Patterico's Pontifications

11/15/2008

L.A. Times: “Nobody” Is Seeking to Implement the Fairness Doctrine

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 10:28 am

James Rainey’s latest column at the L.A. Times contains the following headline:

Right-wing radio sounds false alarm on ‘Fairness Doctrine’

Impose a mandate on broadcasters to balance their political views? That would be onerous indeed. But memo to Rush: Nobody’s asking for that.

Nobody? Really??

Memo to the headline writer: yes, someone is. Here’s one example:

Ed Morrissey has much more.

P.S. I’m plenty amused by Rainey’s contention that we need not worry about this because Obama says he’s not going to pursue it. Obama said he wasn’t going to run for the Presidency — and then did. Obama said he wasn’t going to reject public financing — and then did.

So you’ll have to pardon me if I’m not particularly reassured by Barack Obama’s claim that he’s not going to try to impose the Fairness Doctrine. Based on his history, that’s a pretty strong indication that he will.

52 Comments

  1. Superfly will change the name to Truth Squad, not the Fairness Act. An Honest Abe kind of guy.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (5ea336) — 11/15/2008 @ 10:34 am

  2. As Jim Geraghty of NRO has pointed out repeatedly,”all statements from Barak Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.”

    Comment by Mr Chips (62b43e) — 11/15/2008 @ 10:38 am

  3. Oh, they will not call it the Fairness Doctrine. They will find another Orwellian name for it. But it will rear its ugly head. Schumer all but promised it in the conservative talk radio is like pronography comments.

    Comment by JD (94c827) — 11/15/2008 @ 10:38 am

  4. all statements from Barak Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.

    I have long since said that Baracky’s statement cease having any substantive meaning the moment the words pass over his lips.

    Comment by JD (94c827) — 11/15/2008 @ 10:39 am

  5. What are they smoking over at the L.A. times? I saw this article yesterday and laughed my ass off. He cites two or three Dems who are calling for the fairness doctrine, but then dismisses them out of hand. What a joke of a reporter. That guy actually gets paid to write? In the first 1000 days we’ll see the rebirth of the Fairness Doctrine and the rebirth of the Assault Weapons Ban. Obama said no on both counts, so that naturally means, yes he’ll do it. 63 million suckers….

    Comment by J. Raymond Wright (0440ef) — 11/15/2008 @ 10:46 am

  6. That’s 100, not 1000.

    Comment by J. Raymond Wright (0440ef) — 11/15/2008 @ 10:47 am

  7. [Senator]Bingaman: Well I guess my thought is that talk radio and media generally should have a higher calling than just reflect a particular point of view. I think they should use their authority to try to – their broadcast power to present an informed discussion of public issues.

    Higher calling? Their authority? Informed discussion?

    With this sort of thinking (a moral imperative, authority to exercise what is best for the masses, subjectivity in what defines being informed), I dont see how the Fairness Doc cannot become a part of our new administration’s plan for us. These are the goodies of the left as they seek to control and mold a people in their ideological image.

    Comment by Dana (79a78b) — 11/15/2008 @ 10:57 am

  8. Damn those pesky thorns in the Democrat’s sides!

    You know, like the 1st Amendment.

    And the 2nd.

    And . . .

    Comment by Icy Truth (84d054) — 11/15/2008 @ 11:01 am

  9. One day the term “media whore” will be present in the Encycloaedia Britannica.

    Guess whose photo will serve as the prime example?

    That’s right . . . Schumer.

    Comment by Icy Truth (84d054) — 11/15/2008 @ 11:06 am

  10. Icy Truth, don’t you understand that the Constitution is a “living document”? All Dear Leader has to do is find some judges who agree with them that it is their duty to interpret the Constitution in light of present circumstances, not to read any literal or historical meaning into it.

