republicans off of their feet for the elections in 2006 just to get these clowns out of office, and not to mention it would push millions of Republicans onto the blogosphere where the Government can’t flex its considerable judicial powers.
These two Democrats get it; let’s hope the rest of them do.
Tacitus_SGL on November 6, 2008 at 11:32 AM
The first of the backing away from the liberal crazies…this is one they were counting on.
Next is, no prosecution of Bush…
They are getting rid of the extreme promises, while the “aura” is still bright.
right2bright on November 6, 2008 at 11:33 AM
I love Mark Levin. He posts all of his (downloadable) shows for free by 10pm EST each day.
If I can’t get him live over the air or WABC on the ‘net I will download and listen to him after-hours at night.
http://www.MarkLevinShow.com
I love the way he bashes Chucky Smucky Schumer…..let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on November 6, 2008 at 11:34 AM
rhodeymark,
*crickets*
thomasaur on November 6, 2008 at 11:34 AM
OT: With the calls for a rebuilding of what was once the Republican Party, I started a blog yesterday. I know; who needs another blog? I humbly ask that you please visit and leave comments if you have time.
It’s a ‘bitter, clingy’ thing. No apologies offered.
(If my user name isin’t linked yet, the url is http://aubiejon.blogspot.com/)
AubieJon on November 6, 2008 at 11:34 AM
For more then forty years, the supreme court disagreed with you…
right2bright on November 6, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Well fairness doctrine or not. The media is lying all the way around.
Sarah was on the Radio Station of KWHL 30 minutes ago saying that the media should be unbiast and not lie concerning items that come up. She said she was happy to be home. Bob Lester (who is the morning DJ) knows Sarah and I know Bob, he is just tired of the media rolling out the crap and wishing it would go away. Like I wish they would go away here in Alaska.
If anyone wants to know about what Sarah wants in 2012… here watch the video.
upinak on November 6, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I thought about doing a blog concernign Alaska and Palin and just the politics. But I may get arrested… depending.
upinak on November 6, 2008 at 11:38 AM
One word: Satellite radio.
carbon_footprint on November 6, 2008 at 11:38 AM
They are just making the point that even if its passed, its not a big deal. So may as well pass it anyways.
lorien1973 on November 6, 2008 at 11:39 AM
The fairness doctrine was their bogeyman had they lost- it would be a terrible move in terms of blowback to do it now.
In their minds new media was proved ineffective by McCains loss.
They also saw 56 million votes for the GOP.
We’re the stupid party after all.
jjshaka on November 6, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Schumer is the devil. I hate seeing his smug face.
WisCon on November 6, 2008 at 11:42 AM
So, seven years after Anti-American Jihadis attacked and Murdered 3000 of our Fellow Citizens, we have:
a) elected a Communist-trained, Marxist-mentored, friend to blantant and open Terrorists, Anti-American/Anti-Semitic/Anti-White/Pro-Jihadi Racist Marxist-Muslim who practices “Taqiyah” to the Oval Office, and..
b) the Treasury Department is teaching classes on “Sharia Finance”! http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80003
We have lost our FREAKING minds…
Dale in Atlanta on November 6, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I for one believe these two Democrats are being honest and are smart enough to realize that a fairness doctrine will destroy their broadcast MSM advantage. The rise of the alternative media has allowed the MSM to abandon all pretense of neutrality since most conservatives have gone away. The denizens of the political web, both left and right, are a small minority of the population. The majority of the population gets most of their information from the broadcast news programs on the alphabet networks. It will remain so in the future. A fairness doctrine reduces the influence of the broadcast MSM by turning it into a bland neutral provider of news copy. Cardin and Van Hollen are smarter then your average Democrat like Chuck “the ornament” Schumer.
jerryofva on November 6, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Oh Lord, what am I talki’ about? In this day and age, Rush Limbaugh could simply run an internet radio (with ads) and the message would get out. MP3’s, etc. No way they will shut us down. No way. This is our country. They hate it.
carbon_footprint on November 6, 2008 at 11:44 AM
When anyone in or out of government tries to take away our Constitutional rights of free speech and political dissent, or any other civil right, then it is time to make whatever sacrifice is necessary to restore our liberties. As it was with our Forefathers, our personal rights and liberties are not negotiable.
rplat on November 6, 2008 at 11:44 AM
So when does Marvel and DC comics come out with ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’?
