Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Rep. Eshoo to push for Fairness Doctrine

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (pictured), D-Palo Alto, said Monday she will work to restore the Fairness Doctrine and have it apply to cable and satellite programming as well as radio and TV.

“I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it,” Eshoo told the Daily Post in Palo Alto.

The Fairness Doctrine required TV and radio stations to balance opposing points of view. It meant that those who disagreed with the political slant of a commentator were entitled to free air time to give contrasting points of view, usually in the same time slot as the original broadcast.

The doctrine was repealed by the Reagan administration's Federal Communications Commission in 1987, and a year later, Rush Limbaugh's show went national, ushering in a new form of AM radio.

Conservative talk show hosts fear the doctrine will result in their programs being canceled because stations don't want to offer large amounts of air time to opponents whose response programs probably wouldn't get good ratings.

Eshoo said she would recommend the doctrine be applied not only to radio and TV broadcasts, but also to cable and satellite services.

“It should and will affect everyone,” she said.

She called the present system “unfair,” and said "there should be equal time for the spoken word." (Photo credit: Ian Port, Daily Post)

86 comments:

Mtnguy said...

Does this fine Representative believe that the "Fairness Doctrine" should apply to NPR as well as other media outlets? Does sit apply to MDMBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN? These media outlets are the most liberal-minded on the planet, and NPR, being tax supported and public dollar supported, should be among the FIRST to offer alternative and equal-time viewpoints. I really don't see this happening, as NPR is one of the most liberal outlets on the planet. There is nothing "fair" about the fairness doctrine. It is a way for liberal government to dictate what the public hears, since the public doesn't give a hoot about the liberal trash we are being fed. I believe this is the way Communist countries seek to control the minds of their citizens..."1984" may be many years ago, but it's coming around again. By the way, I'm a westerner living in the mid-west, in one of the most corrupt states in the nation - Illinois. That's our Democratic governor who's trying to buy Senate seats! You want him in CA? We'll send him your way!

Anonymous said...

Typical Eshoo. For eight years she stands by and lets the Limbaughs and Savages and Reagans pollute the national brainscape. Then when the Neocon Nightmare ends and there's a chance for a progressive renaissance, she wants to impose the fairness doctrine--which, as the article points out, requires so much air time that networks won't want to do public issues at all. True fairness would be if progressives could dominate the media for eight years, and THEN we have a fairness doctrine.

Anonymous said...

There's nothing wrong with requiring a broadcaster to air contrasting points of view. There's something very wrong with our system if a station is just allowed to broadcast one point of view all the time, without any attempt to provide balance.

Anonymous said...

In the absence of the Fairness Doctrine, you have competition. (The fact is that most media outlets are owned by people with progressive points of view, but their business senses usually override their personal political preferences.) Air America was supposed to the Left's answer to conservative talk radio, and it is a miserable failure because it cannot capture and hold an audience. Whirle there are a few liberal hosts who do reasonably well in certain markets, the fact is that most of them cannot capture an audience, which means there is no revenue for advertisers, and thus none for the radio stations. Rather than competing with consevatives in the marketplace of ideas, the Left's response is to use the force of government to silence its opposition. Real progressive, you bunch of fucktards.

Anonymous said...

Good idea. Let's just get rid of that pesky 1st Amendment. If we can just silence the critics and control the media,we will achieve a democratic utopia.

Anonymous said...

ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the Dems biggest political blunder in decades. GOP radio monopoly is unamerican and hinders all progressive efforts. no other medium allows anywhere near the same level of coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition 24/7/365 to catapult the propaganda. it makes democracy and bipartisanship impossible. we wouldn't be in this bush disaster if reagan hadn't killed the FD 20 years ago. the only consolation is that it drove the GOP over a cliff. unfortunately it took the rest of us with it.

a single local blowhard reading GOP and chamber of commerce talking points can undo the work of thousands of citizens volunteering a few hours and dollars here and there. it is the most powerful single-minded easily manipulated political constituency in the US and has an audience the size of the crowd that voted for obama- much of it with few or no alternatives for current events than the giant limbaugh station with the biggest signal around. its 1000 stations are the power centers of the GOP. it determines what is and what isn't acceptable in the rest of the media. it enables flat earthers in GOP politics and it enables/requires the tradmedia to entertain flat earthers in their forums. it turns dems into blue dogs (limbaugh dems).

don't know if a new FD is the way to go but something must be done. and oh yeah, the FD did NOT require equal time- just a chance at rebuttal for partisan political speech. limbaugh and the other national blowhards don't even take real calls and cannot be criticized except when someone fools the screener.

Anonymous said...

ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the Dems biggest political blunder in decades. GOP radio monopoly is unamerican and hinders all progressive efforts. no other medium allows anywhere near the same level of coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition 24/7/365 to catapult the propaganda. it makes democracy and bipartisanship impossible. we wouldn't be in this bush disaster if reagan hadn't killed the FD 20 years ago. the only consolation is that it drove the GOP over a cliff. unfortunately it took the rest of us with it.

a single local blowhard reading GOP and chamber of commerce talking points can undo the work of thousands of citizens volunteering a few hours and dollars here and there. it is the most powerful single-minded easily manipulated political constituency in the US and has an audience the size of the crowd that voted for obama- much of it with few or no alternatives for current events than the giant limbaugh station with the biggest signal around. its 1000 stations are the power centers of the GOP. it determines what is and what isn't acceptable in the rest of the media. it enables flat earthers in GOP politics and it enables/requires the tradmedia to entertain flat earthers in their forums. it turns dems into blue dogs (limbaugh dems).

don't know if a new FD is the way to go but something must be done. and oh yeah, the FD did NOT require equal time- just a chance at rebuttal for partisan political speech. limbaugh and the other national blowhards don't even take real calls and cannot be criticized except when someone fools the screener.

