President Obama reportedly does not favor a return of the Fairness Doctrine

At least, not in it's old form. But new incarnations remain a possibility:

Citing Obama Opposition, McDowell Warns Against Fairness Doctrine

FCC commissioner Robert McDowell had a message for Democrats, or anyone else contemplating trying to reimpose the fairness doctrine: The move could undermine the justification for existing localism and children's TV regulations, and could be used against public radio.

He also suggested it would not come back wearing a big sign saying, "it's me, the fairness doctrine," but would likely instead be rebranded.

Those were some of the observations McDowell provided Wednesday in a speech to The Media Institute in Washington, which is a strong opponent of the doctrine.

The fairness doctrine, which was scrapped by the FCC as unconstitutional in 1987, required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues.

In the speech, McDowell cited candidate Barack Obama's statement to B&C--through an aide--that he did not support the doctrine, adding that the new administration has a terrific opportunity to enunciate its strong opposition to anything resembling the fairness doctrine.

He spoke at length about the doctrine's origins and its use by both Democrats and Republicans against their opponents. He said he did not know whether recent calls for its return would bear fruit, felt it was a good time to talk to his audience--of media executives, lobbyists, journalists and others--about its creation, its historical abuses, and the legal difficulties involved with restoring it and trying to enforce it. [...]

I've said before that many Democrats don't like it because it cuts both ways. This article talks about some of those ways. But the idea that it could be "rebranded" and reintroduced in different form(s), is another idea the article looks at. Something to be alert for, as our Brave New Word... "progresses".


Related Links:

Is the Fairness Doctrine even doable anymore?

Obama Cults, Shrillness & the Fairness Doctrine
     

Obama Cults, Shrillness & the Fairness Doctrine

I've been busy with farm work this week, so here's my Sunday morning ramble about several things I've been too busy to post about.


I find this desecration of the Flag disturbing, for it's lack of respect. It's quite possible the people who did it have no concept of what I'm talking about. It's all too easy to show disrespect to something you don't understand, and therefore don't value. Unfortunately I wouldn't be surprised if the flag re-designers also have no idea of what the Constitution of the United States is about, either.

Pat did a post today, about some Democrats who are pushing to have term limits removed via a constitutional amendment:

Enough with the amendments already!

It seems that some Democrats only want term limits for Republicans. I commented on the post:

Too many of the Dems just want to GRAB power, and keep it by any means possible. They always try to enforce rules on Republicans, but when it comes to themselves they don't want rules to apply. Just look how they criticized the spending for Republican inaugurations. Now they are themselves breaking all spending records, and no one is supposed to mind, or even notice.

The Dems are also more vulnerable to personality cults. I can understand that lots of people are happy that Obama got in, and I can deal with it, that's just politics. But the way so many are insisting that we start naming things after him, and building monuments to him, and he isn't even president yet! I find it creepy. Monuments and dedications are supposed to happen AFTER a president's term, and only if he achieved something great, and even then usually only after he has passed on.

Now they want to repeal term limits, even though Obama hasn't even served a term yet. Talk about counting your chickens before they are hatched! Actually, doesn't it just show that they don't care how he does, as long as the Dems hold power? Why not just scrap the Constitution and make him King, and do away with those pesky elections altogether? Sheesh.

I really don't want to rain on their inauguration parade, but really. Some people need to keep it in proportion.

It's perfectly understandable that Obama supporters are happy that their guy got in, and they want to celebrate that fact. Good for them. But is seems that when the Dems get their way, many of them don't know when to put on the brakes, and always go too far.

All this worship nonsense can backfire. If his supporters really value him, they ought to consider that the higher up they raise him on a pedestal, the further he has to fall and the harder he would land.

Ok, now lest you think that's just sour grapes on my part, let me say something about the "conservative" side's reaction to this.

Michelle Malkin is also criticizing the Obama Worship:

Not all conservatives are singing O-Kumbaya

While she makes some good points, I can't go along with all the criticism. She quotes someone from Politico, who quotes Rush Limbaugh:

[...] While most Republicans now in office are saying all the right things about Tuesday’s proceedings — roll tape on “peaceful transfer of power” and “historic moment for the country” sound bites — some conservatives can’t quite get themselves in the “We Are One” mood.

