The “Fairness Doctrine” Is Back
While the whole nation is mesmerized by the memorializing of Ted Kennedy, it falls to us to politely bring everybody back to the pressing issues of the day – such as the federal government’s latest attempt to get back into the business of telling American news outlets what they can and cannot say.
That’s right. The so-called “Fairness Doctrine” – a failed government attempt to impose its definition of political “objectivity” on the news media – is once again rearing its ugly head. In fact, the latest Obamacrat pushing for this clever form of censorship is none other than Mark Lloyd, the new “Chief Diversity Officer” of the Federal Communications Commission.
Here’s an excerpt from Lloyd’s recent book courtesy of CNS News:
“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming.”
Hmmmm. So basically, Lloyd is saying that government should force the news media to provide it with coverage – and to do so according to the government’s definition of fairness.
Yeah, that Orwellian insanity is the “Fairness Doctrine,” which we keep telling people is making a comeback.
Established in 1949, the “Fairness Doctrine” mandated that media outlets air contrasting views on controversial (i.e. political) subjects, and threatened to fine them if they failed to do so. Of course, the doctrine didn’t work because numerous outlets just stopped covering politics to keep from having to deal with the heartburn.
Oh, and then there’s that whole “First Amendment” thing, which the last time we checked prevented the government from telling us what we could or could not say.
For these, and other reasons, the “Fairness Doctrine” was eliminated in 1987 under the Reagan administration, although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and numerous Democratic Senators have signaled their willingness to have it reintroduced – perhaps as part of a “media bailout.”
Needless to say, we are raising our black fists right now in opposition (while we still can).
Sing it, Brother Ali …
“Man look at how you hustling backwards
At the end of the year add up what they subtracted
Three outta twelve months your salary paid for that madness
Man, that’s sadness
What’s left get a big ass plasma
to see where they made Dan Rather point the damn camera
Only approved questions get asked
Now stand your ass up for that National Anthem”
Comments
By vance on August 28th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Obama surrounds himself with hard core Marxists and Fascists.
Hope and Change!
Hope and Change!
By ? on August 28th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Another example of government “divide and conquer” amongst American citizens. Maybe that “Patrick Henry” style revolution Rev. Manning spoke about is on its way. Perhaps it needs to be.
By Pat Hendrix on August 28th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Except the president has explicitly said he will not reintroduce the fairness doctrine, and rightfully so. So, again, another fact-free post.
By political hack on August 28th, 2009 at 9:11 am
The amazing thing is that there are still many people who are in denial about how socialist this government actually is. They still believe the lies that spew from these demogouges mouths like its their favorite cartoon but are too prideful and stuck in their own box of a liberally intoxicated mind to think outside of it and realize that everything our government stands for is as un-American as it has been in a long time. These same liberals claim to repect privacy, as they went ape shit about the patriot act, yet champion giving all of their private information to the government? They champion equality and freedom of speech and are the first to call anyone who is socially aware a racist and a bigot just because they don’t agree with what sorta of mutated sense of policy they have…and they want to destory competition in every sector to replace it with affirmative action, because, well, we have to be FAIR and can’t let dissenters talk bad about our messiah’s administration. We are run by a bunch of spoiled children gangsters in Washington.
By randy on August 28th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Pat,
Obama also said he’d have no ear marks in any budget. His first budget had over 9,000 ear marks.
Obama said he’d have no lobbyists on his staff and reduce the influence of lobbyists in DC; he has since “changed” his mind.
Obama said if we didn’t pass his “stimulus” package, unemployment would be up to 9%. Well, unemployment is over 9% currently despite his “stimulus” package.
Why believe a proven liar?
By Pat Hendrix on August 28th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Hey Political Hack,
Can you explain what policy prescriptions have passed Congressed or been proposed by the Obama Administration that have enacted censorship? Infringed on your privacy? That has called anyone on the right a racist? Advocated affirmative action?
Have your taxes increased? No, the stimulus package was 40 percent TAX CUTS.
Was TARP crafted and passed during the Obama Administration. No.
Was Obama the first to begin purchasing stock in the US automakers? No.
Has there been a move to censure anyone? No, pointing out that this nonsense about death panels is not censorship, its public debate.
By any objective standard, the world of today has far less government than most of the past century. Tax rates are much lower now than we have historically seen. There are no price controls like that seen during the Nixon Administration. Given those facts, the idea of a dictatorship is beyond absurd.
By Hillstreet on August 28th, 2009 at 10:02 am
We need to be very vigilant about this issue. Those with short term memory loss of events this past summer, should goggle or bing “Iranian media”.I know,that could never happen here in the”land of the free”..it won’t be” bam” in your face,but very insidious.
By Pat Hendrix on August 28th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Randy,
Obama never, let me repeat – Never – said there would be no earmarks in his budget. He said he would work to reduce them. And without a line-item veto, I suspect it might be difficult to contain them. Probably, what you’re refering to is his promise to have zero in the stimulus bill. On that, he delivered. There were none.
