Obama administration no longer issuing denials on Fairness Doctrine
posted at 12:00 pm on February 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Remember when the Left laughed at conservatives’ concerns over the Fairness Doctrine? Barack Obama already said he opposed the reimposition of the FCC rule, they said. After all, Obama’s campaign gave this definitive statement in June 2008:
“Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” said press secretary Michael Ortiz in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.
“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” said Ortiz.
As our friend Jim Geraghty reminds us, all of Barack Obama’s statements come with an expiration date. Today, Chris Wallace interviewed David Axelrod and asked him directly about the Fairness Doctrine — and suddenly the White House adviser got a lot less definitive:
WALLACE: Will you rule out reimposing the Fairness Doctrine?
AXELROD: I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, to, and the president, to discuss. So I don’t have an answer for you now.
That’s hardly a denial, as Politico’s Michael Calderone notes:
Lester Kinsolving, the conservative radio host, has twice asked Robert Gibbs about it in the briefing room, and each time, the press secretary didn’t reveal the administration’s position.
Last week, I reached out to press office staffers in order to find out if the administration’s position is the same as in June, and have not yet received a response.
If Obama’s position on the Fairness Doctrine is the same as during the campaign — and I have no reason to believe it isn’t — stating such clearly would quickly silence a lot of conservative critics who assume the Democratic president is going to try and reinstate the defunct policy. Otherwise, the Fairness Doctrine chatter on the airwaves isn’t likely to die down.
It’s an easy question. Does this administration believe in free speech or government censorship? Their sudden inability to provide a clear answer, when they had no problem giving such assurances eight months ago, does not bode well for the answer.
I’d like to say I told you so to all of those who accused us of paranoia, but the window on that ability to do so on the airwaves looks like it’s about to expire — like all of Obama’s campaign promises.
The American media should be ashamed of themselves on this issue. They pose as the defenders of the First Amendment and free speech. Why are Chris Wallace and Michael Calderone the only MSM people pursuing this?
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 3 ... 5 Next »
Control the message…control the people. Simple as that.
coldwarrior on February 15, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Meanwhile via Rasmussen
Most americans dont want fairness doctrine but believe democrats will force it anyway.
William Amos on February 15, 2009 at 12:03 PM
They’re going to do “something”. They didn’t get all this power not to use it. And by “they” I mean either the White House or Congress or possibly the FCC now that it’s controlled by Democrats.
It won’t be another “fairness doctrine” but it will be something along the lines of “community diversity” or “diverse voices” that will require, under heavy penalty, stations to broadcast “diverse” viewpoints.
Yeah, Fairness Doctrine by another name enacted by stealth (see, for example, the welfare changes made in the stimulus bill).
SteveMG on February 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Just like they did with the pork spending bill. >>:(
mindhacker on February 15, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Would it be shot down by the SCOTUS or are they going to wait until they get their appointments on the court?
PaKeystoner on February 15, 2009 at 12:09 PM
There will be such a hell storm if they attempt this that they will forever regret it. Conservative talk radio actually reduces the anger of people because it is a place to vent. Bottle that up and it is going to explode in ways none of them ever fathomed.
JonRoss on February 15, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Between the
FairnessCensorship Doctrine and the beefed-up hate crimes legislation the U.N. wants (witness the persecution of Geert Wilders), say so long to free speech.Free Speech for Useful Idiots and Dhimmis only.
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Stalinism 101:
petefrt on February 15, 2009 at 12:10 PM
I’d be very surprised if Obama signed the Fairness Doctrine. You know Axelrod has more than one audience here. His non-denial might cause conservatives to shake in their boots, and it also might be throwing a bone to those of us on the left who think the Fairness Doctrine isn’t such a bad thing. I’ve yet to hear an argument for why the privatization of radio is a constitutional free speech matter. But regardless, it’s a toxic political issue at a time when the President needs high approval ratings as he pushes through TARP II and Stimulus II and eventually TARP III. For expediency alone I doubt he’ll push it. But do continue to quake and be super paranoid and whip up the base.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 15, 2009 at 12:12 PM
They would rather betray the fundamental right of their profession than betray their Idol.
sherry on February 15, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Exactly. They’re calling it “Localism”
petefrt on February 15, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Osama Obama believes only in himself, and is in favor of any measure that will consolidate his power.