Anonymous said...

"It's unfair." Wah, wah, freakin' wah.

Grow up! Sure, enact the fairness doctrine and see what happens to AM radio. Bye-bye talk radio, bye-bye advertisers and the big one, bye-bye radio station. But who cares, right, Eshoo? Hell, we will all be working for the government soon anyway. Hello, socialism!

Good grief -this is pathetic. "I don't like them and I don't agree with them. They don't fit my agenda. They don't believe in what I believe in and screw everyone else. I'm going to do what I want to do!" Jeez...such a sad state of our government.

Now, Obama has said on record (B&C article) that he doesn't support the Fairness Doctrine. Good for him and I hope he sticks to his word.

Anonymous said...

"There's nothing wrong with requiring a broadcaster to air contrasting points of view."

Except when it kills the original programming. Also, remember when people where free to choose what they listened to? That if they didn't like it they could turn it off and not listen to it? If enough people did that, then the show could not survive. The essence of the free market: Don't like it, don't buy it

Oh, and one other thing. When you "require" a private citizen to espouse ideas they don't agree with, then you've created a slave.

Anonymous said...

Yes there is something wrong with it! The government, in NO way has the right to put limits on the people's freedoms! Eschoo should read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you know the thing she took an oath to uphold?!
Face facts. The corporations that own the talk radio stations are not trying to brainwash people using their media. They are in it to make a profit! That's all they care about and if that meant airing Julia Child cooking shows all day on the radio because it got ratings they would do it!
People don't want to hear liberal talk radio and the ridiculous rantings that go on there, pure and simple! If there was such an out cry for liberal talk then Air America wouldn't have gone bankrupt. They failed because NO ONE LISTENED! No listeners = No ratings = no advertisers = No money = Bankruptcy.

I'm sure all that doesn't matter to Comrade Eschoo. Marxist control of the masses and hiding what they do politically at the state and federal level does though I'm sure!
Vote this Communist out at the first chance California!

Anonymous said...

To anonymous above,

Your line of thinking is so dangerous and so short-sighted, I am almost at a loss for words here. You are arguing that private speech be regulated. Do you have ANY IDEA AT ALL what the ramifications of this are?

Don't like a conservative talk radio station? Start a liberal station? You ignoramuses on the Left truly don't understand the concept of a free market of ideas.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait to see ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSDNC and NPR have to surrender 12 hours of broadcasting time each day to Rush Limbaugh for him to respond to the 12 hours of leftist bile that they spew forth. Also, I can't wait to see the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Associated (with terrorists) Press, al Reuters, al McClatchy, al Jazeera, Time, Newsweek and Sports Illustrated have to surrender 50% of their space to Rush Limbaugh for him to respond to the leftist bilge that they spew forth each day in their pages. I suspect that America hating dingbats like Eshoo would not support such "fairness".

Anonymous said...

"There's nothing wrong with requiring a broadcaster to air contrasting points of view."

Yes there is.

"There's something very wrong with our system if a station is just allowed to broadcast one point of view all the time, without any attempt to provide balance."

No there is not. In a free market society the people already decide. If they listen the stations can sell ad space. If no one listens, they change programing.

Gov doesn't/shouldn't intervene. Why the heck do you want the government deciding what you can/can't/should/shouldn't listen to?

Anonymous said...

So now she wants the government to legislate cable and satellite? Since you have to pay for the service how does that work? What's next coming to your house and going thru your CD collection and telling you what you can and cannot listen to after you purchased them?

Bob Kincaid said...

Mtnguy's been listening to a little too much corporate right-wing spew.

The Fairness Doctrine doesn't, and never did, apply to journalism. It applies to opinion. No one will ever accuse Limbaugh of being a journalist. He refers to himself as an "entertainer," and "America's Truth Detector." He is, in short, an opinionist and if he's going to use MY airwaves and YOURS to make forty million dollars a year, then he ought to be a big enough boy to field a little honest opposition. Lord knows, he's never had the courage to do that on his show.

Rep. Eshoo is wrong in one regard. She cites claims that corporate broadcasters won't be willing to broadcast opposing viewpoints on account of the opposition being unprofitable. If that's the case, why do "conservatives" frequently struggle for ratings against "liberals," even when the liberals have to broadcast from weaker signals?

America's corporate broadcast monopolists are no less ideological than the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world. They don't WANT liberal/progressive opinion out there.

NBC "liberal?" C'mon. They're owned by General Electric, one of the biggest war profiteers in human history. NPR shills for the warmongers all the time: "This program funded in part by a generous grant from Northrop-Grumman, making better planes to deliver better bombs to brown people on the ground all over the world."

Quit using "believe," Mtnguy, and try a few facts for a change. The old winger talking points aren't sticking.

davis said...