Not even for a day.

On his radio show last week, Rush Limbaugh railed against “people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, ‘Well, I hope he succeeds. We have to give him a chance.’”

“Why?” Limbaugh demanded. “They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated, the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year and a half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.” [...]

Obviously I don't want to see Obama succeed with ALL his plans. But I can face facts, and I believe we all should. Republicans lost this election. We are facing economic collapse and hardship, and myriad dangers from abroad. Obama and the Democrats MUST succeed on many key issues; to fail would be catastrophic for us, all of us.

There is a point where constantly accentuating only our differences with Democrats does not serve us well. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and neither can a country. That doesn't mean we all have to agree on everything, but it does mean we NEED to have common ground on which to stand.

I'm not religious, but one of my favorite scriptures is Matthew 5:25, "Agree with thine adversary quickly". There is great wisdom in that. Democrats may be our adversaries politically, but they are NOT our deadly enemies. And thankfully, not all Democrats are insane. We need to find agreement with them when and where we can. Obama has thus far shown some signs of reaching across the isle, and I am truly thankful for that, and hope it continues.

I'm a Republican, but I'm an American first. The Republicans, as the minority party, have to exert what influence we can and work with the Democrats on many issues that are going to effect all of us. We have to cooperate and find common ground on some things, even as we regroup to battle them on other things. It's a balancing act, which will require a certain amount of sophistication, maturity and flexibility, not ridged ideology. Conservatives need to cut the whining, grow up, and deal with it. We can't afford not to.

Before the election, I was worried that if the Dems got in, they would re-instate the fairness doctrine. The Dems won, and now they are already replacing the Republican members of the FCC, paving the way for the return of the Fairness Doctrine, which was an FCC regulation. It can be easily reinstated by the Democrat majority of the commission members. But I've decided not to worry about it. Why?

Reagan got elected during the Fairness Doctrine years. He only scrapped it near the end of his last term. Perhaps the limitation it enforced brought out the best in conservatives.

I sometimes wonder if we weren't better off without conservative talk radio. It seems to have encouraged more shrillness and ideology, which appeals to the ideologically shrill, but repels everyone else.

I resent the Fairness doctrine as government interference; I hate restrictions on free speech. But it's also a two-edged sword, it cuts both ways. Many Dems don't like it, because it requires conservative views to be put forth in the mainstream media. When conservative commentary is put forth as a rebuttal to it's liberal counterpart, it's given a context which lends it greater meaning. It's also aimed at a less ideological audience, and therefore has to have a broader appeal. That could serve us better in the long run.
     

Is the Fairness Doctrine even doable anymore?

I hope not. Here is an article that has a good look at the problems involved in trying to re-instate it:

Technology, New Media Pose Major Challenges to Fairness Doctrine, Two Democrats Say

(CNSNews.com) - The variety of media today and technological advances make it challenging, if not pointless, to try to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine on talk radio, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com.

“It’s increasingly difficult to try and put quotas on political speech over any medium, so I think that would be the challenge anyone would face if they wanted to try and do that,” he said, when asked at the Democratic Senatorial Committee election night party on Nov. 4.

“I can’t speak for all my colleagues on that issue,” said Cardin. “I can only say that I think technology has possibly moved beyond the ability to regulate things, at least as it stands now.”

[...]

Today, many Democrats in Congress have said the Fairness Doctrine should be re-imposed to counter the influence of conservative talk radio, which dominates the marketplace with shows hosted by people such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Neal Boortz and Mark Levin.

Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine have not said the regulation should also apply to network news television, such as ABC, NBC or CBS, which use the public airwaves.

On Nov. 4, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) defended the Fairness Doctrine, telling Fox News: “I think we should all try to be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Van Hollen, however, told CNSNews.com that talk radio content does not need to be fair and balanced, adding that the Fairness Doctrine is a difficult issue for President-elect Barack Obama and the new Democratic Congress to deal with because of today’s “new media.”