    Comment by JVW (89c289) — 11/15/2008 @ 11:08 am

  11. It will certainly give a boost to satellite radio. Does Schumer own stock in it?

    Comment by nk (87c95e) — 11/15/2008 @ 11:10 am

  12. Comment by nk — 11/15/2008 @ 11:10 am

    Except, we will see the enforcement of the new “Truth In Broadcasting” standards enforced against any broadcast facility located on American soil, including sat-radio.
    This will force the facilities to re-locate off-shore, just as the non-BBC radio in the UK was broadcast from ships anchored in international waters in the North Sea.
    The interesting thing is that Rush is not, and has consistently up to this point, refused to have his show on sat-radio. He professes a loyalty to his advertisers around the country that would lose a link to his show, and its’ popularity (ratings/exposure), if he went sat.

    Comment by Another Drew (bb1716) — 11/15/2008 @ 11:23 am

  13. The first priority of the Obama administration will be to silence their critics. This was their modus operandi during the campaign, and there is no reason to think it won’t happen when they hold the reins of power.

    The don’t want another Immigration Reform Bill disaster. There they tried to gain passage, without hearings, in a stealth parliamentry move. They tried it twice. It was Rush on the cutting edge who literaly melted down the Senate phone system by urging constituents to let their Senators know thier feelings. And Democrats will have the willing fools in the media supporting them. Tom Brokaw recently said “divisive” conservative speech should be dealt with. Funny, I found a lot of what he said about Bush divisive.

    There are two ways to implemnent the Fairness Doctrine. First is through legislation, the other through the FCC rule making authority. The latter was the way it was originally impemented in 1949. And most likely the way it will be done when the Democrats control the FCC.

    With the FCC it can be done quickly, without hearings and debate. They will intend to catch opponents by surprise. Most importantly it will make it easier to exclude TV from the Doctrine. They will simply reinstitute the 1949 radio only rule. By bypassing Congress, Congress won’t have to justify why 10khz of radio spectrum is more imprtant than 5mhz (500 times the spectrum) of TV.

    Fairness is coming. But rest assured Rush will be around and heard. A $400 million contract says so. Whether it’s live internet streaming or Sirius XM or both, he will get to you. Still that might not deter Democrat FCC commisioners, who would kill the AM band by denying its most profitable segment in an attempt to stifle free political speech.

    Comment by Corky Boyd (e038ec) — 11/15/2008 @ 11:29 am

  14. What if. . .

    Obama’s Fairness Doctrine passes, but in order to strip it of the veneer of hypocrisy it includes an amendment that either (1) mandates equal time for conservatives on NPR or (2) kills government funding for NPR outright. Talk radio and its supporters mount legal challenges to the law and win at the Supreme Court level, and the outcome is that talk radio flourishes, the Dems look like First Amendment opponents, and NPR is de-fanged or killed altogether. Talk about a complete and decisive victory. Is it worth the risk?

    Comment by JVW (89c289) — 11/15/2008 @ 11:46 am

  15. I find Rainey to be cocky and full of himself, maybe even a liar.

    Comment by PCD (7fe637) — 11/15/2008 @ 11:48 am

  16. I’ll state up front that I oppose the Fairness doctrine – period.
    That said, I think that for the conservatives and GOP even the threat of it may be a timely motivator to really develop satellite and internet presence to get their message out.
    The conduct of the networks in this election were so bad that I think many people would like to abandon tv news altogether. Myself, I stopped watching network and cable news around Oct 15th and haven’t looked back. There are too many sources of information and news on the internet already that I can use to make my own opinion.
    Obama used facebook of all things as one tool to expand his network and message. The RNC as a minimum should do the same.

    Comment by voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 11/15/2008 @ 11:50 am

  17. I forsee a return to the Pirate Radio” days of my youth, with many broadcasting in international waters or across the border in Mexico. Maybe we’ll see the next generation’s Wolfman Jack - who knows?

    Comment by Dmac (e30284) — 11/15/2008 @ 12:17 pm

  18. What if Obama “kills government funding for NPR outright”? JVW, I want some of what you’ve been smoking. It sounds like it’s some killer shit!