A Democracy requires the Fairness Doctrine. And it requires citizens with the backbone to use it and speak their minds and hearts, whether they are right or left. Having a point of view matters in the creation of one's own subjective reality, and the listeners, the witnesses to that stand reflect the building of one's character and what one stands for. When citizens are held accountable for their beliefs and values, the populace wins. If you can't stand for something, you can evade responsibility through pretense. If someone calls you on it, you have to speak. If you want to influence society that is how it works to insure good decent people take leadership.

Public servants need to embody and speak within the principles of the Three Office of Truth, according to Aristotle (the father of our western thought system, 500B.C.). That means they embody Ethics, Logic, and Passion. Ethics requires three components be fulfilled in one's speech: Character, Intelligence, and GOODWILL, without which any one component results in no ethics. Logic is the ability to demonstrate or refute a claim, to argue, debate, reason, and enlighten one another requires a logical principle to be at play. And Passion (this one we get cheated, suckered, and programmed for, instead of owning and practicing it ourselves more often than not) is the third office of truth and it is the ability to arouse or allay the emotions of an audience. Have you turned on anyone lately with your words, or calmed them down? If so, you have spoken passionately.

Anonymous said...

'Bout time!
Thank you, Anna Eshoo.

Anonymous said...

ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the Dems biggest political blunder in decades. GOP radio monopoly is unamerican and hinders all progressive efforts. no other medium allows anywhere near the same level of coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition 24/7/365 to catapult the propaganda. it makes democracy and bipartisanship impossible. we wouldn't be in this bush disaster if reagan hadn't killed the FD 20 years ago. the only consolation is that it drove the GOP over a cliff. unfortunately it took the rest of us with it.

a single local blowhard reading GOP and chamber of commerce talking points can undo the work of thousands of citizens volunteering a few hours and dollars here and there. it is the most powerful single-minded easily manipulated political constituency in the US and has an audience the size of the crowd that voted for obama- much of it with few or no alternatives for current events than the giant limbaugh station with the biggest signal around. its 1000 stations are the power centers of the GOP. it determines what is and what isn't acceptable in the rest of the media. it enables flat earthers in GOP politics and it enables/requires the tradmedia to entertain flat earthers in their forums. it turns dems into blue dogs (limbaugh dems).

don't know if a new FD is the way to go but something must be done. and oh yeah, the FD did NOT require equal time- just a chance at rebuttal for partisan political speech. limbaugh and the other national blowhards don't even take real calls and cannot be criticized except when someone fools the screener.

Anonymous said...

I can see a justification for the Fairness Doctrine if there are only a couple of broadcast stations in a market. But that was 50 years ago. Today we have hundreds of cable and satellite channels, more than 40 radio stations in the Bay Area, and more than a dozen TV stations, each with four or five multicast channels. There's plenty of room for every point of view, and no need for the government to play traffic cop. If Eshoo doesn't like Rush or Savage, she can simply turn the dial. We've now got 24-hour left-wing stations too.

Anonymous said...

OK, so she bans Rush from AM radio, TV, satellite and cable. I guess Congress can do that. What about IP Radio? If he's forced off of there, will she stop us from distributing MP3s of his show? Where does this end? If we call Rush on the phone and he talks to us, will that be banned too? You know, maybe she ought to take a look at the books we have in our homes!

Anonymous said...

The conservatives knew post Watergate that they had to somehow neuter the media, after all it was the media that brought down Nixon.

So instead of fighting the media, it became the media (Yes Mr. Murdoch job well done).

This strategy goes hand in hand with conservative think tanks that were formed in the early 1970's that manipulate research to oppose environmental issues as global warming.

The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine was really the institution of the party line...the republican party line.

Anonymous said...

The American Media are a joke. If I want to know what is going on in the USA in a non fluffy, bimbo fed manner, I have to check BBC, CBC or any euroepan outlet. It is appalling that extremely politicized entire networks and newspapers and local stations like Clear Channel Murdoch Fox news can spew their lies unchecked. It is a greater shame that that was allowed because these peopel hide under the cover of a cozy politicized justice system with extremely conservative supreme court judges The system is based on :it is somebody's proeprty and he/she/it can do whatever it wants with its station. What? So I can do whatever I want in my compound and for example burn dioxine or bury nuclear waste, or marry 20 underage wives? The airwaves should not be bought as DNA should not be bought as water sources ahould not be bought. The creeps tha think otherwise have given us the greates economic catastrophe and wars for nothing thanks to uninformed and misinformed masses. The system need much more than fairness: needs 3 public channels, needs to make news news for real and not entertainement. We are the joke of the world and pretend to lead based on pure arrogancce ignorance and stupidity fed by the Media. The representative is right and I will fully support her.

Anonymous said...

The root of the problem is the dominance on the airwaves by corporate owners. How about sending commercial programming to satellite and allowing local citizens to compete for broadcast TV and radio licenses -- that's what US citizens wanted way back in the 1920s before the NAB lobbyists took over the airwaves. There's a problem with a system that equates the value of an idea with currency, and connects the viability of a program with the willingness of an advertiser to attach its name to the idea.
The article repeats the common belief that progressive talk shows aren't attractive to advertisers because "no one" would listen to them. The fact is that advertisers don't want to buy time on programs that are nuanced but prefer ones that adhere to solid marketing practices of branding themselves with simple, identifiable messages.

