Look, there a shiny fairness doctrine object!

as we saw from Murdoch’s NY Post last week, fairness for Fox/Murdoch is evidently defined as the legal right to use their media outlets to call for terroristic violence against our democratically elected political leaders in the most racist manner imagineable.

Yeah, they’re going to pull a bunch of this stuff out of their butts to keep people from noticing other key fights beginning — their anti-union efforts as just one example.

Should ask a Dem to attach a rider to the bill that demands the publicly-owned parks be allowed exclusive use by pro-liberal groups.

It appears the GOP is more concerned with providing work for straw men than creating jobs for real flesh and blood Americans.

How can DeMint, a Republican in the minority, force a vote on anything?

What’s wrong with the fairness doctrine? The airwaves belong to the public and private enterprise has really screwed AM up. The least the govt can do is limit the number of commercials per hour and mandate providing air time for views other than Rush Limbaugh’s. Might also limit talk and play more music. Be nice if we could poll the station’s audience (including its potential audience) to learn what they’d like.

‘Speaking’ of free speech..wingnut rant on exchange floor and heard all over TeeVee may cause complete market collapse. Fire in a theater?

we should tell them that we’ll deal on the fairness doctrine. We won’t push for reinstatement of the doctrine if they agree to German-style anti-hate speech prohibitions that’ll let us lock up LimpBark ;-P

I should point out that Diamond-Orszag was a Democratic bright shiny object. There seem to be a lot of them going around. With the country falling into depression, it looks like the last thing any politician wants to talk about is the depression.

Which Democrats in congress are pushing for the fairness doctrine?
The only thing I’ve heard has been busting up media consolidation…..

I want names and facts……

A couple Dems have mentioned it in the press recently, though there’s no plans to introduce it at all.

Media Matters Massively…mass marketing political/ideological ideas is a fascist tactic when is lopsided bias. Deepest pocket in a capital society lie with the Oligarchy…this is the heart of Big Brother and if not bridled will usurp our democracy and replace it with a facsist oligarchy.
When Big Brother tells you something it is for your own good…not. When Big Brither tells you something it is in his best interest ot why would trillions be spent ny the military industrial complex to change your mind?

Liars! Jim DeMint (W-SC) sees right through those sneaky libruls.

First off, you have to understand they have nuthin’; no ideas, no agenda, no leadership, nuthin’.

And given that saying “no” to everything Democrats propose doesn’t take much time or energy, they needed something for all those hundreds of staffers on Capitol Hill to do, so this is it, a false dilemma.

What’s wrong with the fairness doctrine?

I agree. This is Republican framing. They cast a reasonable proposition, like the fairness doctrine, or estate taxes, or rolling back Bush tax cuts for the wealthy as if it is some kind of mad heresy. One of the reasons that public and political discourse in this country is so pathetic is because the media are owned by large right wing corporations. If they were owned by large left wing corporations (I know a contradiction in terms) which stifled right wing views, would John DeMint be attacking the Fairness Doctrine then?

DeMint will force a vote? Isn’t there some procedure the party in power can use to make sure that doesn’t happen? Seems like it was used all too often when the Rethugs were in power.

Right. And now they’re saying “No” to things Obama opposes.

Wait, shouldn’t they be in favor of the fairness doctrine?

And yes, I want the Fairness Doctrine back.

I’m sure Harry’s all over that.

Oh wait…

Who gets to put a name on a bill? If the dems do then call the bill The Dumb Ass Jim Demint Bill and pass it unanimously in the Senate then let Pelosi sit on it.

demint’s doing something very smart right now, while he can, if he can he’s going to make it impossible to re-instate the fairness doctrine

the democrats, following obama’s lead will allow this move thinking “it couldn’t hurt”

of course it can hurt since you need to always have bargaining chips and giving away one of those chips whether or not you planned on using it is a big mistake

I know we’ve had this discussion before but I am convinced the lack of the fairness doctrine is the reason we had bush, it’s the reason we went to war and it’s the reason we didn’t impeach bush

I know some of you believe the fairness doctrine is not practical, I happen to disagree and believe what is not practical is allowing corporate owned media to be given a free hand.

so demitt is doing something very smart whether or not we ever intended on re-instituting responsible reporting

not only is it not a dumbass bill, I don’t want it passed at all

the fact that obama doesn’t want the fairness doctrine doesn’t mean we don’t need one and it certainly doesn’t mean we won’t want one in the future

From what I’ve read, it strikes me as unenforceable. Who’s going to be the judge of the political orientation of the content? What’s the penalty? I’d rather them break up these media monopolies like Clear Channel.

I wouldn’t mind dealing on the fairnes doctrine if they post-office impeach bush cheney

that MIGHT be worth the trade though I am not even sure democracy comes out ahead

I too would like to see the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. If Pelosi were to sit on it it would not pass. And if the Senate treats Demint as a spoiled child maybe he will SFU.

I was stuck in a hospital room all week with the radio on wingnut. Tuesday all day was them (Sean, Paul, Rush and Sean in that order—all fucking day!!) going off on the imminent return of the Fairness Doctrine. My main thought (aside from wanting to be relieved from the radio as soon as possible) was “listen to yourselves! you are ranting about how horrible it would be if you were forced to be fair!” But really to shut these nincompoops up they should have an “upperdown” vote on the stupid thing, vote unanimously in favor, and then tell them to STFU and quit wasting time.

it is uneforceable, just like the speedlimit but it does offer containment

and broadcasters would rather avoid the confrontation even if it were subject to opinion

could you imagine if clear channel were forced to broadcast mike malloy or randi after rush?

well, you’ll see from my comment that i don’t agree. I don’t think we need the fairness doctrine as it was before back because the information sources have changed so much, but if they want to pass a bill about not restricting free speech (since they apparently missed that section of the Bill of Rights), I can go with that…if they can (which I don’t think they can because they don’t really believe in it).