    Comment by Icy Truth (84d054) — 11/15/2008 @ 12:21 pm

  19. Obama lied twice? Wait a minute, Patterico, I thought he was a good man?

    Comment by jimboster (364ef3) — 11/15/2008 @ 12:28 pm

  20. “Everybody lies” — Gregory House

    Comment by Icy Truth (84d054) — 11/15/2008 @ 12:31 pm

  21. jimboster,

    You got me! If only I had acknowledged that in my earlier posts!

    Oh wait, I did.

    So much for that “gotcha.”

    I wonder how many of the people who come on here with the same trite “gotcha” actually read my posts on the subject.

    I know you to be an insightful guy who has tipped me to things in the past. Why don’t you go back and find my original post on the topic, and this time read it instead of accepting others’ characterizations of it?

    Then, if you don’t like that post, say so on that post and not this one.

    Comment by Patterico (f2a879) — 11/15/2008 @ 12:41 pm

  22. Patterico,

    Wow, and I thought I felt bad when the nuns rapped my knuckles with that ruler- it’s deja vu all over again! Admittedly, I wasn’t aware of your earlier acknowledgments, but my post was meant more or less as a semi-serious, facetious comment- I expected to be chastised for equating 2 lies with moral turpitude. But “trite”? That hurts.

    Comment by jimboster (364ef3) — 11/15/2008 @ 1:09 pm

  23. I say “trite” only because I have seen the same comment on virtually every post I have published for a week or two now.

    And I suspect most people, like you, never read what I actually wrote.

    Comment by Patterico (2285a7) — 11/15/2008 @ 1:34 pm

  24. From now on, I will studiously and religiously read each and every post you…um… post. And I promise I will never, I mean never, hyperbolize on this site again!!! Cross my heart and hope to die. Oops. There I go again!

    Comment by jimboster (364ef3) — 11/15/2008 @ 1:49 pm

  25. I think occasional dem officials should let slip fairness doctrine comments. The right will mobilize and expend anger, all the while a progressive communications agenda gets implemented without any motion on a fairness doctrine.

    Comment by imdw (26ca2a) — 11/15/2008 @ 2:10 pm

  26. “I forsee a return to the Pirate Radio” days of my youth, with many broadcasting in international waters or across the border in Mexico.”

    this is whats so interesting about first amendment complaints to the fairness doctrine. CURRENT broadcast regulations are such that a handful of entities in each location get to control content, but a vast majority of us — hundreds of thousands, millions nationwide — will get fined or go to jail if we attempt to broadcast. In a First amendment environment that permits this, we’re already starting from a very low baseline.

    Comment by imdw (f636ac) — 11/15/2008 @ 2:40 pm

  27. “CURRENT broadcast regulations are such that a handful of entities in each location get to control content”

    imdw – Really? How many stations do you get on your dial? Do you live in the wilderness or desert?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/15/2008 @ 2:47 pm

  28. I think imdw is confusing Clear Channel’s virtual monopoly with “regulations.” But they don’t care what kind of content they broadcast, they just put out crappy music formats that are identical in each market that they own broadcast properties.

    Comment by Dmac (e30284) — 11/15/2008 @ 2:54 pm

  29. “imdw – Really? How many stations do you get on your dial? Do you live in the wilderness or desert?”

    How many do you imagine are in a ‘handful’? Whatever. It could be dozens if not a hundred. That still leaves hundreds of thousands if not millions in each location and definitely nationwide facing jail or fine for broadcasting.Thats not what the first amendment looks like for other media

    Comment by imdw (c133bf) — 11/15/2008 @ 2:55 pm

  30. Comment by imdw — 11/15/2008 @ 2:55 pm

    TAke it up with the FDR Administration and the Communications Act of (?34?) that set up broadcast licensing.

    Comment by Another Drew (bb1716) — 11/15/2008 @ 3:02 pm

  31. “TAke it up with the FDR Administration and the Communications Act of (?34?) that set up broadcast licensing”

    What does that mean? Its a first amendment issue today too, not just in 1934. I think back then they were thinking of how to share this limited public resource. Similar to a permit process for a public square.

