More Democrats advocate "Fairness Doctrine"
With the comments by Pelosi, Reid, and the fact that no Democrat in the House is speaking out against reinstituting the "Fairness Doctrine." The Hill newspaper has this today:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”
Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.
Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.” . . .
Labels: FairnessDoctrine
posted by John Lott at 3:53 PM
13 Comments:
So much for freedom of the press (which, I believe, includes electronic journalism such as radio and tv). :-\
I bet Rush, Sean and Beck go to Satellite Radio if they pass anything like that. May be even base their companies overseas. I could see that happening. Of course there goes free speech and we'll be back to classic rock and news on the radio. Oh well. I am surprised schumer hasn't talked about a Shall Not Issue amendment. John, we are in for it.
Well, gee, I hope that means we'll see some more conservative views on TV news programs in the mainstream media, but somehow I doubt that's what they have in mind.
Why do the anti-free speech advocates (pro-Fairness Doctrine) refuse to include as part of their legislation, "fairness" in other media types? Overwhelming evidence exists of slanted, pro-Democratic political coverage in both the printed and television news to indicate that both sides of issues are not fairly and equally represented.
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.
Problem with said "fairness doctrine" is that it is NOT economically viable. Unless, of course, people make sure they watch the "OFF" switch. As with "Err America"(which went bankrupt), people who listen to talk radio don't want to hear the leftist tripe. If stations are willing to take the hit, it won't be long until that stuff proves itself flawed. Again. Some more.
That is an excellent point Schumer makes about the FCC, which governs television as well as radio.
It is a wonder then why the Democrats will only direct their legislation regarding radio broadcasts. If radio must be "fair," why not "television" as well? The answer of course is because television is left biased, benefiting the Democrats, whereas radio is right biased.
I have to say I'm not a fan of the "Fairness Doctrine," but there's a difference between what you call biased or slanted coverage in the mainstream media and the gross distortions and fact-free content of someone like Rush Limbaugh.
"Fairness" means people debating the facts, not spreading smears and lies.
Of course they want to legislate "fairness" they now have somewhat of a super majority, they can decide what is fair.
The other aspect is this; they simply point to equal air time for both sides. That could be 30 minutes of bashing a conservative and 30 minutes of praising a socialist. See, equal time!
Clark,
Could you please point to me the passage in the First Amendment that says you have the right to free speech so long as you include enough facts to satisfy Congress? I wasn't aware that caveat was included.
Limbaugh runs an opinion show. If you are outraged by his lack of factual contact, why don't you start your own opinion show or publication to rebut his positions, rather than chip away at the Bill of Rights?
Let us not lose sight of the fact that, whatever you or I might regard as 'fair', government has absolutely no constitutional authorization to dictate such things.
You don't like lefty TV stations - tough.
You don't like mouthy right wing talk radio - tough.
These are private businesses, and they are at liberty to broadcast whatever they believe will sell. The market will punish/reward their decisions.
The 'Fairness Doctrine' is vicious, unconstitutional fascism.
PS. Yes, PBS should be privatized.
Anonymous:
why I am a firm believer in natural rights, I also realize that in reality, your rights are only as good as your willingness to fight for them. Sometimes it makes sense to fight, sometimes not. As an aside, I work for a governmental agency that is far left in most ways. My boss found out I had a blog and called me into her office to warn me that while I have a constitutional right to blog, she felt my characterizations of Obama violated agency policy and warned me that my review was coming up in a month and I better watch out, and reconsider. Where I currently live doesn't have the diversity (pun intended) in regards to jobs in my area of expertise and even if I sued and won, I'd have a hard time finding work again. Rush Limbaugh et al will be just fine if they have another fairness doctrine. They could fight it, move offshore, or go satellite, or all three. Businesses have a knack for adapting, and that attribute is lost on the public sector.
Anonymous,
Lott didn't post my reply the first time, so I'll say it again.
I was offering an opinion on "fairness" and clearly stated I did not favor the fairness doctrine. If you look at my other comments on this blog you will see I am a strong advocate of individual liberties and opponent of government intrusion on individual rights.
And your if-you-don't-like-it-why-
don't-you-get-your-own-blog/radio show/whatever is possibly the most juvenile response someone can have to this discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home