“I think it’s increasingly difficult, because it’s kind of like a balloon,” said Van Hollen. “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.

“I think even if you wanted to go back to the Fairness Doctrine, technology may have passed it by,” he said. [...]

It's ironic to hear some Democrats argue that conservative talk radio gives Republicans an unfair advantage. Note to Rabid Democrats: your party now controls the White House, the Congress and the Senate. Conservative Talk Radio sure hasn't delivered an advantage for the Republicans any time recently. Ditto Fox News. So what ARE you going on about?


Neal Boortz today highlights the absurdity of the Fairness Doctrine:

[...] Note, please, that whenever despots try to seize control of a government, and with it a country, they first seize control of the means of communication. How can you observe this in country after country with despot after despot engaged in coup after coup and not understand that this is exactly what our own politicians do when they try to increases their control over broadcasting? How will the Democrat's looming attempt to reign in talk radio be any different than Hugo Chavez' attempts to shut down opposition newspapers in Venezuela? And trust me ... the Republicans would have tried the same thing during the Bush Administration if talk radio had been overwhelming liberal. Richard Nixon used to brag about how he used the "Fairness Doctrine" to harass left-wing commentary on television. Democrats and liberals generally fail miserably at talk radio .. therefore it must be destroyed.

One more point about this "public's airwaves" dog squeeze. How does your newspaper get to you every day? Do you think it just magically appears at your doorstep? Hardly .. it is delivered over --- guess what? --- publicly owned highways and roads! Yeah! The "public's highways!" How about a Fairness Doctrine for newspaper editorial pages! Oh, wait .. there's that darn Constitution in the way again. Don't you just hate that?

Whether our information comes to us over "public airwaves", "public highways", the internet or anything else, the less government interferes with it the better. While some interference might be unavoidable (regulating obscenity, pornography, terrorism), the government certainly doesn't need to be encouraged to regulate it for partisan purposes. Surely there are enough real problems we are paying them to deal with? We don't need Thought Police regulating our political debate and discussion.
     

Democrat Politicians openly advance their Thought Police Agenda: Silence the opposition

It's the tactic of those who know they can't win through debate and persuasion. Tammy Bruce comments on local government attacks from the left on San Francisco Talk radio host Mike Savage, and Federal government attacks from the left on Radio host Rush Limbaugh:

Democrats Descend into Soros Gestapo Sewer

[...] Make no mistake, I am no fan of Savage, and I consider Limbaugh, as many do, a water-carrier for President Bush, but this is obviously wrong on a multitude of levels. On one hand you have government attempting to intimidate public voices into silence because they do not like a political message. Hugo Chavez is engaging in this very activity in Venezuela with the shutting down of televisions stations he does not like to silence their independent message.

Principles and values are simply slogans when applied only when convenient, or to situations with which we agree.

Nihilistic leftists like George Soros and those who run his sewerline Media Matters know their message anti-American message of socialistic hopelessness will never survive in America if we have avenues where the issues can be freely discussed, out from under their dead hand.

This is nothing new, however. My first book, The New Thought Police, illustrated this tactic and warned of the American left's incresing reliance on fascist theory and application.

See the attacks on Savage, O'Reilly and Limbaugh for what they are--frantic fascist efforts to demonize those who cannot be intimidated into silence. It is an effort by a bunch of Malignant Narcissists to shut down open public discourse before the 2008 presidential election. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) If you read the whole thing, it has links and quotes from articles about the attacks.

I've read Tammy's book "The New Thought Police", and she knows of what she speaks. The Democrats seem hell bent on advancing their Thought Police Agenda. They HAVE to. Their ideas can't survive open debate, so the solution is to prevent debate from happening. Silence your oppositon using any means possible. It's the favorite tool of fascists everywhere.


From Pat at Born Again Redneck:

Wednesday wisdom roundup
Women's voting patterns, Jesus, American Culture and Fred Thompson. Don't miss it!