Getting Off The Pot

When the subject of the “Fairness” Doctrine comes up, Democrats respond “Obama’s said he won’t for it”.  It’s both correct and irrelevant; Obama doesn’t need to do a thing; the cynical among us believe he knows that full well, and that he’s got henchpeople to do that hyperpartisan, not-so-hopey-changey work for him.

And they are doing it:

Another Democratic U.S. senator has gone on record as supporting the reinstatement of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” adding, “I feel like that’s gonna happen.”

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”: “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.”

Did you catch that?

We need “Accountability” and “Standards” for free speech?

Can you imagine if, at any point in the past eight years, any Republican had suggested we needed “standards” for any First Amendment liberty?  He’d have been tarred and feathered…no, he or she’d have been pilloried in the media, and quietly shuffled off the stage.

Of course, no Republican suggested doing any such thing to the civil rights of Americans in the past eight years.

Asked by Press if she could be counted on to push for hearings in the Senate this year “to bring these (radio station) owners in and hold them accountable,” Stabenow replied: “I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.”

I have felt that the Democrats were going to use Obama’s anointment and coronation as an excuse for overreach; in their decades on the intellectual margin, they have become brittle, shrill, dogmatic…

…and I guess, given these proposals, “authoritarian”:

“For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country,” Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told Albuquerque radio station KKOB last year. “I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.”

It was not.  It was dreary, monochrome, and nobody cared, because nobody listened to it.

And yes – behind the shaking heads and the solemn assurances, the Dems have been lining up behind the proposals.

And, lest we forget, the Dems don’t need Obama, or Congress, or the title “The Fairness Doctrine” to ram this piece of garbage through:

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee whose term runs through June, however, warned that Democrats may be adopting a stealthier approach to shutting down conservatives on talk radio.

In a speech to the Media Institute in Washington last week, Multichannel News reports, McDowell suggested there are efforts to implement the controversial policy without using the red-flagged “Fairness Doctrine” label.

“That’s just Marketing 101,” McDowell explained. “If your brand is controversial, make it a new brand.”

Instead, McDowell alleged, Democrats will try to disguise their efforts in the name of localism, diversity or network neutrality.

McDowell further suggested that the FCC may already be gearing up to enforce the “Fairness Doctrine” through community advisory boards that help determine local programming. While radio stations use the boards on a voluntary basis now, McDowell warned if the advisory panels become mandatory, “Would not such a policy be akin to a re-imposition of the Doctrine, albeit under a different name and sales pitch?”

I warned you about this months ago. The Dems have been preparing the ground for this fight for quite some time.

And while Republicans’ prediction of “Fairness Doctrine” legislation remains unfulfilled and highly speculative, a WND investigation has revealed that McDowell and Walden aren’t just fear-mongering, as some have suggested. A think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama’s transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on talk radio using language that has since been parroted by both the Obama campaign and the new administration’s White House website.

In June of 2007, Podesta’s Center for American Progress released a report titled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” detailing the conservative viewpoint’s dominance on the airwaves and proposing steps for leveling the playing field.

I worked this report over when it came out. Please read that piece – it’s one of the better pieces I’ve written.

To borrow a phrase from Reagan, we do have a time for choosing, here.  After eight years of whinging endlessly about Americans’ civil liberties that were never in the faintest shred of danger, we now face a genuine threat to the First Amendment, intended purely to stifle debate in this country.

Part of me hopes the Democrats try.  They’ve overreached badly in Obama’s first two weeks; this would be the mother lode.
(Coming soon – Fairness Doctrine FAQ)

35 thoughts on “Getting Off The Pot

  1. Presumably, then, all lovers of liberty would need to do would be to petition the FCC to apply whatever rules they make for radio to television as well.

  2. Better yet, to newsprint. Can you imagine the Fairness Doctrine applied to the NYTimes? The explosion would be so big you’d be picking up pieces of clown-head in Montana.

  3. through community advisory boards

    Whatever happend to individual rights? It’s like we are slipping into an Anthem unviverse where “I” does not exist.

  4. I can’t wait for the Phelps family to provide balance to any radio statoin that has pro-gay rights programming.

    Will MSM entertainment now have to have liberal villians also?