Anonymous said...

"There is nothing 'fair' about the fairness doctrine. It is a way for liberal government to dictate what the public hears, since the public doesn't give a hoot about the liberal trash we are being fed."

It doesn't dictate what you can hear, unless you want unchallenged propaganda. Why are you republicans so afraid of making your case in a debate forum? Why must it always be an uncritical echo chamber? Are you scared that your points will look silly and contrived, in an open debate?

The left isn't shaking in their boots at the prospect of having to allow conservative voices provide balance, so your fear of a Fairness Doctrine just looks like intellectual cowardice.

Anonymous said...

What ever happened to the idea of free speech? The fairness doctrine does nothing but limit political speech. If this passes will they guarantee time for third party candidates as well? Yeah right... I am all for it if they give Ron Paul a third slot to respond to the mainstream political view points... of course that would never happen...

Anonymous said...

Anyone who supports such an attack on free speech is a disgrace .

Anonymous said...

Finally 60 Minutes will have to spend 30 minutes attacking Democrats. The View will have to add another Elizabeth. Olbermann and Maddow are finished.

Anonymous said...

If it really is a "liberal" media, then it would provide balance.

Oh my! Could it be that the six corporations that control 96% of tv, radio, magazines and books actually LIE TO US?

Rich people wouldn't lie to us. Would they?

Anonymous said...

When the same rich men own all the TV, RADIO, Print, Magazine and book companies - it's all the same.

There isn't spectrum of views out there. McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy's provide a balance also.

Think! before you type!

Jhoffa_ said...

What about the Constitution?

The FD is clearly unconstitutional.

It's a small mind indeed that would advocate censorship in lieu of competition.

Leftists bill themselves as the brightest and smartest among us, yet they can't articulate their message well enough to compete with Rush Limbaugh?

Now, why do you suppose that is?

Anonymous said...

Bob Kincaid: "The Fairness Doctrine doesn't, and never did, apply to journalism. It applies to opinion."

After the latest election cycle, it is self evident that there is no journalism available on ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, MSNBC, LA Times, and the NY Times, among others, then any such "Fairness Doctrine" would apply to them. However, I notice that these institutions are missing from the Representative Eshoo's list.

The market has spoken - and since it isn't what Eshoo wants, she will implement her preferred outcome through the force of government.

Therefore, this isn't about "fairness" but about silencing the opposition.

Anonymous said...

The radical right-wing rant against re-establishing the fairness doctrine under the rubric of 1st Amendment freedoms would mean something IF the media weren't consolidated into 5 large corporations whose interests lie with conservative politicians fetish for corporate tax cuts. Very few of us individual humans have free speech rights that mean anything because the corporate economy dominates the public megaphone and most people do not sit at the helm of one of the big 5. When ClearChannel can order its 1400+ affiliates to ban "Dust in the Wind" because of its corporate bosses pro-war sentiments, it shouldn't take too many more anecdotes to recognize that we need a Fairness Doctrine to free the public airwaves. Besides, if the media are all liberal, as right-wing pundits claim, won't the "equal time for opposing views" benefit conservatives most of all?

Anonymous said...

Okay, the way I see it is an attempt to silence any criticism of the Democrats and the loony left. The Fairness Doctrine when used the last time only targetted conservatives. They wouldn't even consider someone like Michael Moore to be contraversial.

Call it like it is, this Fairness Doctrine is a blatant attack on the Constitution and an attempt to turn the country into a dictatorship.

Rick Moore said...

This simple-minded effort by Eschoo (Gesuhndheit!) shows the basic ignorance of liberals to the realities of broadcasting. Conservative talk radio exploded after Reagan killed the "Fairness" Doctrine because lots of people wanted to listen to it and still do. Consequently advertisers, eager to attract people to their products, pay big bucks to advertise on shows like Limbaugh and Hannity. Conversely, liberal talk radio has been an abject failure. Who wants to listen to whining and complaining for three hours a day?

The lack of listeners has also resulted in a lack of advertisers. Companies don't sponsor shows as an act of charity. NPR only exists because the government subsidizes it. Without that, it would fail because so few people want to listen to that crap all day. Airhead America proved that there is very little market for liberal whining.

Reimposing the "Fairness" Doctrine will not suddenly open up the airwaves to differing opinions. It will, in fact, have the opposite effect by shutting down all opinion because it will be too expensive for stations to broadcast stuff nobody wants to hear.

There is no fairness intended by these actions. The only intent is to silence conservative critics of liberals and their policies. Wake up, lefties. You're being played for fools (and rightfully so).

Anonymous said...

What a little fascist - really very difficult to tell them from them apart from the progressives.

Anonymous said...

"The fact is that most media outlets are owned by people with progressive points of view, but their business senses usually override their personal political preferences" [anon]

Wrong. Most media moguls, the 5 or 6 of them that own most of the airwaves and newspapers like GE, are not liberal. See how much talk AM has infected your facts?!

Most of the media is today conservative, with precious few voices intent on truth — like Bill Moyers and Amy Goodman — only 5% of the airwaves present any alternative view at all. Get real.

Anonymous said...

This pisses me off so much. If you don't like it, don't listen to it.

