Oh my: Obama FCC nominee says he doesn’t support the Fairness Doctrine
posted at 9:40 pm on June 16, 2009 by Allahpundit
Worth posting whether he’s telling the truth or he’s lying. If the former, it’s cause for a collective sigh of relief. If the latter, we should flag it now so that we’ll have something handy later to throw in The One’s face when the march towards Fairness begins. Although as I’ve said before, given how slanted most media are to the left, I wonder if Fairness wouldn’t mean a net gain for conservative voices in terms of airtime.
I notice that he doesn’t specifically address Hutchison’s reference to localism. Hmmm. Exit question: If the Dems are right that Rush, Sean et al. are electoral poison for the GOP because they alienate centrists, why on earth would they want to limit their exposure by reinstituting Fairness?
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
Why take chances if you don’t have to? Just find a way to get rid of them.
Cindy Munford on June 16, 2009 at 9:42 PM
And under the bus he goes.
TheQuestion on June 16, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Does anything the dems do make sense????
clinker46 on June 16, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Jeesh! He looks like he is 15.
Blake on June 16, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Wasn’t this guy in The Birdcage?
NTTATWWT
burnitup on June 16, 2009 at 9:46 PM
I think somebody will have an e-mail waiting in the inbox in the morning. Or not, if he’s just lying. But I can’t believe an Obama nominee would lie.
AUINSC on June 16, 2009 at 9:46 PM
I think he pretty much covered it with saying the FCC shouldn’t be censoring speech based on political opinion. Hutchinson also said that he apparently told her privately that he opposes the Fairness Doctrine or policies like it.
amerpundit on June 16, 2009 at 9:46 PM
He’s lying. He’s just going to do a work around. There will be hell to pay. You think what is going on in Iran is bad, just let him try it.
suzyk on June 16, 2009 at 9:47 PM
They are going to take out talk radio a different way.
True_King on June 16, 2009 at 9:47 PM
How’s that possible AP. Every single lib out there believes they are mainstream and not ‘liberal.’ You should read Bernie Goldberg’s book Bias in the Mainstream Media if you actually think conservatives would get more airtime.
The only way conservatives would get more airtime is if they thought like Maggie Mac.
Lance Murdock on June 16, 2009 at 9:47 PM
I’d be inclined to take to at his word and then hold him to it. He sounds better than we could possibly expect in this administration.
Star20 on June 16, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Well,since ABC is going to be camping out in the
White House,now what is this fairness doctrine that
the Lefts speaks of!!
canopfor on June 16, 2009 at 9:54 PM
suzyk on June 16, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Agree on all points.
artist on June 16, 2009 at 9:55 PM
No way would Conservatives get “fairness”, the libs in government bureaucracies would judge the MSM as fair and middle of the road and Rush, Hannity Fox et al as right wing.
echosyst on June 16, 2009 at 9:56 PM
I feel old.
txag92 on June 16, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Good lord he worked on the Havahd Law Review with BO, of course he wouldn’t say whatever he needed to, to get what he wants…
MarkT on June 16, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Brilliant question, AP.
blink on June 16, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Of the many ginned-up political fears perpetuated by the Internet, the Fairness Doctrine may be the one I understand the least. I mean, at least the “gonna take your guns” and “gonna redistribute your wealth” memes are based on actual policies and statements. Does anyone have a good reason why the FD would be implemented? Besides a few Senators saying it’s a good idea, is there any evidence that the administration feels like this is a worthwhile issue to fight for at all? Or do we just feel in our guts that it’s gonna happen and we need to be on constant vigilance?
Enlighten me. Please.
Siobhan on June 16, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Good lord he worked on the Havahd Law Review with BO, of course he wouldn’t say whatever he needed to, to get what he wants…
MarkT on June 16, 2009 at 9:57 PM
If you are saying this guy is in his 40s, I need to make an appointment with Nancy’s botox specialist, STAT.
txag92 on June 16, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Which is how the government will actually try to wrest control of the airwaves. They’ve learned that instituting some all-encompassing edict like the Fairness Doctrine would be political suicide.
holygoat on June 16, 2009 at 10:02 PM
It is cause for concern because it has been bandied about since the Democrat Party took control and has support from both the House and Senate majority leaders. Specifically politicians want to use it to squelch dissent, or in smaller words they want to take away free speach.