On lobbyist, again, he never said there would be no lobbyists in his adminstration. He said they would not “run his adminstration.” Those he did hire, had to sign a waiver saying that wouldn’t work on regs related to previous employment over the past two years. Yeah, he gave several waivers, but he never said there would be zero lobbyists.
As for the stimulus, I’m not sure how you chalk that up to lying. Certainly, it hasn’t worked out as they hoped – nor did I support the stimulus – but not a lie.
So, I’m having a difficult time finding these proven lies. Try again, and this time, try checking your facts first.
By rick on August 28th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I’ll try, I”ll limit their power, they’ll sign waivers….lets see, would this have worked for Bush? Would you be in the same frame of mind, or would you know it for what it is…lying by misdirection.
By randy on August 28th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Pat,
Obama promised “tranparency.”
Isn’t it odd that Obama hasn’t released the names of the passengers on the infamous Air Force One propaganda flight over NYC which terrorized New Yorkers and cost the taxapayers hundred of thousands?
Isn’t it odd that Obama has been so transparent that he has named scores of tzars without any Congressional or Constitutional oversight?
Isn’t it odd that Obama Justice didn’t offer any clear reason why it didn’t prosecute the Panthers in Philly who hurled racial epithets and waved billy clubs at white voters, despite film footage of obvious voter intimidation?
Isn’t it odd that Obama Justice didn’t offer any clear reason why it chose not to prosecute Gov. Richardson for obvious graft?
Isn’t it odd that Obama champions transparency yet his “Homeland Security” appointee fingered vets as possible terrorists?
Isn’t it odd that Obama champions transparency and privacy yet used tax payer’s monies to establish a website wheren fellow citizens “turned in” their neighbors who then received unsolicited e-mail from Big Brother Government?
Yes, Pat, I admit, you are a great water-bearer for Obama…keep pedallin’…
By Pat Hendrix on August 28th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Hey, Randy, isn’t odd that you’re incapable of a thoughtful and reasoned discussion, but would rather fall back on the same silly and inane talking points as worldnetdaily? The only things you left out were Acorn and George Soros. Shhhhh, can you hear the helicopters coming? They’re full of Tzars and Black Panthers.
I’d go through of your talking points and systematically destroy them, but what would be the point? Facts are Republican Kryptonite.
By me on August 28th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
i find it funny you have neo-tards and lib-tards arguing over bush and obama. Im pretty sure both of your parties hate america.
By Jim on August 28th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Pat, what’s thoughtful and reasonable about accusing someone of using talking points, which by the way, as we’ve discussed before, is such a pathetic, unoriginal refuge for someone who’s lost an argument. No need to “systematically destroy” anything. Just stick your fingers in your ears and start screaming “talking points.” Works every time hey, Pat?
By vance on August 28th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Pat just got body-slammed and is sulking in the corner…
By old bike dude on August 29th, 2009 at 9:33 am
It’s hilarious when one uses talking point to slam anothers talking points. Why don’t you both wise up and find some originality.
Oh and is Obama a socialist, Marxist, or fascist?
The whole republican juvenile namecalling mantra is such bullshit.
What next from the right wing nut lexicon of stupidity? Could it be a PeeWee Herman-esque “I know you are but what am I”.
What do you get when you turn off a republican’s AM radio? Silence and a higher IQ.
By larry on August 29th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Good query, OBD. Is Obama a socialist, Marxist, or fascist? That’s like asking if he is black or white.
He’s an alloy of all the above.
Keep watchin’ Pee Wee; I understand he rides bikes, too.
By dirtbogger on August 31st, 2009 at 10:43 am
Pat got metaphorically bitch-slapped Ha-Ha! Now go have a whinny burger with them french cries. But what is really funny is for Pat to think that the people elected Obama I say they never had a choice. withe our very controlled debates and controlled media and with the elete telling us who our choices are example; Goldman Sachs contributed to Obama $739,521 while they contributed to McCain $ 220,045. Citigroup Inc. contributed to Obama $ 492,548 while they contributed to McCain $287,801. JPMorgan Chase & Co. contributed to Obama $475,112 while they contributed to McCain $206,392. And Lehman Brothers, yes, Lehman Brothers, contributed to Obama $391,774 while they contributed to McCain $115,707. I tend to agree with the (?) dude at the top BTW.
By Adam on August 31st, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Obama is no ’socialist’–he’s a capitalist stoolie, if there ever was one. Corporate donors came up with most of that $700M campaign kitty and they’re getting their money’s worth. Donor Microsoft gets that $20B medical records program. Pharmaceutical companies get their pork from his healthcare bill. Chicago mob construction firms feed at the stimulus trough. Most of all, the media-telecom companies–who also provided B.O. with free propaganda, via their ‘news’ networks and papers–will get that Bush FCC whitespace reallocation decision overturned (broadcasters vs. broadband).
Reintroducing some form of the Fairness Doctrine is a way to silence the Obama Administration’s critics. Obama is no ’socialist’, but he’s looking an awfull lot like a corporatist, in the mode of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, or Chicago mentor Richard M. Daley: using authoritarian tactics to maintain a veneer of democratic legitimacy, as they secure preferrential treatment for a select cadre of business cronies.