Speaking of fairness, since everyone hates Bush and bashes him so much, I want equal time on radio, TV, satellite & cable praising him. It may be ridiculous, and no one will listen to it, but lets shove it down the "free" people of America's throats because it doesn't matter what the truth is, all that matters is that the government regulates what you hear and see to meet their personal agenda. Thank God you people elected Barack Obama, I can't wait to give you my money.

Anonymous said...

god forbid that yahoos like limbaugh and hannity should actually have their regressive opinions questioned. then the right wing nuts might actually have to hear the other side and THINK about it.

Unrepentant Liberal said...

I want conservatives to listen to Rush, Hannitard, Beck, Dobson, Coulter etc.......all the crazies all the time and to believe everything they tell them each and every time.

That way conservatives will continue to lose election after election until the republican party will be small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Please, please, please don't bring back the Fairness Doctrine, somebody might give Alan Colmes a show of his own.

Anonymous said...

If you think for a second this is about democracy or fairness or equal time you are beyond naive. This is soley about silencing your critics, because you don't like what they say. It is not a right wing monopoly in talk radio. No one is forcing this programming on the public. It is called the free market. Look at the cable news race. Foxnews dominates CNN and MSNBC from a purely ratings standpoint. People CHOOSE to watch what they want. Somehow though, that is not fair?? You want your ideas out there, make it marketable and people will tune in. TV and radio ratings,and subsequently ad revenues, are pure capitalism. If the people don't want it, the stations can't sell it. However, the Democrat's ideology seems to be that us dumb common folk can't make decisions for ourselves, so the elite politicians will make them for us. I would put the IQ of 435 people chosen at random against the mindless dolts running our legislative branch. This is sickening.

Anonymous said...

She is doing a great job here. I can tell because the wingnuts are fear mongering and losing their shee-ite
all over this board. Anything that ticks them off must be good for the country, after all, it is those same know nothing blowhards that have destroyed everything we hold dear in our nation. To hell with them. We have heard enough. Limbaugh should be jailed and tried for treason. Savage should be jailed for being a neo nazi hatemonger. They are all evil to the core and need to be removed from the national discourse.Tthey have caused nothing but harm.

Anonymous said...

I entirely agree that the FD should be reimposed. The airwaves do, after all, belong to everyone! But I don't think we should stop with broadcast media & satellite! Obviously, if we do, the Right will just move their bile to the internet via blogs, IP radio, etc. Clearly, the solution is to regulate those media as well. Require equal space on each opinion blog for alternate viewpoints.

Furthermore, I agree that it is infeasible to require truly balanced media stations to sacrifice time to right-wing blowhards. Thus, stations like CNN, NPR, and MSNBC should be able to get a "fairness" certification from the government.

Anonymous said...

Is Constitutional education so poor that there is even a debate about what is right and proper in this supposed issue?

For the sake of this nation forget that idiotic "Fairness Doctrine". It was a big infringement on personal liberty when it first was enacted even though the reason was because of the limited nature of radio bands back then and the fear that one viewpoint could own them all. Today even that flimsy reason is gone and yet here we are having to even discuss and defend why this should not even be considered.

When did "the people" become so cowered and weak that we must have government involved in everything. Above there are those who think the "Fairness Doctrine" must be enacted and quickly because people are too stupid to think for themselves and they believe one side is controlling them. I find this lunacy funny because if what they claim were true then there would be a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican President. Yet neither of these feared results from their belief of who controls the media has come to pass.

I am still waiting to hear a single intelligent reason why those who support this lunacy believe it to be Constitutional to impose by government fiat what views will be broadcast and who will decide what constitutes fair representation of all those views.

Anonymous said...

Reading the posts of people who support this type of tyranny is downright scary. You wonder why we are devolving into a police state when we have people so naive as part of the electorate.

Eshoo should be impeached for violating her oath of office and attempting to run roughshod over the first amendment.

Karin said...

Anyone who thinks the major networks are liberal does not know what liberal is. To believe this, they'd have to be so far right that anything would sound liberal to them.

They just got wiped out electorally and have nothing left to hang on to but the endless lies of lunatics like their thrice married pill popper.

G Long said...

What the discussion so far misses, and what most proponents of the fairness doctrine prefer to avoid, is the question of who determines what is political and what is not. Commenters here have opined that NPR is either "shill[ing] for warmongers all the time" or "one of the most liberal outlets on the planet."

So who decides? Who gets to say what point of view a particular opinion supports? What point of view or voice is an 'acceptable' alternative? It's an already impossible task made even more difficult by government involvement.

What is already emerging instead is a much more open and free marketplace of voices. Depending on your political and intellectual persuasion, you can choose liberal or conservative, web-based, print, radio or tv. With little to no effort, you can find voices from almost any point of any spectrum you want.

What would be more interesting than a new fairness doctrine would be a 'civility doctrine.' Wouldn't it be great to debate the issues rather than the name-calling and hate-spewing from all sides?

Anonymous said...

If we wouldnt let racist ,bigoted ,hatefilled,KKK broadcast then why are ORielly, Savage, Hannity, Coutler, Beck ,Rove broadcasting. Get media out of 5 corp.republican hands, and diversify..The truth has only been seen for the last 30 years since reagan because of the internet..Give us back News with just the facts, back them up, no opinion,no railroading and let us decide who is telling the truth .. Give us back a media that isnt foxified, no propaganda allowed..If media wants our trust again, they have to earn it.