Rode Werk on June 16, 2009 at 10:03 PM
there will never be a fairness doctrine, it’s way more involved than just talk radio, tv,newspapers,magazines,internet it all will turn in to a sh*t sandwich that the left would have to eat……they know this.
SHARPTOOTH on June 16, 2009 at 10:04 PM
The liberal definition of “fairness” will morphe into the same animal with a different name. They have to silence Conservative voices to continue “remaking America”.
Our liberties are disappearing everyday under this regime. We can’t trust the words of this BHO tool.
MalindaH on June 16, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Head fake.
Is anyone sensing a pattern here??
Itchee Dryback on June 16, 2009 at 10:08 PM
If anyone hasn’t noticed yet…………
……… when anyone associated with King Tut says something that they will not do, that is exactly the course of action that they have planned.
Seven Percent Solution on June 16, 2009 at 10:09 PM
As I understand it, the Fairness Doctrine is no longer considered by the left as viable for fear the courts won’t uphold it. As Allah mentioned, localism is becoming the more popular option to silence the large national shows like Rush and Hannity. So, in this case, the FD is a red herring. The silence on localism is the tipoff. If he uses TurboTax, he’s in.
ROCnPhilly on June 16, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Of course he doesn’t support any type of ‘Fairness Doctrine’.
He supports what Obama wants…. Getting rid of any opposition in any manner needed to achieve the objective of total control.
Bring it on you Fascist bastages. I “hope” you’ll enjoy the “change” we’re gonna bring about when you actually try to silence us.
E T Cartman on June 16, 2009 at 10:12 PM
I doubt they would revisit the Fairness Doctrine. That’s just a bit too much red meat for them to hand conservatives.
On the other hand, if they get rid of some of those stupid post-Janet Jackson obscenity rules, I would be more than happy.
YYZ on June 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM
ROCnPhilly on June 16, 2009 at 10:12 PM
what’s go’in on brudda man.
SHARPTOOTH on June 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM
You broke my heart, Fredo.
Good Lt on June 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Meaningless. Everyone knows talk radio is being handled by DHS now.
Ronnie on June 16, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Don’t you believe it AP.
crazedarmenian on June 16, 2009 at 10:19 PM
I doubt they would revisit the Fairness Doctrine. That’s just a bit too much red meat for them to hand conservatives.
On the other hand, if they get rid of some of those stupid post-Janet Jackson obscenity rules, I would be more than happy.
YYZ on June 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM
and where do you fit in with this red meat?
SHARPTOOTH on June 16, 2009 at 10:19 PM
What makes you think the rules would apply to liberals?
malclave on June 16, 2009 at 10:23 PM
He has ONE HOUR to resign or be fired.
TN Mom on June 16, 2009 at 10:25 PM
I prefer mine medium rare.
YYZ on June 16, 2009 at 10:26 PM
ACORN is going to enforce localism, don’t you know?
Dhuka on June 16, 2009 at 10:26 PM
The Party of Up To No Good is probably eh, up to no good. Brace yourselves. Its a trap.
TN Mom on June 16, 2009 at 10:27 PM
I prefer mine medium rare.
YYZ on June 16, 2009 at 10:26 PM
figures
SHARPTOOTH on June 16, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Now, the Airnessfay Octrineday, on the other hand…
Jim Treacher on June 16, 2009 at 10:31 PM
But like everything else bureaucratic, corruption would ensue and it would not be so “Fair.”
Upstater85 on June 16, 2009 at 10:37 PM
The way I understand FD and localism is that it only applies to radio. And then, only stations/programs that are more specifically political commentary. That leaves the bulk of FM stations/programs out of the equation. It’s safe to say that conservative airtime is the much larger percentage of AM political commentary. Print media and TV media would not be susceptible to this.
anuts on June 16, 2009 at 10:54 PM
I would imagine that sometimes jealously transcends politics.
Scopper on June 16, 2009 at 10:56 PM
They’re not going to call it the Fairness Doctrine. They will call it progress.
