THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE & government censorship

[Calabrio]

Fairness Doctrine

Despite the insistence of our friends here on the left that the Fairness Doctrine isn't being considered and something lover's of liberty shouldn't fear, the Democrat party is moving forward with the plans to implement it.

If the Fairness Doctrine were enforced right now, do you think they'd have passed the so-called "Stimulus" bill yet? Do you think any of the Obama appointees would have taken their names out of consideration? Is there any wonder why the political left wants to see this passed?

Source: Politico

Sen. Stabenow wants hearings on radio 'accountability'; talks fairness doctrine

This morning, radio host Bill Press brought up the recent closing of liberal station Obama 1260 when speaking with Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, and talked about whether there needs to be a balance to right-wing talk on the radio dial.

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.

Although Obama has been publicly opposed to reinstating the fairness doctrine, conservative radio has talked nonstop about the fear of it returning (or perhaps something like it with another name) while there's a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that Stabenow is married to Tom Athans, a liberal talk radio executive.

Listen to it here:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1155201977/bctid10237007001

 

[MonsterMark]

Please support the Broadcasters Freedom Act 2009....
Before Obama takes your right to free speech away.

http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=711

The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 was introduced yesterday into the House (H.R. 226) and Senate (S. 34) by Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), Chairman of the House Republican Conference, Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR), Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), Chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, and Senator John Thune (R-SD), Vice Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. The DeMint-Thune Senate bill has 24 co-sponsors, and the Pence-Walden bill in the House already has more than 100 co-sponsors.

 

[Calabrio]

Is anyone here in support of this "Fairness Doctrine?"
Foxpaws, now that the Democrats won in November, will you stop pretending that this isn't a credible issue to be concerned about? And will you now be expressing your opposition to such a thing?

 

[foxpaws]

Wrote them, called them... Got others to do so...
The fairness doctrine should remain dead and buried (I have stated this before on this site). No need to make martyrs of right wing radio pundits. They hoist themselves on their own petard plenty...

 

[04SCTLS]

But wouldn't the fairness doctrine compel MSNBC to run counter opinions to Olberman and Maddow.
Conservatives may have the radio advantage but the print and TV is all liberal except Fox.
The liberals could lose more than they gain in their attempt to shut up conservative talk radio.
Wouldn't this be good for conservatives and help get their message out more and better in the MSM?

 

[foxpaws]

Oh, yes Foss, you want to see a couple of uncashed checks from Air America Radio?

They are now Air America Media... still poor I believe.

Why does liberal radio fail? It always does. Franken's numbers were embarrassing next to Limbaugh. Air America declared bankruptcy, and I believe is barely holding on.

Could it be that the left doesn't need constant reassurance? I am not sure.

I think it is because the left all have Sirius or iPods.

But, I really do think the fairness doctrine is a bad, bad idea. There are plenty of media avenues for everyone to be heard. People will decide which survive, just like radio listeners decided liberal radio should probably die. All media is a numbers game.

 

[Calabrio]

But wouldn't the fairness doctrine compel MSNBC to run counter opinions to Olberman and Maddow....
Wouldn't this be good for conservatives and help get their message out more and better in the MSM?

Even if that were the case, I still would oppose it on principle.
Of course, history being the judge, the media wasn't any more "fair" prior to the repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine" in the 80s.

 

[Calabrio]

White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival
A White House spokesman tells FOXNews.com President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
FOXNews.com

Wednesday, February 18, 2009


President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine.

"I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC ... and the president to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now," Axelrod told FOX News Sunday over the weekend.

The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent Democratic senators have called for the policies to be reinstated. Conservative talk show hosts, who see the doctrine as an attempt to impose liberal viewpoints on their shows, largely oppose any move to bring it back.

 

[Calabrio]

foxpaws, you seem to be saying that you oppose the Fairness Doctrine because you perceive conservative media to be a liability, and that reinstating such a piece of legislation wouldn't be politically advantageous for the Democrats. Yet you never express any objection to the rule based on principle.

I don't want to presume to know you're position on this, nor do I want to put words in your mouth, so could you elaborate?

And the language coming from the White House today seems quite precise, especially noting the lack of clarity expressed prior to this point. Rather than discussing as "The Fairness Doctrine," we should avoid specific language like that. This is about any government restrictions of constitutionally protected and commercially viable free speech. The administration is smart enough to avoid doing anything under this label, but I still anticipate that there will be some other backdoor measure to limit speech through less obvious, less direct means. And this MO from the Democrats has been confirmed already based upon the manner in which he passed the legislative agenda hidden in the mislabeled "stimulus."

