Thursday, November 6, 2008

The Fairness Doctrine

Obama said back in June that he did not support The Fairness Doctrine... However, many Democrats do, including Nancy Pelosi.

Questions:

1. What are your thoughts on The Fairness Doctrine?

2. Do you believe Barak Obama will stand by his word?

15 comments:

Two Dogs said...

1. From the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law....or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.....'Nuff said?

2. If Obama has been honest about a single thing in his entire life, I have yet to hear it. Expecting him to do something that is contrary to everything that he has done in forty-seven years is at best, naive, at worst, stupid.

He is what he is, a corrupt old guy that is intellectually incurious.

Roland Hulme said...

Is that the thing where you have to have as many liberal people on your radio station as conservatives?

ABSOLUTE rubbish, totally unconstitutional and I'll give Chuck Schumer a telling off if I run into him.

Preposterous.

Liberals have the TV (sauf Fox) and conservatives have the radio. Fair's fair. And have you ever heard liberal radio? Unlistenable.

I have Mark Levin and Sean Hannity on my presets just so I have somebody to yell at on my drive home.

Coffee Bean said...

Barak Obama made some comments about Sean Hannity several times toward the end of the election and he also said something about bloggers. It was obvious that Sean Hannity gets under Obama's skin...

Anyway, I looked up the Fairness Doctrine on Wikipedia and saw this:

On June 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who represents California's 8th congressional district) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”, the Speaker replied "Yes."

There's also speculation in certain circles as to whether blogs would be included should the fairness doctrine be re-instated. I find it interesting that whenever I've heard those wanting to re-instate the doctrine they are usually talking about conservative radio.

I guess we will see as time goes by.

Sarah said...

1) God help us if this unconstitutional, anti-freedom, suppression of free speech and press "doctrine" is passed.

2) Um... I doubt it. Although it's not as up to him as you might think. It's up to Congress. Gah...

Rick said...

No. What's the Fairness Doctrine?

BLBeamer said...

We already know John McCain was opposed to freedom of political speech (remember McCain/Feingold?)

We have yet to see if Obama cares as much about the 1st Amendment as liberals claim to. I hope he's not one of those common "free speech for me but not for thee" types.

We already know Congress and the Supreme Court and President Bush don't care about it.

Coffee Bean said...

Hi Rick!

"The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine."

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

The doctrine was abolished by the FCC in 1987. There has been talk of reviving the doctrine by some Democrats in an effort to shut down conservative talk radio... Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mark Levin... etc. (and possibly political blogs) but no one has actually introduced any bills... yet.

Hopefully it is wasted time even speculating it. And, if they do try, I don't think it would actually pass. Only time will tell.

Rick said...

Oh...

Bean, you sounded so smart when you wrote all that. Know what? I think that you are smart.

Smart and funny. You're a force, woman!!

P.S. It sounds like a baaaad thing!!!

Ron Lankshear said...

Saw your post on OSO - I am amazed at the Fairness Doctrine - what does it have to do with Free Speech. Here in Australia it is generally the conservative side trying to stop the left wing media from airing their views particularly on our ABC public broadcaster but actually having legislation wow.

Except at Election time we do restrict political party advertising to equal time for the main two parties. And the others have lesser time and then we have had Blackout when we get to Polling Date. However the media themselves would still interview etc etc

So Hannity says some outrageous stuff. BUT WHO has the right to decide that and stop him. Surely the laws of libel and slander etc cover such things.

Two Dogs said...

The Fairness Doctrine FORCES private station owners to air or publish the views that they do not share.

For instance, it would require (supposedly) that ABC air the fact that Barack Obama is waist deep in corruption in Chicago. Of course, when the FD was in effect, it never did that anyway. The whole purpose is to stifle free speech of the conservatives. That is its only purpose.

I have listened to and watched Sean Hannity quite a bit and have never heard him say a single thing that is even remotely outrageous. Maybe there are two Sean Hannitys. That is unless his shows have changed in the last ten years.

Roland Hulme said...

"Sean Hannity quite a bit and have never heard him say a single thing that is even remotely outrageous."

Compared to you, Two Dogs, he's Michael Moore.

The Fairness Doctrine should NEVER be reintroduced. It's disgusting. And I'm a so-called 'liberal.'

Two Dogs said...

Roland, admit it, you have never listened to Hannity. Milquetoast. If you desire outrageous, listen to Savage.

Two Dogs said...

By the way, it was just pointed out to me that it could be misunderstood that I was referring to Roland as a milquetoast in my prior comment. That was referring to Hannity. He's a puse-carrying nancy-boy, pretty guy. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I wouldn't choose Sean to help me cut firewood.

Roland Hulme said...

I had to google milquetoast. :-)

Just Me said...

Don't mess with free speech.

Forcing me to promote what I don't believe is not free speech. If you want to say something, say it yourself on your own time.

Really, now, if these whiny crybabies want some liberal radio, there's nothings to stop them from putting up their own stations. That obnoxious creature, Joy Behar, would probably do very well with it for a week or so. Beyond a week, she's doing little more than wasting perfectly good oxygen.