Jack the libertarian said...

You Libs are hilarious....

"We can save Free Speech by taking yours away!"

We (Conservatives, Libertarians) look at you and wonder why you are so afraid? Is it because you have no faith in your own arguments?

Are you really so afraid of ideas that don't conform to yours that you want to repress them?

I personally despise NPR for the liberal/progressive propaganda machine that it has become. I do not - however - demand that it be pulled off of the air.

I despise MSNBC and Chris ("Obama gives me a thrill up my leg!") Matthews - not because of their opinions, but because they try to maintain that they are in some way an objective news organization. If they admit that they are biased, I'll be okay with them again.

What you don't realize is that if Big Government tries this now, there will be a huge backlash against it, and there are enough ways to do it that you can't stop them all.

Best of Luck. Merry Christmas. Happy Hannukah. Joyous Kwaanza. Happy Winter Solstice. Happy Festivus.

Jack, the libertarian from Texas

Anonymous said...

"Progressives" indeed. Stalin would love you people.

Keep your goddamn Leftist hands off of the First Amendment.

Anonymous said...

Boy this issue sure gets the reich wing neocons in a sweat. They are so concerned somebody might hear the truth when all they broadcast are lies and protecting the Bush crime family.

Anybody that thinks they get the real news from Lush Limpballs are not in their right minds to begin with. Would they listen to anybody else that was such a high users of narcotics he lost his hearing!!! Anybody else would be in jail except Lush is able to buy his way out of a federal crime of using narcotics obtained illegally.

Why are neocons afraid of the truth??? Oh, that's right, because it might mean jail terms for even more of them.

annemarie said...

Have any of you actually read the First Amendment lately? No? Here it is particular attention to the part that prevents Congress from passing laws abridging freedom of speech and of the press:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Paine said...

AS OF THIS VERY MOMENT, there are 61 radio stations broadcasting in New York City. Everything from Air America to Reggae Hip Hop and everything in between.

The reason liberal ideas don't resonate with the general public is that they are forced to compete on the merits.

And liberals don't like competition.

They would prefer that big government decide what you can listen to, how much fuel your car can consume, what workers' organizations you must join, how much carbon dioxide you can expel, what your retirement stipend must be, which benefits you should consume for your health-care needs... and so on, ad infinitum.

Furthermore, competition exposes their ideas as intellectually bankrupt, morally reprehensible and ultimately at odds with the vision the Framers held for this country.

You may recognize their doctrines from previous, failed socialist countries.

Fight for the Constitution! Fight for liberty! Resist the Fairless Doctrine! The Framers would.

- Tom Paine

Anonymous said...

Next, it will be the restaurants. My local Chinese place never has pizza. Now, I should be able to walk in and get anything I want to eat. After all, its a restaurant. Will the government force "variety" on us there too?

sinz52 said...

How can the Fairness Doctrine be applied to cable TV?

The argument for the Fairness Doctrine and broadcast TV was that broadcast TV used the public airwaves, over which the FCC has jurisdiction. But cable TV sends signals over a private wire. Its content is no more subject to Government regulation than what you say on your telephone.

Anonymous said...

all of you who think NPR and PBS are taxpayer supported should get a clue and do a little research. oh, and sorry if reality has a liberal slant. the fairness doctrine would require broadcasters to require equal time for opposing opinions, not factual reporting of the news. it's funny that stations that try to manipulate public opinion for a profit in America are the most conservative and those who are in it simply to report the news are considered liberal.

Steve J. said...

Rather than competing with consevatives in the marketplace of ideas

(snort!) Wingnut radio has cliches, not ideas.

Steve J. said...

Above there are those who think the "Fairness Doctrine" must be enacted and quickly because people are too stupid to think for themselves

Most of the people who believe Limbaugh or Hannity ARE too stupid to think for themselves.

Anonymous said...

What a bunch of crybabys. That evil Rush Limbaugh said somethng bad about liberals, waah. Grow up and turn off what you don't want to listen to. You can always listen to Air America, oh wait a minute, nobody listened to is and it folded. I984 Was a novel ment to warn us what could happen when government controlls everthing. So quit your sniffeling.

Anonymous said...

what happens when the reverend fred phelps wants to rebut every gay cable-access show in the country? this lady clearly hasn't thought this thing through. oh well, reruns of fife and beaver ain't so bad.

Anonymous said...

Interesting concept; in the name of free speech, I will impose limits on free speech, and if you don't like it, I'll use the enforcement power of the government to make you comply. And "progressives" think conservatives are the fascists? I'm curious as to what other freedoms in the Bill of Rights Rep. Eshoo would like to eliminate?

dlb said...

It isn't fair to require a business to have to give air time for anything.

If I want to hear liberal BS, then I should tune the radio to a liberal BS station. If they don't have enough people listening, that's not my fault, and it isn't the fault of conservative radio. How simple is that?

I would like to know if the schools all over the US is going to require "fairness" when teaching?

Anonymous said...