  5. Lefty radio (as well as internet sites) is notorious for stifling dissenting commentary from the listening audience. Take any show (there aren’t that many to choose from), record an few minutes each day, and you’ll quickly expose a pattern.

    1. Lefty host spews unsubstantiated BovineScat.

    2. Lefty audience calls in with incoherent bile that doesn’t come within a mile of adding anything of substance to the topic.

    3. Conservative calls in and tears lefty host’s position to shreds, repeatedly battering inane talking points with fact and source.

    4. Lefty host cuts conservative short and hangs up, then uses the next 15 minutes to conduct a one sided counter argument consisting of a rehash of said BovineScat and incoherent bile.

    That is one reason why no one tunes in. Even moderate lefties get sick of listening to the scatter-brained pap that passes for content at AirScamerica, which is why there isn’t one, single, lefty radio host that has a syndication that exceeds a half dozen stations nationwide.

    Take the time to listen to Stephanie Miller show on the drive in tomorrow. I guarantee that, if after listening to five minutes of that air head mangle reality you’re not reaching for the dial, the first time her gerbil wrangling sidekick bleats you will be yearning for the soothing tones of fingernails on chalkboard.

  6. I can’t wait for the Phelps family to provide balance to any radio statoin that has pro-gay rights programming.

    Won’t happen. There will be no community review board that’ll favor Phred Phelps.

    But Obama-friendly coverage? That’s another story.

  7. Mitch, I think you addressed this once before, but what about Christian programming? Would this be the end of 980AM and 1330AM (Catholic radio)?

  8. You;’e just described a Rush Limbaugh segment almost verbatim. Although, to be fair, I have listened since the election, so maybe he has lightened up Hahahahaha:

    ==

    1. Rush spews unsubstantiated BovineScat.

    2. Ditto Head calls in with incoherent bile that doesn’t come within a mile of adding anything of substance to the topic.

    3. Non Conforming listener sneaks by screener and tears Rush’s position to shreds (can’t say talking points anymore, didn’t you get the memo, Tom) with fact and source.

    4. Rush cuts off intelligent rebuttal short and hangs up, then uses the next 15 minutes to conduct a one sided counter argument consisting of a rehash of said BovineScat and incoherent bile.
    = = =

    There, now you guys don;t have to listen to him anymore.

    If it weren’t for hate radio, McCain probably would have won. Ta heck with the fairness doctrine. Every time a Far Right Winger opens their mouth, 2 more moderates support a democratic candidate! Keep it up, they couldn’t do it without you!

  9. Flash,

    “I know you are, but what am I” isn’t really argument.

    As to the “hate radio” slur – really, how can you call *anything* talking points when you use a line like that?

    (That’s presuming that you don’t really believe that “Un-PC” = “hateful”. If you do…well, perhaps we should change the subject).

  10. 3. Non Conforming listener sneaks by screener and tears Rush’s position to shreds … intelligent rebuttal…

    STEP AWAY FROM THE KEG

  11. This is getting tough for lefties. I have a commenter over at my place who was complaining when I linked to an Iowahawk piece. He thought that Iowahawk needs to provide equal time to criticizing Republicans.

    Free speech is a real bitch sometimes.

  12. “”“I know you are, but what am I” isn’t really argument.””

    Really, is that all you have left in your copy/paste cue. You used to be snarky and original *laughing*

    “”So you’re justifying gutting the First Amendment, then? “”

    Absolutely not!! I say turn the entire airwaves over to you guys. Seems to be working out really really good for you!

    This Shot in the Onion thing is real fun and entertaining. Thanks ‘mitch’!

  13. There is no way that the Fairness Doctrine, or similarly conceived notions, will work in favor of conservatives. It won’t take down or balance the New York Times, NPR, MPR, PBS, or Air America.

    Even if it did, I prefer that government oversight and FCC licensing not be the reason left-leaner radio stations go under.

    They can do that all on their own.

  14. Flash, have you listened to Michael Medved? His standing policy is to put disgreeing callers at the front of the queue. On Thursdays he has “Disagreement Day”.
    Non Conforming listener sneaks by screener ?
    Please. These hosts (out current blog host included) thrive on dissent. Don’t you get it? Lefty Radio is boring because it doesn’t.