So, do you oppose, not just the "Fairness Doctrine", but any kind of government involvement in the market designed to limit the free exchange of constitutionally protected ideas and information?

 

[foxpaws]

foxpaws, you seem to be saying that you oppose the Fairness Doctrine because you perceive conservative media to be a liability, and that reinstating such a piece of legislation wouldn't be politically advantageous for the Democrats. Yet you never express any objection to the rule based on principle.

I don't want to presume to know you're position on this, nor do I want to put words in your mouth, so could you elaborate?

And the language coming from the White House today seems quite precise, especially noting the lack of clarity expressed prior to this point. Rather than discussing as "The Fairness Doctrine," we should avoid specific language like that. This is about any government restrictions of constitutionally protected and commercially viable free speech. The administration is smart enough to avoid doing anything under this label, but I still anticipate that there will be some other backdoor measure to limit speech through less obvious, less direct means. And this MO from the Democrats has been confirmed already based upon the manner in which he passed the legislative agenda hidden in the mislabeled "stimulus."

So, do you oppose, not just the "Fairness Doctrine", but any kind of government involvement in the market designed to limit the free exchange of constitutionally protected ideas and information?

I am opposed to the Fairness Doctrine as it was written in the past - it was a flawed piece of legislation, and I believe against the first amendment.

I would be against anything that infringed on the first amendment.

I haven't seen the new legislation. Do you have a link to it Cal? You mention something coming out of the White House today, the 18th - what was it?

 

[Calabrio]

I am opposed to the Fairness Doctrine as it was written in the past - it was a flawed piece of legislation, and I believe against the first amendment.

I would be against anything that infringed on the first amendment.

I haven't seen the new legislation. Do you have a link to it Cal? You mention something coming out of the White House today, the 18th - what was it?

I'm not speaking about any specific piece of legislation, I'm speaking about the principle. As I mentioned, I don't think that they are going to simply reenact the Fairness Doctrine, or pass another piece of legislation so confidently stating it's intention. I expect it to be passed in pieces, or through interpretation of other vaguely written laws with that goal in mind, or something to that affect. It'll be snuck into another monolith bill, or hidden in a spending provision, and there will be no attention or debate on the floor of the senate. Or it will be tied in with the next impending financial crisis.

You believe that the original fairness doctrine infringed on first amendment rights, I'm glad we agree on that point. So would you resist any restrictions, equal time provisions, or "hate speech" legislation that would further restrict the airwaves or other forms of new media? Particularly ones that area deemed contrary to the Democrat agenda?

The White House made a statement today concerning the Fairness Doctrine, this is following Axlerod's dismal handling of the issue on the Sunday talk shows this weekend. However, I don't take comfort in the statement from the White House, and I think I've explained why.

 

[foxpaws]

So, this is the front piece of the article from your post above...

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine.

"I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC ... and the president to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now," Axelrod told FOX News Sunday over the weekend when asked about the president's position.

So, why was Axelrod's handling 'dismal'? Is Fox leaving something out - I didn't watch his interview on Fox over the weekend...

 

[Calabrio]

So, why was Axelrod's handling 'dismal'? Is Fox leaving something out - I didn't watch his interview on Fox over the weekend...

Speaking of the issue of the Fairness Doctrine, his inability to give a direct answer alarmed defenders of the first amendment, enough so that the statement had to be made to help settle people down.

When you get the opportunity, it'd be nice if you could respond with the clarification I asked you for. Whether you would resist and vocally oppose any restrictions, equal time provisions, or "hate speech" legislation that would further restrict the airwaves or other forms of new media? Particularly ones that are deemed contrary to the Democrat agenda?

 

[foxpaws]

Speaking of the issue of the Fairness Doctrine, his inability to give a direct answer alarmed defenders of the first amendment, enough so that the statement had to be made to help settle people down.

I imagine Axelrod didn't want to get in trouble with his boss. Obama has shown in the past that he really doesn't want his people to put 'words in his mouth'. I think that Axelrod was erring on the side of caution.

When you get the opportunity, it'd be nice if you could respond with the clarification I asked you for. Whether you would resist and vocally oppose any restrictions, equal time provisions, or "hate speech" legislation that would further restrict the airwaves or other forms of new media? Particularly ones that are deemed contrary to the Democrat agenda?

So, before I answer this - this appears to be a 'gotcha' - is it Cal? I can usually spot them. Is there active legislation on the floor that restricts media right now? I don't always know what is on the floor... or maybe what has been passed recently.

Since I don't want to get caught up in 'gotcha' - is this a legit question? I don't want to be blindsided with "but, those EEEEEvil Dems have this on the floor right now - what do you say to that".