They can swing through the windows of WKRP and knock the snot out of Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh.
Limerick on November 6, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Actually they realised that the talk show radio couldn’t prevent the election of Obama and that the MSM is still very effective. Or at least that is the thought.So why bother impose the FD again and risk getting into a battle they have no reason to fight and no way to win.
clemycali on November 6, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I started rereading my old copy of “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” by Solzhenitsyn last night. Good stuff. A liberal English prof had us read it but then ditched it when he realized it put Communists in a bad light.
AubieJon on November 6, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Which means they’ll apply the Fairness Doctrine to all media. I don’t trust these people in the least. Lying and stealing is what they do best.
darwin on November 6, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Tru dat. I love the way Levin uses history and the Constitution to bash libs. Like he says, “Libs are fun when they are not in power.”
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on November 6, 2008 at 11:47 AM
A friend at work is giving me that book as a christmas gift actually. And a few other books.
I am waiting for books to be banned soon.
upinak on November 6, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Um, no, remember Palin is the one that bans books.
/
*ducks*
carbon_footprint on November 6, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I reiterate a point I made in the previous thread on this that first quoted Chuck the Schmuck: In the Red Lion case, decided in 1969, the Supreme Court left open the door for a constitutional challenge to the Fairness Doctrine if it could be shown that implementation of the Doctrine would eliminate coverage of “controversial issues.” Therefore, the Supreme Court did not give any kind of broad approval of the Fairness Doctrine.
OneVision on November 6, 2008 at 11:51 AM
And yet despite such ample evidence of their stupidity, we keep looking to them for ‘rulings’…..
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 11:52 AM
yep.. that she never banned.
Sorry I have no energy today. It has been a AWEFUL week at work. I am going to be looking for a new job and have already put in my resume.
Oil and Gas is great up here. But I think going to the water conservation via oil, gas, coal and other items like mining, is a way to cut the libs off at the ankles and is the way to go.
upinak on November 6, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Keep thinking that. It’s called preparing the battlefield.
lorien1973 on November 6, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Did you play the “bubble boy” in Seinfeld?
Seriously though….my snafu….I was thinking of Carl Levin the senator.
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Oreilly tried to act all tough last night and say they don’t wanna even try the fairness doctrine with him. HAHA
Who does he think he’s fooling?
He’s been sucking obambis ass this entire time, no need to stop now Bill. He’s just another Keith overbite clone now.
dinkyjackson on November 6, 2008 at 11:57 AM
It has special meaning to me because my son is adopted from Ukraine, 6 years ago. The Ukrainians in the book are the prisoners who maintain their manners and dignity even in the camps.
Buck up, upinak! I’ll claim Obama is my president, but I’ll also claim that the conservative party is being reborn because of him.
It’s a ‘bitter, cligy’ thing. No apologies offered.
AubieJon on November 6, 2008 at 11:59 AM
IT’S A TRAP.
Liberals would LOVE to have conservatives tie themselves in knots and waste all their bandwidth and air time fighting a Fairness Doctrine that they have no intention of pushing.
These guys just PUNKED conservative talk radio and Fox News. Why would they even think about wasting time trying to shut them down?
rockmom on November 6, 2008 at 12:00 PM
A note to the editors here
Hi:
I have a request: put up something leading to a discussion of the contradiction between the heavy advance vote, the lineups and workload at polling places across the country, and the reality that the total vote was below that recorded in 2004.
I get the feeling that something’s not right when poll workers (and media) report heavy voting – record turnouts pretty much across the country, but the actual vote counts are significantly below those from 2004 – which was hardly a banner year for turnout.
What I’d like to do is ask people here to take a close look at what happened in their state, their county, their polling stations. Is there a pattern? High turnout plus high vote counts in some area, high turn out with low vote counts in others?
Without access to lots of local data it’s hard to form anything more than an impression – but my impression is that newspapers in California, Florida, and Ohio reported record turnouts in Republican areas – while the poll reports for those areas show low voter turnout.
I think something stinks here – can you foment a discussion, please?