  15. Kerm:

    I like Medved, he has a very similar policy to Schultz on the Left. But the huge difference between Micheal, and to a similar extent Hewitt, is a level of respect for the opposition that is totally non existent with the Limbaugh/Coulter types. It is something that used to exists here, and simply doesn’t anymore.

    “”thrive on dissent. “”

    But they don;t engage it, they talk down to it. I have even made honest efforts to participate in dialogue on issues I agree with many of you on, but the instinct is so quick to shoot me down as soon as you see the moniker ‘Flash’ that half the time you don’t even realize we are in agreement.

    If you had more Medved/Hewitts and less Limbaugh/Savages you would go a long way in convincing the moderate middle that the correct way is the Right way. But many of you spend too much of your time defending the bad, instead of promoting the good.

    Flash

  16. Flash,

    You come here and want respect, while simultaneously spewing about “talking points” and “ScaifeNet” and “hate radio” “Shot in the Onion.” If you can’t see the disconnect here, we can’t help you.

    [b]ut the instinct is so quick to shoot me down as soon as you see the moniker ‘Flash’ that half the time you don’t even realize we are in agreement.

    Go figure — it is passing strange that many people’s instincts would be to shoot back at someone who is shooting at them. Never heard of such thing before. We are all chastened, though; going forward, feel free to keep pissing on us and we’ll try real hard to remember that it’s just raining. That’s how people who are agreement with each other usually behave, of course.

  17. Part of the problem, Flash, is that you see M. Savage as fairly similar to R. Limbaugh.

    I’ve listened to both… but not as much with Savage. I might have stood a better chance listening to Savage if he didn’t shift so quickly from a regular topic to some fairly unconnected bit of personal trivia so quickly and with precious little transition. I’ve heard him yell with reason and when I couldn’t see a reason for his yelling. I’ve heard him be fair with disagreeing callers from either side of the aisle and I’ve heard him “bully” callers from both sides of the aisle.

    In general, Rush is, if you listen to him, very good about prepping his audience and making transitions, engaging callers, smacking down a nutjob, detecting seminar callers, asking questions, cutting to the chase, etc.

    Like him or not, agree with him or not, enjoy him or not… I simply cannot find the so-called hate-speech and hate-radio element in Limnaugh’s shows. I’ve tried to help you folks out… but I can’t find the evidence, and your side cannot provide it and support it.

    Sorry… if you simply don’t like Dick Van Dyke (for example), you don’t call him talentless or unprofessional or hateful. Unless you’re a nutjob.

  18. The last time I listened to Savage he was just as critical of Bush as any lefty. Come to think of it, McCain was not ‘pushed’ by right wing talk radio as much as Obama was ‘pushed’ by the NYT. McCain’s talk radio endorsements ran the scale from tepid to even more tepid.

  19. I simply cannot find the so-called hate-speech and hate-radio element in Limnaugh’s shows.

    Neither can anyone else. I’ve asked libruls many times – “where’s the hate?” Indeed, we had the exact same conversation with Flash two weeks ago. He responded as all lefties do; a few examples of un-PC behavior, and a few examples where context had been waterboarded out of recognition to reality.

    To a liberal, disagreement is hate.

  20. “Neither can anyone else.”

    When you get to set the goal posts and move them at will, you are right. All I have ever asked of you folks is to apply the same standard to both sides. And based on the pass you are willing to give Rush et. al, Left wing radio must be a heavenly mix of love and bliss. Glad we’ve cleared that up!

  21. “All I have ever asked of you folks is to apply the same standard to both sides.”

    Didn’t I write comment the other giving example after example of “hateful” comments written or spoken by Franken? Of course he’s the choice of the left for Senator from MN, supposed to equally represent all of its citizens. Limbaugh is just a broadcaster.

  22. Flash,
    Saying, “Where’s the hate?” and getting met with (as Mitch said) examples of un-PC comments is not moving the goal posts.

    Glad I could help out with that.

    Anything else you want to help provide as evidence?

  23. Isn’t Air America (the lovey, bliss-filled peace factory) the outfit that broadcasts death threats to anyone who takes the office of President?