He is, in simple terms, a thug.
With his paranoiac sense of self-entitlement and cadre of people in congress who see themselves as helping the have-nots (in this case, the lib radio babblers who have never had their day in the sun thanks to economic realities and sheer lack of talent) and promoting affirmative action (what better example of that than Obama’s election?), it is a foregone conclusion that we will soon have radio censorship. The ‘net will be next.
Obama doesn’t have to worry about TV and newspapers, though. He has a lock on them already.
MrScribbler on February 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Now that we live under a socialistic, totalitarian regime I guess we might as well be treated as such. A little more than half of the dumb-ass people in this country have caused us to lose our freedom and liberty and it will be extremely painful to get them back.
rplat on February 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Of course, it’s so much easier to restrict ideas once you’ve confiscated the guns.
Watch out.
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM
You mean like what Michael Savage has been doing??
AprilOrit on February 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM
BusHitler out.
ObamaStalin in.
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Once again George W. Bush and the evil Rethuglicans want to stamp out any form of dissent from their vile ways.
Oh, what’s that, Dear Leader wants this? Well then, we need community owned and operated radio and we need to get rid of hate radio.
/sarc
rbj on February 15, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Well, let’s just say that they’re playing with fire. Arms.
TexasJew on February 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM
That’s odd. Savage comes on a local radio station and I turn the dial when his show comes on.
I guess his powers of control aren’t absolute?
SteveMG on February 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Just whom is Savage controlling? I can’t even get a decent radio signal for his show. Half the time I hear static.
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Huh? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
You don’t, but I’m interested to know if you’re aware of this.
progressoverpeace on February 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Even with a place to vent, there may still be mobs with torches and pitchforks storming D.C. before it’s all over.
TugboatPhil on February 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM
“This idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “But I think we’ve got so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community, throughout the world, that we’re going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes. To me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. I’m very much afraid any program to salvage the banks is going to require the government… I would not take off the idea of nationalizing the banks.”
The remark prompted a bewildered smile of sorts from fellow panelist Maxine Waters (D-CA) who said, to no one in particular, “We have come a long way.”
Heart break.
getalife on February 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM
I want this administration to push this thing all day long. It verifies how weak and shallow Obama is at his core. The republicans need to make the argument that if he can’t stand dissent from his fellow Americans, what’s he going to do when tyrants and other world leaders disagree? Cry?
sherry on February 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Obamateur never had a problem giving the answer he thought would best serve his objective – getting elected – during the campaign. I frankly think that it is naive think he feels any compulsion at all to abide by his campaign positions (which he himself has dismissed as so much ‘campaign rhetoric’).
The porkulus bill was about consolidating democratic power in America, and the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is another step in that direction.
ProfessorMiao on February 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Let them try, and let it energize opposition for the 2010 mid-term elections.
Mark30339 on February 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM
getalife on February 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM
You are posting this on the wrong thread.
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM
So everything the 0ne said was just a bunch of lies, oh except for what he said to Joe the plumber? Just words eh 0bama?
4shoes on February 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I guess they’ll start using those concentration camps I hear they are building on fed sites. C”mon 2010. Hurry.
johnnyU on February 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Hmm I wonder what that day by day cartoon was really speaking about. Perhaps he wonders if we will realy raise arms.
The idea of it sounds preposterous though if there is something I’ve learned in my life is that nothing can ever be off the table when it comes to options.
I can’t speak for the rest of you but this totalitarian viewpoint that the left is taking with their power grab is not something I’m going to live under if I have the ability to do something about it.
I wonder if this will come right after the imposition of the HR-45 bill?
Or before?
theguardianii on February 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Don’t worry , you Axelturfs will get an exemption.
the_nile on February 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM
We have traveled so are down the road to serfdom that we won’t be coming back without something drastic happening. It is coming though. Without a doubt, the die has been cast.
It is quite a heartbreaking shame too because our founding documents clearly have laid out the legitimate function of government. Those documents have been long been disregarded in favor of what we are experiencing now.
I shall simply continue to prepare to fight my way to Galt’s Gulch when the time comes.
King of the Britons on February 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM
In fact, he will get to make every other post. Sigh.
genso on February 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM
We are entering the era of Big Brutha.
Can I say that?
Probably not. Let me amend.