 

[Calabrio]

Baghdad Dick Durbin is moving to impose the fairness doctrine through the backdoor. Calling it something different with the same goal in mind.

Free Press: Consolidation, Not Fairness Doctrine, Bred Conservative Talk
Concerned that current debate over the doctrine takes away proper focus on public interest policies like ownership rules, localism and diversity
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 2/24/2009 4:58:20 PM MT
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar..._Fairness_Doctrine_Bred_Conservative_Talk.php

Free Press says it was media consolidation, not the scrapping of the fairness doctrine, that led to the rise in conservative talk radio, and that "bringing it back won't fix the imbalance on the airwaves."

The media activist group is concerned that the current debate over the doctrine, which it opposes, has become a distraction from the proper focus on public interest policies it does support, like ownership rules, localism and diversity.

In an e-mail to reporters containing its policy brief entitled The Fairness Doctrine Distraction, Free Press points out that the fairness doctrine controversy has heated up because a "handful of Democrats" have publicly entertained its return.


Free Press argues that the doctrine was untenable because it "put the federal government in charge of judging fairness in political speech." It also said that reinstating the doctrine would not create greater viewpoint diversity--on of the new administration's policy goals--and that even if it were reinstated, it would likely be overturned.

The doctrine, which was scrapped by the FCC in 1987 as unconstitutional, required broadcasters to seek out the other side of controversial issues of public importance.

But Free Press' concern extends beyond the doctrine to the policies it does not want broad-brushed out of the debate.
"Congress should recognize that the Fairness Doctrine and the content regulation it represents are in no way tied to other public service obligations required by the Communications Act or proposals designed to increase speech in broadcasting and new media."

FCC Commisioner Robert McDowell, for one, has suggested that some of the FCC's ownership proposals, including creating community advisory boards, could be a stealth form of reintroducing the doctrine.

Free Press argues that the underlying call to bring the doctrine back is based on the false assumption that its demise was the main cause of the rise in conservative talk radio. Free Press lays that at the feet of 1990's consolidation and the new market for nationally syndicated product.

 

[fossten]

As long as the words 'fairness' or 'doctrine' aren't in the bill, foxpaws will say it's fine...and Obama will sign it.

 

[Calabrio]

So, before I answer this - this appears to be a 'gotcha' - is it Cal? I can usually spot them. Is there active legislation on the floor that restricts media right now? I don't always know what is on the floor... or maybe what has been passed recently.

Since I don't want to get caught up in 'gotcha' - is this a legit question? I don't want to be blindsided with "but, those EEEEEvil Dems have this on the floor right now - what do you say to that".

How can there be a "gotcha" when it's an issue of what YOU do or do not support. If you merely are unaware that something offensive is being proposed, that's not a "gotcha"- it'd merely be an opportunity for you to protest it after being made aware of it.

Gotcha's only work if someone is being deliberately deceptive, not operating on principles and values. So please, elaborate or clarify whether you would resist and vocally oppose any restrictions, equal time provisions, or "hate speech" legislation that would further restrict the airwaves or other forms of new media? Particularly ones that are deemed contrary to the Democrat agenda, IF YOU WERE MADE AWARE OF IT? The bold text is there to take away any "gotcha" component.

 

[foxpaws]

So, wow – I’ll lay money there is a gotcha here somewhere Cal…

Should equal time be regulated, or further restrictions be placed on any type of public media?

Regarding political viewpoint. No.

I do believe that viewpoints need to be unfettered and that the media that presents that viewpoint should not be required to offer opposing viewpoints equal voice. However, I do believe that if asked by the ‘opposing viewpoint’ the fact there is an opposing viewpoint should be made known, and how to gain access to that viewpoint.

So, if Limbaugh runs with a piece on how chocolate kisses are creating a huge cavity problem with women during PMS, the chocolate kiss manufacturer is allowed a link to an opposing viewpoint on the Fox website if they ask for it. They are not allowed equal time or exposure on the original media. You see this a lot already – CBS does it.

And I believe this unfettered attitude applies to all media. That MSM should also not have to comply with any ‘fairness’ whether implied or law. That we should finally put behind us that the media isn’t biased. It is. The current pressure for broadcast media to attempt or even say they are unbiased while all other media is allowed to be biased would be unfair. No more whining that the media is biased.

I believe that the restrictions regarding political advertising need to continue to be in place. So long as the advertising meets FCC standards, the media needs to offer that advertising at equal rates for equal time slots for all political ads. And they are not allowed to bar any political ads as long as they meet FCC guidelines. And I believe that during elections the offer of equal time for politicians appearing in or on the media needs to stay as it is. If the media is offering a candidate an opportunity to voice their stands, they need to allow equal time to the opposition. However, as now, there needs to be a percentage cut-off on viability of the candidate.