  24. But they don;t engage it, they talk down to it.
    Can you see the contradiction in your satatement, Flash? In order to “talk down to it”, they must first engage it. It would seem your definition of “talking down to” equates with my definition “bitch-slapping faulty logic”.
    I can see how that may make you feel uncomfortable. Perhaps you should try the even keel, serious debate engaged in on The View.

  25. Speaking of talking points & Barney Frank, when he was on Meet the Press yesterday he mentioned stimulus package dollars in the context of preventing the layoff of police & firefighters in MA five times.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29083534/
    Now that’s a talking point. Or, as Angry Clown would have it ‘staying on message’.

  26. When you get to set the goal posts and move them at will, you are right.

    I set the standard clearly: Where is the hate?

    You moved the goalposts (I believe your quote was “if something isn’t PC, isn’t that hateful?”). You can’t find examples of “hate” to apply to Limbaugh’s behavior, so you’re accusing me of “moving the goalposts”.

    Hate is, to a degree, subjective, but not that subjective.

    All I have ever asked of you folks is to apply the same standard to both sides.

    And I did.

    And you can’t respond!

    And based on the pass you are willing to give Rush et. al, Left wing radio must be a heavenly mix of love and bliss. Glad we’ve cleared that up!

    But you haven’t showed me why a “pass” isn’t justified; you’ve shown us no “hate” whatsoever.

    And you can leave the comparisons with “left wing radio”, because I’m not calling them “hateful”.

    Just “stupid, boring and not ready for prime time”.

  27. And, Flash, in the interest of “having a standard” – we do. It’s called the First Amendment.

    And from your commentary here, it seems you’re ready to allow the Administration – the Executive or the majority in Congress – to impose censorship.

    Do I have that correct?

    If not, why not? Because it sure seems that’s what you’re getting at.

  28. Mitch,
    Surely we can suggest that at least one left-leaning radio broadcaster has on at least one occasion had a lapse in judgment, possibly due to hate, where the aforementioned left-leaning radio broadcaster, Randi Rhodes, might have (or might not have) volunteered the idea that the previous President should be dealt with in a swift and violent manner.

  29. Main Entry: hate

    1 a: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
    b: extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing “had a great hate of hard work”
    2: an object of hatred “a generation whose finest hate had been big business — F. L. Paxson”

    Flash’s and the Left’s attitude towards Rush fits all aspects of the definition to a T.

    From what little I’ve heard of Rush I don’t see intense hostility or extreme dislike of liberalism or individuals as part of his shtick, it’s more ridicule and mocking. Perhaps flash could provide specific instances of intense and extreme antipathy? Remember, those adjectives must apply. Normal antipathy and disagreement don’t count.

  30. “they don;t engage it, they talk down to it.”

    Dude, please. When “hate” is used to describe refusing to give credence to the asinine dribble that passes for lefty political postions we are done.

    Can you honestly, even to yourself, not admit that reading a typical post from “Linda” doesn’t occaisionally make you cringe? Peevee is a ADHD poster child, but even he doesn’t engage in the type of brain-dead, goo-goo baby talk your sister lays out.

  31. “President should be dealt with in a swift and violent manner”

    but how can that possibly compare to the intense hatred intrinsic in the questioning of the sincerity of Michael J. Fox?

  32. Did anyone from the Michael J. Fox (who, let’s remember, has no Elvis in him) ever actually say Rush was wrong, or that Fox wasn’t exaggerating, or things of this nature?

    C’mon folks… you don’t get donations for world hunger by getting a well-fed African kid in front of the camera.

  33. Nothing complicated about the Fairness Doctrine. The simple question is this; do you trust a bureaucrat paid out of tax dollars to fairly consider the case of a talk show host (or other media personality) who thinks that bureaucrat ought to be fired? Or are there some motives there that ought to be considered?

    It would be funny, though, if the government disciplined the NY Times because, after all, their newspaper boxes ARE in public right of ways, and hence they have a responsibility to the public…. makes as much sense as the airwaves, I think.

  34. “We are done?” Oh dear, Angryclown is all aquiver, Shiftee!

    “Good day sir!”

    Haha, Swiftee, you are such a colossal douchebag!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.