We are entering the era of Big Boma.
There. Fixed it.
See you all at the re-education compound real soon!
Bruno Strozek on February 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Why is the Obama administration even discussing this issue? The constitutionality of free speech is so established a right in our society that anyone who entertains the notion of censorship in any form should be automatically disqualified for any public office and forced to resign immediately. I can’t imagine this totalitarian idea passing a legal challenge in the Supreme Court, regardless of the reasoning behind it.
A crucifix submerged in urine is protected free speech, and the open debate of political ideas is not?
Our government exists to protect our rights. Someone needs to really speak some truth to power and say in no uncertain terms “Mr. Obama, you will not do this!”
BackwardsBoy on February 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Who cares, let him sign it . . . then every lover of freedom and liberty should simply ignore it and steal themselves for the fight ahead.
rplat on February 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM
If you are going to parrot talking points, at least understand that Savage is NOT a government controlled entity…yet, while the Obama FCC is, and the Pelosi/Reid Congress is…
Localism…Fairness Doctrine…diversity outreach…censorship by any other name is still government controlled censorship.
How will the USSC act on this? With the exception of Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts…the rest, citing penumbras and whatever the unicorns said, will embrace it….its in the name of fairness, in the name of localism, in the name of diversity, of course…
coldwarrior on February 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Axelrod: The winner of the “Adolf Hitler Look-a-like” contest.
perroviejo on February 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Don’t be scared of different opinions.
They will not hurt you unless you think it hurts to think.
I read both sides then form an opinion.
It does not hurt at all.
Painless.
getalife on February 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM
I’d be very surprised if Obama signed the Fairness Doctrine
I’d be very surprised if he did not sign the “..media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets” doctrine. wouldn’t that be oh, so fair ?
runner on February 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM
JonRoss,
exactly, free speech is more then a market place of ideas, its a way to vent and vest people in the system, take that way at the nations peril.
rob verdi on February 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM
I never thought I’d be living in a Banana Republic. Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez seem to be birds of a feather.
TooTall on February 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Has there ever been a president in history tell this many lies in his first month in office? The Fairness Doctrine is Facist censorship. The left owns the national telvision broadcasters and the major newspapers. Without radio, they can suppress all opposition. Obama was spawned in the most corrupt political environment in the world. Why should his continuous lies surprise us?
volsense on February 15, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Dear Gawd…
Does this mean that Hot Air will have to hire Anti-MB4s, Anti-Bishops, and Anti-Canopfors?
We need a bailout cause finding an Anti-Limerick is going to be expensive.
Limerick on February 15, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Tell that to Obama.
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Hey, most of the nationally syndicated talk radio folks I heard during the fall said that McCain didn’t deserve their listener’s votes…or said Obama’s not much worse, etc.
They made their beds, now they can lie in them.
funky chicken on February 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I think getalife has applied for that position.
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Well, I just read that and my head started pounding.
This isn’t about “both sides”. No one seriously believes that “both sides” are somehow shut out in America. We have liberal views expressed in numerous outlets.
This is about requiring radio stations to broadcast views by people that no one wants to listen to.
If radio stations will be mandated to give equal (or fair) dissemination of views – even if the views are not interesting or are not given in an interesting way – they lose ratings and money.
Eventually, in order to stay in business, they’ll jettison all opinion shows.
SteveMG on February 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Ha , Obama hasn’t based his political retoric on Bush hate … oh wait.
the_nile on February 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Corrupt Chicago politics has gone national.
ex-Democrat on February 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Voting and expecting the election to be fair is a pipe dream.
With the massive fraud the Obama campaign was able to orchestrate elections are a thing of the past.
Congress must be cleaned out … physically. Sure some of us won’t make it past the initial group of Capitol security, but the rest will. The ones that make it through can have the pleasure of dragging the treasonous dems and repubs down the steps of Congress. There’s only a handful of Congressmen and Senators that deserve to stay.
darwin on February 15, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I’m sorry but the garbage that comes out of Michael Savage’s mouth is like on big one air personal atack against everyone, including Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.
AprilOrit on February 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I was so hoping Obama’s would be a new kind of fascism.
Nope, he’s dragging out the same old heavy handed tactics his predecessors tried.