I believe that the government should still be required to allow access to both sides of the equation during official or government sponsored/paid events.

Is this what you want Cal?

 

[Calabrio]

Is this what you want Cal?

No, your answer doesn't make sense to me.

Should equal time be regulated, or further restrictions be placed on any type of public media?

Regarding political viewpoint. No.

So you think that public media should be regulated and afford equal time for reasons other than just political viewpoint? Should the government enforce diversity in media, be it social, gender, or regional?

You're giving yourself wiggle room on this and it's obvious. You could pass a law requiring all radio stations to only broadcast local content that would effectively end commercial talk radio as we know it. The stated objective would be "community service" or some other nonsense, but the ultimate goal would be to limit the national influence of conservative talk radio.

This is why I'm asking the question based on the principle of it, not the clever political gamemanship or legalese. The question isn't whether they can write a more clever bill to bullsh!t the public while silencing the political opposition.

This is a yes or no question.
The only reason you're worried about a "gotcha" is because you're trying to be deceitful.

I do believe that viewpoints need to be unfettered and that the media that presents that viewpoint should not be required to offer opposing viewpoints equal voice. However, I do believe that if asked by the ‘opposing viewpoint’ the fact there is an opposing viewpoint should be made known, and how to gain access to that viewpoint.

I'm not going to presume to understand this point of yours. I'm going to ask that you explain it further. I don't understand how that would work when applied to broadcast or print media.

And isn't that direct involvement and regulation of the federal government on the internet in the example you've created?

Please elaborate.

 

[fossten]

She's all for allowing the government to get its foot in the door, just a toe maybe.

Then, next time, it will be something added on. Just a little bit - hey we're not banning Limbaugh for crying out loud, just putting in some common sense safeguards.

Little by little, bit by bit.

Incrementalism.

The 1934 National Firearms Act was the very first federal gun legislation. Do any of you know who wanted this enacted, and pushed for it?

The gun manufacturers did, because they were getting undercut by people refitting military rifles for deer hunting and selling them cheap. It was about 'fairness.'

Sound familiar?

TWENTY THOUSAND PLUS GUN LAWS LATER...

 

[Calabrio]

She's all for allowing the government to get its foot in the door, just a toe maybe.

I think she's all for allowing the government to walk right in and maybe kick the door down. She just wants to make sure they have political cover. Recognizing that there'd be a political backlash if the Fairness Doctrine were in place, you need to find a political effective run around the accomplishes the same thing but under the guise of something else.

foxpaws is fascinating, though frustrating to have here, because she is the window into the mind of the mid-level Democrat leadership. She's not just some thoughtless, reactionary nut like Jagger-bot or some of the other self-described liberals. She is a devoted activist who represents the movement very well. And that's depicted in her duplicitous arguments.

 

[foxpaws]

So you think that public media should be regulated and afford equal time for reasons other than just political viewpoint? Should the government enforce diversity in media, be it social, gender, or regional?

I thought we were talking political agenda regarding the fairness doctrine, that is why I added the caveat.

But no, the government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing diversity in the media.

Simple enough?

And the people should quit being in the business of pointing to the media and crying 'biased'.

Even more simple.

I'm not going to presume to understand this point of yours. I'm going to ask that you explain it further. I don't understand how that would work when applied to broadcast or print media.

All media has web presence. All you have to place is in the related opinion stories comment section is a link to dissenting opinion. The media outlet is not required to look for dissenting opinion - only to post a link to an example of it if asked to by the opposing side.

 

[fossten]

And the people should quit being in the business of pointing to the media and crying 'biased'.

Why, aren't they biased?

 

[shagdrum]

And the people should quit being in the business of pointing to the media and crying 'biased'.

Even when that bias is provably leading to distortion of the news they are reporting? That isn't relevant?

You always seem to want to throw out conservative sources simply on the grounds that they are conservative. Double standard?

 

[Calabrio]

And the people should quit being in the business of pointing to the media and crying 'biased'.

Even more simple.

You readily acknowledge that there is a bias in the media, yet you don't think it should be noted?

All media has web presence. All you have to place is in the related opinion stories comment section is a link to dissenting opinion. The media outlet is not required to look for dissenting opinion - only to post a link to an example of it if asked to by the opposing side.

So, who decides what is dissenting opinion?
If I don't like the message of a particular episode of WILL & GRACE or Designing Women in syndication, should I be able to get a dissenting opinion placed on the TV stations website too? Would the GOD HATES :q:q:q people get a link as well?