    Comment by imdw (e5e849) — 11/15/2008 @ 3:11 pm

  32. There are more flip-flops in Mr. Obama’s policy pronouncements than there are pancakes turned at an IHOP on Sunday morning…

    You can’t really hang your hat on any one promise of his, because the minute they become controversial or unpopular, under the bus it is!

    Besides, I’m sure that the talk radio bunch are well lawyered up for this possibility…

    Best Wishes…

    Comment by Bob (99fc1b) — 11/15/2008 @ 5:50 pm

  33. Comment by imdw — 11/15/2008 @ 3:11 pm

    Under the CommAct, Congress empowered the FCC to allocate the broadcast spectrum in accordance to an international treaty that the U.S.ratified.
    If you are unhappy with the way the spectrum is allocated, take it up with your Congressman/Senator.
    There is no freedom of speech issue on the use of the broadcast spectrum without a license.
    That issue has already been adjudicated.

    Comment by Another Drew (bb1716) — 11/15/2008 @ 6:10 pm

  34. imdw – I have five fingers on my hand. That is a handful. How about you?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/15/2008 @ 6:21 pm

  35. No need to worry at all. Sheesh, how stupid do they think we are?

    Comment by Da'Shiznit (089453) — 11/15/2008 @ 7:07 pm

  36. I have no problem with Obama rejecting public funds in his white house bid. Free enterprise, eh? More people wanted to give him money. Good for him. Woohoo.

    I actually thought that the guy in the video made a good point about the conservacrazies wanting small government in some areas, but not in others. Inconsistency is a b*tch.

    Comment by truthnjustice (d99227) — 11/15/2008 @ 7:48 pm

  37. TnJ,

    Me thinks Chuck the F*** is selectively picking out what he wants to make his own points.

    Conservatives do like big federal spending on some things — roads, bridges, army, navy, terrorism, etc but no so much on things one can do locally without the Feds.

    But ehhhh, Repubs and Conservatives are not one in the same.

    Comment by Da'Shiznit (089453) — 11/15/2008 @ 8:35 pm

  38. I think Congress should pass common sense newspaper control.

    Comment by N. O'Brain (453dd2) — 11/16/2008 @ 6:43 am

  39. “There is no freedom of speech issue on the use of the broadcast spectrum without a license.
    That issue has already been adjudicated.”

    I’m taking as a given the first amendment landscape where a few people get to broadcast and the rest go to jail or pay fines if they do. Given that, first amendment objections to license terms like a fairness doctrine or localism or indecency seem comparatively weak.

    “imdw – I have five fingers on my hand. That is a handful. How about you?”

    With my five fingers I can hold some dried beans in my hand, more than five of them, in fact. But you know what I meant when I said “handful.” Dont be a moron.

    Comment by imdw (b7f555) — 11/16/2008 @ 9:33 am

  40. truthnjustice —

    I have no problem with Obama rejecting public funds in his white house bid. Free enterprise, eh? More people wanted to give him money. Good for him. Woohoo.
    – Translation: Who gives a fuck if he lied to the entire nation? He won, and that’s the only thing that matters (further translation: integrity is for losers).

    I actually thought that the guy in the video made a good point about the conservacrazies wanting small government in some areas, but not in others. Inconsistency is a b*tch.
    – “The guy”? Are you telling me that The King of All Media Whores somehow falls below your radar?

    Oh, and do you know what the real bitch is? Libs like you ONCE AGAIN playing the game of simplistic absolutism. The idea of “small government” has NEVER (did you see the “never” part?) meant ‘small in every area’. It means ‘as small as possible, while doing what it needs to do for the people’. That’s why, for example, conservatives have never been for being small on national defense.

    BTW, are you ever going to tell me what it is that I wrote that is racist? If not, it’s time for a public bold-type apology.