Hi Pups,

Turn on teevee during prime time.

Go to on screen guide.

Scan the names of the shows for any words or phrases that may be troubling, scary or violent.

Survivor, Fear Factor, Big Brother, Six Feet Under, Pushing Up Daisies, Bones and the list goes on and on. Mrs. bluejeans says the names do not scare her, but they must have an effect on the subconscious. Words have power, and constant exposure to troubling titles, not to mention the content of some of the most violent media ever has to have an effect.

Yeah, the V-chip was invented to allow you to edit these shows on a personal basis, but do you know anyone that can program a V-chip?

Maybe I’m losing it or maybe not. All I know is my big screen teevee can dry a sweater draped over it pretty quickly when I’m not watching K.O. or Stewart etc.

Oh and don’t forget all the crime scene shows and their spin offs.

Just my .02 cents.

I’m not Harry Reid (for one thing I’m a vertebrate) but if I were, I would announce very publically that the Democrats had had no intention of bringing up the Fairness Doctrine at all but since John DeMint had made such a big deal about it perhaps the Senate should take a look at it with a view to re-instating it.

Make it a two-fer bill.

DeMint gets to block the Fairness doctrine IF the bill also includes total Net Neutrality.

He gets his freedom to allow Rush to amke a totla ass of himself (which he does so well).

We get the Nets freedom.

that’s why I watch sports! oh, and generation kill!

Yes, see what i mean? the cumulative effect of just the titles that are everywhere, even on the sides of buses have got to be keeping people jittery. too much fear out here *diving back under big rock*

DeMinto is deranged. Nuh said.

I watch NCIS. I love seeing dummies smacked upside the head – kinda cathartic

I believe this misses the point of the Fairness Doctrine. It regulated content on the public airwaves, not on all forms of media. Newspapers, for example, were not covered.

Broadcast television and radio use public airwaves, a limited and government-managed resource. It is quite reasonable to have rules for the use of them. Since not anyone can create a radio station or TV channel, it is important that the government provide a regulatory space giving access to the limited resource by more than one group.

Media consolidation is the primary bugbear to take care of, but the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is very important in combatting the kind of propagandistic political tools corporate media has turned out TV and radio into.

But would a Fairness doctrine cover cable or satellite?

If Reid were an actual democrat, he would simply refuse to bring the bill up for a vote.

In fact, if this were a DEMOCRAT-created bill, he WOULD refuse to bring it up for vote. The fact that it is a Rethuglican bill means he will most likely bring it to the floor.

In any case, it is a stoopid move. The Senate could fall down again and vote for DeMint’s bill and the House would simply vote NO. Ta-da! No law.

I LIKE the fairness doctrine. It worked GREAT for most of the history of broadcast in the United States. The ONLY people that had heartburn with it were the Reagan Robots who wanted to do exactly what they have: control the airwaves for their propaganda.

Not unless the cable lines were opened up for competition the way the phone lines were (I say, DO IT, to allow REAL competition in cable). At the moment, the cable company that put down the cable (no different from the original AT&T putting out telephone lines) owns the cable 100%.

As for satellite, it SHOULD because, goddamnit, they are broadcasting on MY airwaves (our collective PUBLIC airwaves).

The comments above, mostly in support of a return of the Fairness Doctrine, at least in some form, make me wonder why other liberal voices that I have heard do not support it. Me no get. As Praedor said, it worked well for decades until Reagan shitcanned it, and boy haven’t things just worked out swell for our democracy since then: radio as the voice of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, with TV going along for the ride by making sure that Americans know more about the Egyptian pharaohs and how to get a great deal on cubic zirconiums than we do about our own government.

The Fairness Doctrine instituted a public-service requirement for anybody using the public airwaves. Given recent history, I don’t understand why there is resistance among progressives to reinstating such a requirement. You want an end to media conglomeration? Fine, make that another arrow in the quiver (a “quiver-full”; yay!). But let’s bring back “fairness” in some useful form or another for the companies already profiting off of our tax dollars.

you explain it very well. The media consolidation is the real issue. In our house we listen to a lot of Spanish-language news and hear very different stuff from what you hear on the networks and cable news…and like from an entirely different planet from radio wingnut.

Take it to the fucker. Let him open the process and then shove a stringent anti-hate speech bill down his throat.

Every inch of cable in this country was done with government (usually local) subsidy. I see no reason why cable should be off limits.

The idea, long long ago, so long ago it is hardly recalled, was that some part of the public resource that is the airwaves would be set aside for discussing issues of interest to the health of the Republic. The Fairness doctrine was there to ensure that all sides got a fair shake in that discussion. When FM came on stream, it opened a new vein for public radio, which like the original public television was rooted in the colleges and universities. Then everybody got FM receivers and the bands went commercial. PBS and NPR got taken over by the corporations, and we hardly have any public discussions outside the toobz.

As to the responsibility to devote some time to them, the television networks have whittled it down to hang-over time Sunday morning, as early as possible. The whole business is a sham, and perhaps it doesn’t make any difference any more. I think that’s basically Obama’s view. The whole system has got to be rebuilt from the bottom up, and there are more urgent problems to settle first.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a…frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

The neocons find Bill Ayers scary but have no problem conspiring to form armed militias to fight against the Fairness Doctrine!

http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/…..-doctrine/

What puppethead said.

Bob in HI