I have concluded that every generation needs to learn afresh the lesson that Obama and his ilk are apparently dead set on teaching. This is a tragedy unfolding.
jeff_from_mpls on February 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Have you considered turning the channel? May I suggest NPR?
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM
What ever happened to…
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM
I find it fascinating that the obamatrons and astroturfers think themselves exempt from the fascist dhimms in power.
Obama has lied about every promise to the moonbats: hey, pull those troops OUT Barry! Take that campaign finance money! Kill those rendition programs! Close GITMO….not! No more torture! (unless we need to)!
ROFL…..silly moonbats…start a revolution: GET A JOB!
ex-Democrat on February 15, 2009 at 12:40 PM
It’s been replaced with “I won”.
sherry on February 15, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Why should Bambi and his admin. push this so-called “fairness” along when he can have his toadies (and a gleeful DeathtoAll thatisconservitive puke astroturfer shill), do it for him as he looks the other way.
Oh…it’s coming alright folks.
Not Over.
1GooDDaDDy on February 15, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Well I don’t know about minority ownership, but monopolies are actually bad. Your side is pro-monopoly?
DeathToMediaHacks on February 15, 2009 at 12:40 PM
We’re not retreating, just advancing in the opposite direction. (sorry for ripping off whoever said it first)
Limerick on February 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM
These people have a name… The are the UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. They fight and die to protect our way of life and the values that we stand for, even if someone chooses to disrespect their sacrifice and burn the flag.
kriscoleman on February 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM
I have to say though that the “fairness doctrine” as originally conceived is past its prime, those who are interested in alternatives from right wing talk radio have access to NPR and the radio.
The bigger problem is what media conglomerates have done to our FM music stations. I would love a world where local DJs can choose great music that aren’t 100% controlled by record companies. I love that damn “put a ring on it song.” but if I hear it one more time I will scream. It sucks having to hunt for a decent classical/jazz/old school soul station and even those have very limited tracklists. Greast independent music stations are what I really miss. I don’t think the news component is that big of an issue.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Tune out the blowhards like rush and listen to music to sooth your souls.
Perhaps that will make you less angry and happier people.
getalife on February 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Look, no one seriously believes that if liberals dominated talk radio that this issue would be raised.
The left dominates academia, which is mostly funded by government/public dollars.
Does anyone hear the Left say, “Y’know, we need more conservative views in our publicly-funded universities. Liberals dominate the conversation too much and our tax dollars need to be more equitably distributed.”?
SteveMG on February 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM
so far it looks like your side is . let me introduce you to the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA) of 2005 ( I know socialist have a rather short-term memory, so I do not expect you and your side to remember) : “The Media Ownership Reform Act seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America’s media system by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market. The bill also reinstates the Fairness Doctrine to protect fairness and accuracy in journalism.”
runner on February 15, 2009 at 12:44 PM
If you had your way, there wouldn’t be these options because the onerous requirments by government would shot down political talk radio.
Diversity for me but not for thee.
SteveMG on February 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM
I wish that I lived in America, rather than this large country immediately south of Canada full of spineless whiners.
Isn’t anyone here cocking an eyebrow at the use of the term “impose”? Impose?
If the FCC (or the Obama Reich) attempt any such ‘imposition’, the correct response should be for all affected broadcast media to tell them to F off and ignore the ‘rule’. The FCC cannot magically turn off ‘the airwaves’. Keep broadcasting. Screw the FCC ‘licenses’.
This should also be the response from the people regarding the ’stimulus’….
LimeyGeek on February 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM
I see a few of our resident trolls have reappeared today to defend the One, but mysteriously forgot to check into this thread to give us their thoughts.
Gotta love those selective astro-turfers on a Sunday morning.
Knucklehead on February 15, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Yes, and God bless them one and all. But I used to hear this phrase from civilians too, even some liberal ones. Now it’s all about silencing opposing opinion.
I also worry about those good men and women in uniform being able to fulfill this promise, considering who their Commander-in-Chief is.
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM
For someone whose side “won” the election, you’re a spiteful little bastard.
Cheer up!
jeff_from_mpls on February 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Knucklehead on February 15, 2009 at 12:46 PM
They are always conspicuously absent from such threads.