Paul Murphy on November 6, 2008 at 12:00 PM
You might call it this way if you like it but honestly they have bigger fishes to fry than to start a war over fairness doctrine. And we must be honest with ourselves, while MSM was in love with Obama and actively helping him, the talk show radio was luke warm at best for McCain and started working for him only when he picked Sarah Palin. By that time Obama had already the field game in play, the field operation offices in states like Virginia, Florida, Ohio, etc. So why bother to tear apart a media that is going to be busy in the next few months pointing fingers and ripping present and future contestants for the GOP heritage? Waist of time and energy.
clemycali on November 6, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Sorry.. never going to call him the big P. He will always be B.O. or Obama.. nothing more.
upinak on November 6, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Understood. I have felt like the breath has been knocked out of me since election night.
carbon_footprint on November 6, 2008 at 12:03 PM
The “Fairness Doctrine” was never about fairness. It has always been about controlling content. Specifically, silencing any and all conservative voices.
If they don’t do it with the FD, they will try to use expanded hate speech laws. That’s working quite well in Canada.
MarkTheGreat on November 6, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Remember when clinton passed don’t ask don’t tell when no one wanted it to happen? He did it in the first 100 days. No one remembered 2 months later.
They are going to do it immediately, so it’ll be forgotten about as quickly as possible.
I’m not sure why you are blind to their wishes. They’ve been talking about it for years.
They want to move these people to satellite radio, where – like Stern – they are no impact.
lorien1973 on November 6, 2008 at 12:07 PM
yeah same here. It was also a blood bath at work. The people here whom are democrats started ORDERING people around. I about lost my mind when it happened.
I don’t care who you are and wtf you do and what type of education you have and if you think you are my boss or not. You are not going to call me a name and then tell me to do something after you insult me. Not going to happen in my lifetime!
upinak on November 6, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Guys, remember, the Fairness Doctrine was ended by Executive Order. Legislatively, it’s still on the books.
Obama can start it again with a stroke of the pen.
Actually, he should do that anyway — I never listen to the radio, and I’d probably enjoy hearing his show.
I can’t be the only one…
Oh, my. You are young, aren’t you.
You see “balance” isn’t magically defined by some divine objective external power. It’s defined by real, flesh-and-blood bureaucrats at the FCC. Good luck persuading them that Chris Matthews isn’t a good right-wing balance to Keith Olbermann. Heck, I think they might take Lou Dobbs off the air because he’s too conservative.
ClintACK on November 6, 2008 at 12:11 PM
just call them little eichmann’s. They’ll get a kick out of it.
lorien1973 on November 6, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Stern doesn’t have an impact because satelite radio is still very expensive and people listen to the radio in their cars, a few hours a day. So why buy some expensive equipament just for a few hours of shows? It doesen’t worth the financial effort. But keep in mind that newer cars already have incorporated the equipament for satelite radio so it might get more effective in time. Anyway, if they want to act on something that they really want my money is on the union ceck cards. Or something about energy, banning by executive order, offshore dirlling again. Not the Fairness Doctrine.
clemycali on November 6, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Carl Levin shown the door? Yes.
Mark Levin? Not so much. He’s on our side.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on November 6, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Heh.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on November 6, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Two words: Khmer Rouge.
Remember how they lied to Cambodians in a “peace” agreement, then slaughtered them.
madmonkphotog on November 6, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I wish. They will do what they did under the old fairness doctrine.
They will just declare that the govts position is “uncontroversial”. And uncontroversial positions are not covered under the doctrine. That’s how the media was able to get away with telling lies about the Vietnam war, with no opportunity for rebuttal.
MarkTheGreat on November 6, 2008 at 12:17 PM
With a couple more justices, the SC will find that there is a “substantial governmental interest” in ensuring that consevative voices are silenced, that over rides the words in the constitution.
Just like the “substantial governmental interest” in ensuring that there was an appearance of fairness overrode the constitutions very clear words regarding political speech. (note, they are more interested in the appearance of fairness, then actual fairness.)
MarkTheGreat on November 6, 2008 at 12:21 PM
That’ll happen to, no worries. Don’t think they’ll spend these first 100 days or so not pissing off the conservatives.