There are some REAL geniuses here. The "Fairness Doctrine" is a violation of free speech. Talk radio is successful because people choose to listen to it. If you don't like it, don't listen, turn the dial, its simple.
"Progressive" radio has been unsuccessful. So now the leftists want to MANDATE equality, instead of give people the opportunity of doing what they have done for decades, which is, NOT choosing to listen to "progressive, leftist, marxist swill" that has never succeeded in ANY country it has ever been experimented with. Nice, comrades, nice.

JR Jung said...

It's simply a matter of profitability. I've said it before...if a monkey flinging poo on the radio got ratings, that's what stations would play. Their only interest is getting good rating numbers. The better the numbers, the more they can charge for advertising. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with this view point or that. But the left fails at this medium, so they use the police power of government to stop it because it's not "fair". It has more to do with the people who support the left are more interested in People Magazine and Entertainment tonight than they are what is going on in local and national politics. They only pay attention when a presidential candidate promises them some handout once every 4 years that they pay attention. After the election, it's back to who wears what on the red carpet....morons

Anonymous said...

Last I checked there is no regulation prohibiting media sources from airing one or more points of view, so the only thing preventing more "progressive" (or outright communist, for the matter) programming is the lack of energy and/or the lack of audience. Thus, this is nothing more than a ploy to control content and minimize opinions that differ from the controlling party. THAT is decidedly unconstitutional and un-American, and borders the level of media control found in every tyrannical government still around today.

Sophie said...

"There's nothing wrong with requiring a broadcaster to air contrasting points of view. There's something very wrong with our system if a station is just allowed to broadcast one point of view all the time, without any attempt to provide balance."

Bull. The broadcast stations are private entities. The government has absolutely no right to tell a private entity what they can do with that entity, short of barring them from illegal activity. Last time I checked, speaking your opinion isn't illegal...at least not yet.

Anonymous said...

She's from California. Who could have guessed that! What is it with the looney politicians out there?

Anonymous said...

To those here who say: Why critizice conservative talk, just star your own station, I have this:

The AM airwave is a limited and licenced space. Therefore there is no fairness in the granting of these licences in the first place.
The only fair thing to do would be to give and equal liberal talk show licence for each conservative one in each market and oposite.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. This is just a cloaked act of censorship. The liberals don't like what is said on talk radio, so it must be stopped. The fairness doctrine will not result in balance but will merely silence the only voice conservatives have in this country. And as the last election showed....half the country is still conservative. Are you going to require CNN and MSNBC to 'balance' their programs with opposing points of view? How long do you think it will take the leftists to follow China's lead and censor the internet so that exchanges like this cannot even happen?

Anonymous said...

I use the personal fairness doctrine. I change the station or utilize the OFF switch. You don't have to listen. No need for the nanny state to be involved.

Anonymous said...

If the media is truly 'liberal' the right wing should be clamoring for a return of the fairness doctrine.

Anonymous said...

So typical of the liberals. Our ideas aren't good enough to command sponsored radio time, so we will seize the time from the stations by force and tell them what they need to play - all in the sense of "fairness". All talk radio is about is conveying ideas, not journalism, which should be an unregulated commercial enterprise like any other. The FD was designed to do one thing - kill conservative talk radio because it was just too effective.

Anonymous said...

for "davis's" (& others who agree with it) comment on Aristotle, speaking of GOODWILL, why is it the "conservative" nut jobs always seem to donate ON THEIR OWN, a much larger percentage of their income to charities?

Why is it the bleu-cheese, er, blue staters "solicit" funds (taxes) from me & my children AT THE POINT OF A GUN (via the IRS & the threat of jail) & throw huge hissy fits if their pet "charities" aren't "properly funded?" Show me in the Consititution (or any amendment) where is says the federal gov't is responsible for providing cheese to the 'unfortunate', for funding art that NO ONE would buy for their home, for a million other areas that are bleu-cheese pet money pits......

Anonymous said...

First, not everyone that disagrees with the Fairness Doctrine is some "rightwing nut." I'm an independent and I definitely think the FD is full of crap.

Second, the airwaves may be public, but only to the extent that the government can sell the rights away to companies to make money off it.

Third, folks ignore the simple fact that radio is a BUSINESS. Like one radio host says, the whole purpose for him being on the air is so that you listen to the commercials between segments. Conservatives tend to listen to conservative hosts, and they by from their sponsors. Left leaning folks don't. So, most of the talk radio is right-leaning.

Finally, instead of forcing stations to air other sides, folks need to take some personal responsiblity. Either start your own radio station and air opposing views, or simply change stations and listen to something else that makes you happy.

Then again, maybe that would be too easy and make too much sense.

Anonymous said...

obviously the easy way around that pesky little freedom of the press thing is for Rush Limbaugh, etc to be "hired" by a news organization to write a column or do a segement and thus he can classify himself as a journalist. And then the SCOTUS will be forced to kill the fairness doctrine as the liberals will try and make it apply to journalism.

Face it, liberals cant win if they have to compete. They have to stack the deck and outright cheat just to get ahead.

Mickey Blue Eyes said...

Clearly Anna Eshoo (gesundheit) and all the Anonymouses who think that the Fairness Doctrine is not a clear violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution... are all mentally handicapped or mentally deranged.

I agree with the previous post that the FD will not be applied to Leftist propaganda outlets like the taxpayer burdened PBS and NPR, or even MSMNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, et al.