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM
I know this opinion won’t be popular here – but I think the White House is playing us like a fiddle on this. The more they can keep conservatives in a frenzy about shutting down talk radio, the more distracted we are from criticism of the naked fascist power grab that is coming. So we won’t get anything definitive for months and months, websites like this one will feature post after post with thousands of comments protesting – and meanwhile the national health care bill and bank nationalization bill and soak-the-upper-middle-class tax bills will sail through Congress.
Eye on the ball, people.
rockmom on February 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM
You think the Democrats are concerned about your attempts to find a jazz radio station? The news component may not be a large issue to you, but that is the issue that Democrats want to address, and for the very reason’s conservatives fear.
DFCtomm on February 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Mark Levin is itching for this fight. BRING IT ON!
ctmom on February 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM
That is EXACTLY what they want…an excuse to “police” the masses. It`s becoming clearer by the day (hour?) that this will probably NOT end well.
NY Conservative on February 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM
The simple fact is that the communists won. Much to their credit so far it is being handled as a bloodless transition but in my opinion it will last only as long as the useful idiots remain idiots.
jmarcure on February 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM
getalife:
I am not afraid of different opinions. I am not the one who is talking about controlling speech, your cult leader Obama is.
The truth is: Who will listen to the liberals on talk radio anyway? What are they going to do, fine us if we do not turn on Air America?
On TV, some of the most successful political humor, is left of center. Should the Comedy Network be forced to put on conservative humor so that there will be a diversity of point of view?
Why not let the market decide the issue?
Terrye on February 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Chesty Puller USMC
William Amos on February 15, 2009 at 12:56 PM
I see your point momma, but I believe that most conservatives can chew bubblegum and walk at the same time.
Our lefty “friends” have a hard time standing, let alone walking. (Too drunk or high on the “Ones” words to think for themselves).
Not Over.
1GooDDaDDy on February 15, 2009 at 12:58 PM
This is why liberal talk radio doesn’t succeed. Most liberals I know do not have the mental stamina to listen to a political discussion of any length. They would rather get their political ideas feed to them in lame-ass songs by the likes of Rage Against the Machine.
Rally ’round the family with a pocket full of shells.
Soothing indead./
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 12:58 PM
indead = indeed.
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 12:58 PM
but monopolies are actually bad. Your side is pro-monopoly?
DeathToMediaHacks on February 15, 2009 at 12:40 PM
You don’t know what a monopoly is.
So why are you commenting?
artist on February 15, 2009 at 1:00 PM
What they really need is to be able to pin a terrorist act on some right wing religious group to get “boots on the ground” which will make all of the small arms people have useless. Nothing will convert the military or police force over to side of BO faster then being sniped at by their fellow citizens. I expect it to happen within the next two years because they will want to complete the transition before any possibility of loosing seats in 2010.
jmarcure on February 15, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Come on, Ed. Don’t be so naive. We all know the answer to this. Because the mass media is made up of Leftists and Leftists are *NOT* defenders of the First Amendment and free speech. They are defenders only of speech with which they agree. And their goal is not to win in the marketplace of ideas, but to shut down their opposition.
That has been obvious for a long time. And Obama believes in this as well. He is not for debate of ideas, he is for shutting down/smearing/destroying the opposition. The “Fairness” Doctrine will be implemented, to the ovations of the mass media. Because they will then know that they will have ultimate power as the only medium of information/propaganda dissemination. That is the goal.
Why anyone is naive enough to think the mass media is anything less than the enemy of America is beyond me. Wake the hell up. The mass media has been the enemy for the past 8 years, at least. It is far past time people realized that.
Michael in MI on February 15, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Buy an i-Pod.
Disturb the Universe on February 15, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Thanks!
Limerick on February 15, 2009 at 1:02 PM
We’ll see, I think that rockmom has the right idea. The fairness doctrine is part of a strategy that Obama and the white house have been executing from the moment he called out Rush Limbaugh. I recall predicting that, more and more, the white house would try and drive the GOP base into the extremist arms of the Limbaugh/Hannity/Levin crowd and that is totally happening. Levin is going to blow a fracking stack about the fairness doctrine all day, Limbaugh will too. They’re already calling for the nuking of Specter, Collins and Snow. They already are applauding the most partisan activity of the house GOP for opposing the stimulus even as polls indicate that the larger public perceives Obama as reaching out and the GOP being bitter partisans. It really IS Alinsky combined with some Sun Tzu and it’s pretty brilliant.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 15, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Upon leaving Moscow a few years ago at the end of a business trip my interpreter, the wife of a highly placed foreign ministry official, stopped me with tears in her eyes as I was about to reach the gate to board and said, “You have wonderful country. Don’t let them change it”. She and her husband had been posted in the Embassy of the Soviet Union in Washington. I’ve often though about her remark with a certain bemused detachment. Now I fully understand it. I’m sorry, Nadia.
Mason on February 15, 2009 at 1:04 PM
No one’s forced to listen to Savage. I don’t; I don’t like the guy. I don’t want to force him off the air, though. I don’t like Olbermann either. I don’t hear many conservatives demanding that Olbermann be forced off the air or otherwise censored. We generally use Olbermann’s idiocy in itself as a means of attacking him. I wonder why the left can’t do the same for the conservative commentators they’ve been demonizing on the cheap for years. I suspect it’s because they know they can’t win a reasoned argument.
ddrintn on February 15, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Yep, another example of the corporate-controlled media manipulating the public in the service of the conservatives again, right?
You not only move the goaline during an argument, you change sports.
SteveMG on February 15, 2009 at 1:07 PM
What, lefties cant stand that right wing radio shows point out the fact that a trillion dollar bill wasnt read because they did not have time to read it.
Drop dead.
You have a majority on the tube since you can add special effects and whatnot so as to keep your short attention spans glued.
unfortunately for the commies when the medium is just audio their message not only falls flat but is shown for the barren of idea drivel becomes quite redundant which cant survive without us indirectly paying for it.
Broke ass intellect is a monopoly of the left.
Sonosam on February 15, 2009 at 1:08 PM
rockmom on February 15, 2009 at 1:10 PM
How are Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin “extremists”? And why would Obama “drive the GOP base” into their “extremist” arms if the GOP base wasn’t there to begin with? You don’t quite understand what these conservative commentators are about. They are mirrors more than dictators. For the past 20 years, they have given conservatives the feeling that in a country with a liberal-saturated MSM, their views are not “extreme”.
ddrintn on February 15, 2009 at 1:11 PM
I honestly think there are larger issues in terms of our media than Savage v. Olby, both being useless hacks of the first order. We should, as a people, be concerned with the kinds of messages our citizens get which educate them about the political process. Nothing in the “news” media, with every few exceptions, eduations people about the issues. It educates them on how to spin and be fake or how to be an explosive hot head who thinks rational discussion is pussified. It’s a false choice, there should be other options.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 15, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Reality consist of recognizing that POTUS Obama has broken or ignored every single campaign promise that he made in his two years in that mode. Every single one.
Accepting the fact that Obama is an acomplished and unrepentent liar is not paranoia but is, instead, the first step toward predicting the future.
For you to suggest paranoia, instead of reality, as the driving force in this discussion is disingenious, but predictable.
Yoop on February 15, 2009 at 1:12 PM
They are NOT about tolerance of other ideas. They do not want ANY outlet for conservative ideas. This is not about winning the argument, it is about ELIMINATING the argument by simply crushing and demoralizing the opposition.
They are fascists.
rockmom on February 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM
You see, it’s funny that I rarely see Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews described as “extremists”. Why is that?
ddrintn on February 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM
You mean like the hell storm over the porkulus bill? How did that work out for the conservative side? Face man, it’s over. The libs now control all levels of power, the media and soon the airwaves.
This country is Venezuela.
angryed on February 15, 2009 at 1:14 PM
If the Democrats attempt to do anything with the Fairness Doctrine, it will come back to haunt them like the FDR’s court packing or even the still existing insane hatred by parts of the right-wing base for the Gang of 14 efforts to preserve the filibuster. I used the word “insane” because given what happening now the last thing in the world any person to the right–fanatic or moderate–wants is for the current Congress to get to redefine the filibuster anyway they feel like. I keep coming back to this Gang of 14 issue, because the chance of America having a sane government is keeping the filibuster strong.
Hubris reaps its consequences.
thuja on February 15, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Hack:
Why do you call Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin extremist? Are you saying that Obama,Reid and Pelosi are the other extreme? If so, what is wrong with that. Why is one extreme worse than the other?
Vince on February 15, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 Next »