    Comment by Icy Truth (aedb2f) — 11/16/2008 @ 10:52 am

  41. truthnjustice does not care that Obama destroyed the idea of public financing once and for all. A Democrat principle abandoned for expediency. Like all of their principles.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 11/16/2008 @ 10:58 am

  42. Comment by SPQR — 11/16/2008 @ 10:58 am

    Please, let’s be accurate.
    Liberals hold no principles, only talking points, whose validity has a very short life (see JD’s explanation of BHO’s veracity).

    Comment by Another Drew (e3760b) — 11/16/2008 @ 12:22 pm

  43. SPQR: Don’t comment on what I do and do not care about. I can do that on my own. But, I figured that you guys would be pleased that capitalism has made it to the government sector. Anything that can be bought will be bought, eh gents?

    Comment by truthnjustice (c313be) — 11/16/2008 @ 12:24 pm

  44. Spicy Poop: You made a ‘black’ comment about Michelle Obama. I am not saying YOU are a racist per se, but the comment itself certainly was. Now you can apologize.

    Comment by truthnjustice (c313be) — 11/16/2008 @ 12:25 pm

  45. truthnjustice, odd given you seem pretty enthusiastic about commenting on what others care about. I’ll comment however I wish regardless of your whining about it.

    And I notice you have no response to the fact that you endorse the abandonment of a Democratic principle. You notice no one is surprised by your lack of principle.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 11/16/2008 @ 12:28 pm

  46. What does that mean? Its a first amendment issue today too, not just in 1934. I think back then they were thinking of how to share this limited public resource. Similar to a permit process for a public square.

    Comment by imdw

    It is all about power. You can broadcast to your neighborhood on low power frequencies called “citizens band.” I am all for regulation of the spectrum for high power broadcast. Satellite should be exempt since it is not the public airwaves. I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to try to shut down any public speech that isn’t to their liking. Satellite radio’s day is coming, I suspect.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 11/16/2008 @ 12:33 pm

  47. I endorse keeping Ailin’ Palin out of the Oval Office or any other federal office.

    I also endorse fully researching names and principles to see what scary figures may have used them before using them as a handle.

    Comment by truthnjustice (c313be) — 11/16/2008 @ 12:37 pm

  48. Comment by Mike K — 11/16/2008 @ 12:33 pm

    There is also a relatively new, low-powered license for commercial/public-access use that enables almost anyone to set up a small, neighborhood type of station – much more efficient than CB.

    Comment by Another Drew (e3760b) — 11/16/2008 @ 12:38 pm

  49. Directions to the Ministry of Truth, on aisle-47.

    Comment by Another Drew (e3760b) — 11/16/2008 @ 12:40 pm

  50. truthnjustice, trying to revive your past smears I see. No need to confirm everyone’s opinions about your lack of principle.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 11/16/2008 @ 12:46 pm

  51. So now you are choosing not only to comment about my own sentiments, but about everyone else’s as well. Are you claiming to be God now?

    Comment by truthnjustice (c313be) — 11/16/2008 @ 12:51 pm

  52. So you’ll have to pardon me if I’m not particularly reassured by Barack Obama’s claim that he’s not going to try to impose the Fairness Doctrine. Based on his history, that’s a pretty strong indication that he will.

    I don’t have any desire to refight the last war. So I’m just tossing this out with an eye to the future. Since you and I, Patterico, see the same guy who can’t be trusted, I am intensely curious to know why you stubbornly insisted on attaching the appellation “good and decent” to that man.

    I don’t know if Obama is greatly different from any other politician. Maybe he’s not the doctrinaire marxist I believe him to be. Maybe he just drifted, going along to get along. I’m open minded to that degree.

    But I still can’t quite comprehend how a man who’s word can’t be trusted falls into the category of “good and decent.” That’s something I can’t quite wrap my mind around.

    Is it unfair of me to juxtapose your verdict that Obama is “good and decent” with your conclusion that nothing that passes from his lips can be trusted?

    Comment by Steve (31ddbc) — 11/17/2008 @ 10:05 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3850 secs.