HornetSting on June 16, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Ask Bill Press and numerous other whiny, no-audience lib talk show hosts.
ddrintn on June 16, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Something like the Communications Diversity Act.
ddrintn on June 16, 2009 at 11:00 PM
There will be no FD implemented because they are going to tax the radio stations to death, and because of the feds owning the banks, they will control the destiny of the stations.
Rush talked about this a week ago I think. It goes something like this, my local station has been advertising for us to call our Congressional members because of some weird new tax being instituted on them. This is actually going on now. Rush said that to raise the tax money, the stations will be forced to raise advertising rates and so forth. With the economy being the way it is currently there is much lower advertising revenue. Then the radio stations will go to a bank, and ask for a loan, or more money, and if the bank is controlled by the government they will deny the radio station the money. Presto! You have no more freely operated radio stations. And Rush added that the banks will also pick and choose which station is allowed to live or die.
Today Obama said he wanted to take over more power to determine which banks “might” be in bad shape to prevent future problems like we have had from the banks previously. As Rush said, Obama wants to run the banks so he can therefore rule over all business.
So, this guy does not need to believe in the FD. Based on the way Obama is moving, there will be no need.
freeus on June 16, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Next up to silence Rush and Fox. My money is on controlling the net.
freeus on June 16, 2009 at 11:16 PM
And the senator from NM….the land of retardment, Jeff Bingaman.
HornetSting on June 16, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Because an uninformed centrist is a liberal?
Yo!
ROCnPhilly on June 16, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Folks–relent on the Fairness Doctrine. For Pete’s sake, the deal is that the end result must be kept in mind. If the strategic objective is to “Silence Talk Radio” then the Dems are astute at operating under the there-is-more-than-one-way-to-skin-a-cat rule, the end result is that you remove its hide. Sure, he can say he’s against the Fairness Doctrine (so they won’t use that one) they’ll just get at the end result a different way. The position that needs to be outlined is that if the candidate believes in maintaining the ability of radio stations to have the freedom to air programs of their choosing without having onerous taxes crush programming and essentially achieve their end result. Questioning a candidate about the Fairness Doctrine is simply nearsighted.
ted c on June 16, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Let’s jump ahead to the next step…What kind of tax problem is lurking in his past?
gregbert on June 16, 2009 at 11:45 PM
lie, deflect, impose. It the formula for Obama tyranny…
God save us!
daesleeper on June 16, 2009 at 11:45 PM
I don’t see much happening either way until Obama’s approval ratings start going down, or if it looks as if the Dems will be slaughtered in next year’s elections.
ddrintn on June 16, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Not sure if I trust this man, guess we have to wait and see. I don’t buy it for one second.
sheebe on June 16, 2009 at 11:48 PM
And what prevents this from being like every other time someone in the Obama Admin says one thing during confirmation/election… and then goes on to do something completely different.
Maybe I’m being too cynical, but Obama keeps proving my instincts correct.
ExSubNuke on June 16, 2009 at 11:50 PM
His answer seemed somewhat off-the-cuff. I get the feeling we might have an idealist of the good kind on our hands.
More importantly, something sorely overlooked…
…who was that hot brunette who came in at 0:13? ENCORE!
MadisonConservative on June 16, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Doesn’t matter, serves at the pleasure of…
Speakup on June 17, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Well, he’s fired. Before he even starts.
conservnut on June 17, 2009 at 12:17 AM
..Later that day, after Peter Brady’s questioning, He threw a football into Kay Bailey Hutchisons nose and stopped her from being a teen model..
GoodBoy on June 17, 2009 at 12:19 AM
This is a concern because many of us remember when the Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land. Once a thing has been done, it’s a lot easier to do it a second time.
I think they’d LOVE to bring it back, but their trial baloon during the transition was shot down. With howitzers.
RegularJoe on June 17, 2009 at 12:41 AM
It is all about taxes and the control of the banks.
freeus on June 17, 2009 at 1:25 AM
Although as I’ve said before, given how slanted most media are to the left, I wonder if Fairness wouldn’t mean a net gain for conservative voices in terms of airtime.
But you’re forgetting who decides what’s “fair.” Namely, it would be the same people who make NPR so “balanced.”
daryl_herbert on June 17, 2009 at 1:51 AM
It won’t be about the ‘fairness doctrine’. It’ll be about ‘localism’. That’s how they will do it.
trigon on June 17, 2009 at 2:58 AM
I’m in radio (my user name will tip off those familiar with RF that I am in radio) and have paid very close attention to this.