I can’t help if you don’t believe it’s top of the list. But it is. Get ready to fight it, or be surprised when it comes. You’re choice.
lorien1973 on November 6, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Walter Cronkite is a criminal for his actions ON-AIR during a war.
marklmail on November 6, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Many of them didn’t maintain their manners and dignity when they were prisoners in German pow camps. Instead, they agreed to man the death camps at: Sobibor, Treblini, Belzez, Majadanak, etc., where they were even ruder.
Blake on November 6, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Treblini = Treblinki
Blake on November 6, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Glad Al Gore invented the internet!
rightwingmom on November 6, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I would like to see some fairness on TV. I mean, why can’t Wiley Coyote win? Or the Leprechaun get to eat the those darn charms?
I agree. It’s just not fair.
BobMbx on November 6, 2008 at 12:27 PM
I want to know who is going to decide what makes a program “balanced.” Personal anecdote: I count several Clintonistas among my friends (what can I say, I am a tolerant sort of person ;o)). They went ballistic this spring over the treatment the Clintons were getting in the press. I tended to agree, but for me, it was kind of striking because from my POV, they had always been media darlings in the past and now it was like they had turned on them – pretty viciously at times – all in service to their unbridled worship of The One. My friends, on the other hand, insisted the media has ALWAYS been unfair to the Clintons and this was just part and parcel of their bias against them. In the interests of maintaining our friendship, I just let that one slide . . . but it begs an interesting question: If everyone sees things differently, colored through the lens of their own biases and experiences, who is going see things as they really are?
It’s a slippery slope, folks. Expect Pelosi to be heading up the Western hemisphere bureau of Pravda if they can revive this thing. Other than seeing my 401(k) get gobbled up in their spread the wealth campaign, the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine being reinstated terrifies me more than anything else that might happen in the next 2-4 years.
NoLeftTurn on November 6, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Oh please. I am although upset that McCain lost. And I was one of his suporters before the primaries but I refuse to see the future so bleak and truly believe that the whole purpose of the democrats right now is to silence talk show radio. I am with Ed on this. Plus I must repeat it maybe you can understand it better:how effective was talk radio in stoping Obama? Not so much. So why on Earth should they silence a media that is no danger for them? Are there people that are going to plead for it? Sure? Are they going o prevail? I am not so sure.
clemycali on November 6, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I can’t remember where I read, that the libs wanted to take control of the internet….and simply nationalizing “everything” that would hold a format for political views, is probably in the forecast.
Sorry…bad memory here, but one night on O’Reilly a month, or so ago, he had a guest on, that espoused to Obama being a socialist, and O’Reilly assured them, Obama was NOT a socialist. I kind of took some comfort in that, but still knew deep down, he is.
Then last night, while talking to Rove, he spoke up about Obama being a socialist. So when did his views turn? First he was so sure Obama wasn’t, now he’s worried that he is?
O’Reilly should take a lesson from the millions out here, that knew it all along. Juan Williams too. I like Juan, but I think he’s either hiding the fact, or he’s to unwilling to believe it’s true.
capejasmine on November 6, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Very few people were affected by “don’t ask, don’t tell”.
People will be reminded of the existence of the new Fairness Doctrine, every time they try to tune in Rush, or Hannity, or Boortz, and can’t find them.
MarkTheGreat on November 6, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I agree with you completely. Why isn’t there any news about what will be done to investigate allegations of widespread voter fraud? Is this going to just be swept under the rug in the name of “moving forward”? This is a deadly serious matter that if not addressed vigorously will comprise at least as big a threat to our system of government as any terrorist attack. Left unchecked, it will certainly recur in future elections. The RNC needs to zealously defend the integrity of our voting process if the GOP is to survive.
In GA, I heard a broadcast this morning that turnout was at 77% of registered voters, which is said to be lower than the GA turnout for the 2004 election. This surprised me because I saw very heavy turnout for early voting here, certainly surpassing anything I saw since I moved here in 1997.
OneVision on November 6, 2008 at 12:33 PM
That poor rabbit has been trying to get a bowl of Trix for something like 40 years now. The inhumanity of it.
MarkTheGreat on November 6, 2008 at 12:34 PM
And Bugs must get shot sometime
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »