The irony in all of this is this: Conservatives, believe that mainstream media such as the major networks, are all liberal...yet they have never called for the fairness doctrine to put conservative voices on TV. Liberals, have basically lost on the radio platform with Air America and yet want to artifically level the playing field. Don't liberals, rightfully, push the notion of having ideas out in the market place and letting people decide on them. (i.e., universities). The free market has allowed for that, and on radio, they lose. Not because anyone stops them, but because, well, the lose. Except for the fact that on the business side, they lost, nothing is stopping them, but because they lose, they now want gov't to step in. There is a reason people on the right fear a socialist trend. Clearly, nothing happens over night, but you start seeing things, drop by drop. Having government involved in ANY news media is a basically a couple of steps behind places like Venezuela that have government controlled press.
IIRC, this all started I believe a year or two ago when congress approval ratings were slipping badly. Instead of looking at themselves, they started blaming talk radio. Well........duh. If they screw up, shouldn't someone bring it up to the publics attention???? So instead of fixing their own problems, they decide to regulate radio.
arrgghhh
Are people aware that Senator Stabenow, the woman so interested in promoting liberal voices on the airwaves, is married to Tom Athens, executive VP of Air America?
ReplyDeleteIts just... baffling.
Ugh. Can we stop with the Fairness Doctrine bogeyman already? It's not going to happen. It's unpopular, probably unconstitutional, and Obama is on record opposing it.
ReplyDeleteJA - All seriousness, I meant to send you a piece right after you said that last time where Obama shrugged it off as something that should "be looked into" while other Dems were hailing the idea.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't help matters that the White House has stopped allowing or has limited the press' ability to cover some things and instead is releasing press releases telling the media what to say.
JA
ReplyDeletePlease explain how its unconstitutional? It was used before. And what makes you think it won't be brought again, if politicians are looking into it.
Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine
ReplyDeleteThere may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.
The Illinois senator’s top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.
"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.
"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
HH:
Please explain how its unconstitutional? It was used before.
It was used for broadcast networks, which use publicly-owned airwaves. I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't seem to me that the doctrine would work today what with the hundreds of cable channels, etc.
And what makes you think it won't be brought again, if politicians are looking into it.
Because the president opposes it, for one thing. And because nobody's even putting it to paper. This whole thing is based on some speculative statements by various Congresspeople saying they think it might be a good idea. Wake me up when it has a snowball's chance in hell of even getting out of a committee.
The irony in all of this is this: Conservatives, believe that mainstream media such as the major networks, are all liberal...yet they have never called for the fairness doctrine to put conservative voices on TV.
ReplyDeleteBecause the idea that the MSM are liberal is bull. Look at every "controversial" issue (i.e. an issue that the fairness doctrine would be relevant to) of the last ten years. Every single time, there is more time given to the right-wing side of the issue than the left-wing.
I just posted this week about how Republicans have 2-1 airtime on the major news networks regarding the stimulus, even though they are the minority in congress. Go look at the coverage in the lead-up to war. They had at least 2 and probably more like 3 or 4 pro-war guests for every one anti-war. "The left-wing media" is a myth. The media are statist, corporatist, and hawkish.
>It was used for broadcast networks, which use publicly-owned airwaves
ReplyDeleteSo is radio
>Because the idea that the MSM are liberal is bull.
Oh please, if you are going to lie, there is no reason to debate. Please don't tell me that ABC, NBC, or CBS along with big name cable networks are neutral. PLEASE don't say that. Helen thomas basically admitted a liberal bias recently.
>I just posted this week about how Republicans have 2-1 airtime on the major news networks regarding the stimulus, even though they are the minority in congress. Go look at the coverage in the lead-up to war
So freakin what? Its the republicans that are holding things up, so clearly networks are going to want to talk to them. Duh!. Are you going to tell me that because for 15 years, Colmes has worked for Foxnews its all of a sudden neutral?
And ANYWAYS, this is all irrelevant. From the perspective of the right, there is a left wing bias, and yet they never called for the fairness doctrine.
JA - Seriously? ABC's political director said straight out that too many of the people in his news room allow their liberal slants to bias their relaying of news. Not commentary - News.
ReplyDeleteCBS has been nailed time and time again.
MSNBC is openly liberal; NBC less so.
CNN is openly liberal.
FOX (not the cable channel, which is a different entity) is typically liberal, though not a premier news network typically.
The NYTimes is openly liberal and was criticized by a liberal editor for being so in the news reporting itself. So is the LATimes. The WSJ's news pages were rated more liberal than both of those (in contrast to their editorials).
Why media caps? What does "network neutrality" mean? What does it mean to support minority ownership, since everyone thinks it would be great if there were more diverse ownership - would he force it somehow?
ReplyDeleteAnd no offense, but most people still get their news from ABC/NBC/CBS. Forcing viewpoints onto those alone would be bad enough.
Whatever. We all agree here that the FD is a bad idea. If you want to believe that the same media who breathlessly rushed us to war in Iraq, who refuse to call torture "torture," who put on twice as many Republicans as Democrats on about the stimulus "liberal" than you and I have different definitions of "liberal."
ReplyDeleteJA - Fine. So if it does get pushed, will you stand hard against it? Do you think other liberals will do the same?
ReplyDeleteSo if it does get pushed, will you stand hard against it?
ReplyDeleteYes.
Do you think other liberals will do the same?
Many will, many won't. More likely the young/online ones will, the old-school won't.