Localism is simply a way to achieve the fairness doctrine while being able to dump the actual term.
It IS the fairness doctrine and then some.
rfburnhertz on June 17, 2009 at 4:04 AM
I don’t think the Fairness Doctrine could even work in this day and age. There are simply too many ways to disseminate information and opinion.
Terrye on June 17, 2009 at 6:57 AM
It is common knowledge you cannot be liberal and rational.
You know that Obama wants them gone, and what the tin-pot dictator wants he is going to try and get.
tarpon on June 17, 2009 at 7:43 AM
Good point! In fact, I’d say that’s the winning point. If Rush etc. were alienating GOP voters, they’d be getting bailouts, not political attacks.
petefrt on June 17, 2009 at 8:09 AM
The network news was slanted hard left during the last round of the fairness doctrine.
MarkTheGreat on June 17, 2009 at 8:10 AM
They hate us.
bluelightbrigade on June 17, 2009 at 8:10 AM
No, he didn’t directly address “localism”. But dollar to a donut says he’ll address it soon, when he announces he supports it.
petefrt on June 17, 2009 at 8:13 AM
No, because the far left will be “balanced” by the far-far left.
Anyone to the right of Maxine Waters will henceforth be “out of the mainstream” and “too fringe to matter”.
NoDonkey on June 17, 2009 at 8:15 AM
I missed that on Rush, but it sure adds up. If Obama controls lending practices, then he has life/death power over every business that depends on financing to survive. What a horrible thought.
petefrt on June 17, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Doesn’t make any difference if he is against the Fairness Doctrine. They will find sneaky ways around it to limit speech. There will be no bill in Congress. Don’t want to upset the peons.
BetseyRoss on June 17, 2009 at 8:38 AM
It’s only “Fair” if liberals agree with it, otherwise it’s “hate speech.”
Vic on June 17, 2009 at 8:46 AM
Obama’s playbook. These liars have perfected the art.
marklmail on June 17, 2009 at 9:12 AM
I’ve been addicted to talk radio since I was a kid, like ten or eleven. I remember back in the early eighties before Reagan (PBUH) lifted it, there was no limit to the leftist blather on the air. None.
My friends and I would target certain guests or hosts during the week for attack, and gang up on them with facts in hand to refute them and ruin their appearances. There were simply no conservative guests or hosts.
When the FD was lifted, everything changed. If it’s reimposed (by whatever means, under whatever color), we’ll go back to the way it was then. All libs, all the time.
Akzed on June 17, 2009 at 9:13 AM
So that means we can demand some heavy duty local preachers on NPR during the week. Not just Sunday but “fairness” every day. NPR isn’t local. I see opportunity here and scenarios they will regret.
seven on June 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM
In the mental map of a liberal’s brain the term Fair is equated with a circus, or fun rides, cotton candy, and popcorn, corn dogs, beer and fun, etc. and nothing more.
So Fairness Doctrine, is a government mandated circus.
MSGTAS on June 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Who says they are trying to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine? Who has come out as saying they’re pushing for it? This is a right-wing paranoid fantasy.
orange on June 17, 2009 at 11:38 AM
FCC better get on the stick and fine CBS $10 million for the Palin/child rape joke.
Jeff from WI on June 17, 2009 at 11:59 AM
They aren’t going to call it the “Fairness Docterine.” They are going to try and go a different route to achieve the same result. They are going to start a movement behind the scenes to start a “Fairness” in ownership. They are going to make a case for minorities to own radio stations and make it a community concern. If we can’t adapt to this line of attack, we are going to be caught with our pants down again.
lwssdd on June 17, 2009 at 12:21 PM
He doesn’t support the “fairness doctrine” does he support the same actions under a different name?
RJL on June 17, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Liberals are always crying over the only one news outlet they cant control.
Hell Democraps have tried everything they could to shut down fox news..
The liberals are WORSE than Hitlers SS divisions..
For they are taking a free nation and turning it into a communsit dictatorship..
Perhaps this is why the democraps wont speak out in support of the iranian dissidents
For in their hearts they really do support communists.
veteranoutrage on June 17, 2009 at 6:22 PM