As Rush Limbaush says, he doesn't need to be balanced with "equal time" because he *is* "equal time". If Leftist programs were what the people wanted, then Al Franken's Air America would be the #1 radio network in the country. They wouldn't have to steal money from widows and orphans to keep afloat. Unfortunately, Leftist propaganda is not what people want. People want to hear the truth, or at least hear the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say.

The Fairness Doctrine is retarded and a violation of the First Amendment and a violation of an individual's right to choose. I thought Leftists like Anna Eshoo (gesundheit) were all pro-choice? You get to keep your PBS, NPR, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, etc. And America will keep their Rush and Neal Boortz, and Fox News.

Hands off my radio! My radio my rights! Pro [talk show] choice now!

Anonymous said...

And I bet Congresswoman Eschoo will dedictate half of her website to opposing viewpoints, rights? It is after all, public domain, right?

What Eschoo really wants -- what the FD really wants, is Silence. Like lambs.

Every now and then, a politician lets out the truth amidst the obfuscations. Pelosi's comments on the so-called FD said it all:

“Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it."

The FD has nothing to do with "fairness" or equal time. It has everything to do with trying to silence your critics. Eschoo, Pelosi and her ilk are just upset that the marketplace of ideas won't buy into theirs. There's a message there, Anna, Nancy, are you listening?

How about saving me the last half of your next press conference so that I can give an opposing viewpoint. Sort of ridiculous, isn't it?

Joey Lottos said...

Just as I choose not to listen to country music by listening to a rock station... If you don't like what's being stated on a certain station then turn the dial you nimwits. These people only wish to apply this 'fairness' to content they don't agree with, who will determine what's fair and what's not mein Herren Ms. Eshoo? Will you be the Minister of Information and Propaganda to save us from all these conflicting view points? This is the beginning of progessive Fascism.

Mr.K said...

Congressman Eshoo is un-American, is anti-Constitutionial, and just simply wants to destroy the last bastion of Conservative view point, this is un-American & there is nothing fair about it, plus the radio industry will fail & falter within 2 years of this occuring.
Liberal radio has been tried, and failed miserbly.

CONSERVATIVE RADIO FOREVER!

Anonymous said...

You lefties just hate it that conservative way of thinking is the most popular in America and it just pisses you off...if the fairness doctrine were applied fairly, that would mean you would hear it everywhere you would turn.
You all know that won't happen because they don't want to hear it.

Anonymous said...

This is not censorship!

This talk of censorship will cease immediately.

If this talk of censorship continues, you will all be tracked down via your IP addresses and you will be sent to re-education camps to perform community services.

Anonymous said...

Do the liberals believe this applies only to talk radio? What about the liberal point of view on network TV? Will this be controlled? What do you think killed TV shows such as Boston Legal? David Kelley's leftist views drove listeners away.

I expect that these politicians expect the talk shows to go away - but liberal viewpoints on TV are worse

Anonymous said...

Libertarians are sick of both Democrats and Republicans .. always messing with government and are either clueless about history or just love Marxism and all its perversity. Go to another socialist or communist country before this one is irreparable. We are tired of you elitists pushing your petty, failed ideas on everyone else.

Jeff said...

I want the fairness doctrine to count to all. All "progressive" radio stations that play Rap all day need to give equal time to Loretta Lynn, Conway Twitty and the like.
"Its only Fair!! (whiney voice)"
The sponsors pay for the individual air time. If you don't like Rush or Sean, call the sponsors and tell them.
Lets take it one step further. Everytime she says something stupid, Pay me to stand behind her and say something smart.
Y'all, it's about Freedom. Freedom to speak out on whatever subject you please.(see the 1st amendment to the Constitution)Even if your ideas are unpopular.
Conservative talk radio (unpopular with the left) is supported by many of us. Why don't the left wing support talk radio? I will tell you why. Liberal ideas sound great until you check if they are practical. They don't stand up to open discussion. Just like religion.
Have a nice day.

ebritt said...

The reason conservative talk radio has dominated is because it had a message that people wanted to hear, in other words , an audience. Liberal radio was one message 24/7..."WE hate Bush, We hate Bush ,We hate Bush"...even liberals got tired of it and it died. Air America is a perfect example of what liberals call "hate Radio", that's all it was. Conservative talk radio makes money because people want to hear what they say, its that simple.
The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do whatsoever with fairness, it is a tool to silence opposition to liberal thought. They have no intention of presenting "both sides", they merely want to stop Rush, Hannity and anyone else who opposes them.

Anonymous said...

"If the media is truly 'liberal' the right wing should be clamoring for a return of the fairness doctrine."

Liberals really don't get it! We are conservatives. We uphold the constitution. Under no circumstances do we want anyones freedom of speech taken away from them. If this doctrine were to limit liberal view points, I would be screaming at the top of my lungs to get rid of it immediately! Conservatives do not mind liberal media because we believe in their right to be liberal. We also know that we have an outlet, conservative talk radio. Don't you people get it??? You think only conservative view points will be silenced, but in the end all view points will be. No one should be silenced. Not liberal or conservative. Conservatives believe in your rights to freedom of speech, why can't you offer the same respect to us?

kendall county moving companies said...

Instead of forcing stations to air other sides, folks need to take some personal responsiblity.