Clyburn: FCC Opposes “Fairness Doctrine”
After taking only approved questions at a public forum in Charleston, S.C. yesterday, Federal Communications Commissioner Mignon Clyburn – daughter of U.S. Majority Whip Jim Clyburn – granted our own Ashley Hester an exclusive interview to address one of the hot-button issues that wasn’t on the rigid (and exceedinly boring) public agenda.
We’ll have some video of the brief exchange up soon, but by way of teasing the clip, Clyburn did take a position on controversial FCC “Diversity Czar” Mark Lloyd – whose advocacy for government regulation of media content you can read about by clicking here.
You won’t want to miss Clyburn calling Lloyd a “true American,” but Hester also asked Clyburn point blank if she “agreed with Lloyd that the content of talk radio and the new media should be regulated by the government.”
“We have made it clear that we are not in the business of policing or being against free speech as it relates to political content,” Clyburn responded.
Whew! Because last time we checked that was one of the many fundamental American rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Anyway, while she was in a freedom-loving mood, Clyburn also spoke on behalf of the FCC as it relates to the controversial “Fairness Doctrine,” which Lloyd and others associated with his radical “Free Press” organization have aggressively supported.
“We are very clear about being against any re-imposition, or institution or enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine,” Clyburn said. “We are clear about that, so … as it relates to any questions about that … I don’t know how, but just look at me, look at what I’m going to be doing over the next three years. I’ve said it. Obviously, maybe you don’t believe everything I say, so watch what I do.”
We certainly will, Madame Commissioner. In fact, with two former “Free Press” bigwigs in key positions at the FCC, this is one government agency that needs to be watched like a hawk given its role in the marketplace of ideas.
Meanwhile, keep checking back here for the video link to Clyburn’s comments about Lloyd …
Comments
By Red Bank Bar on October 7th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Yawn…..Only in the fevered brains of right-wing wackos or their enablers like fitz is there any discussion of the fairness doctrine.
A non-issue everywhere but w/tea baggers like y’all.
By Darkseid616 on October 7th, 2009 at 11:03 am
If her lips are moving she is lying, just like her daddy!
By Make it up as you go. on October 7th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Right, there is no discussion about the “Fairness Doctrine”, ’cause you commies are actually going to use “Localism Regulations” to achieve the same thing. Go Team!
By Skidmarks on October 7th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Oh, let them have their unadulterated Limbaugh.
(But they do need to remember that the commies will know exactly where they are from noon to 3pm when the AntiChrist orders their round up.)
By sid on October 7th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Really? From last year:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pelosi-support-return-of-fairness-doctrine/
From earlier this year:
http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=1163521&spid=24698
From recently, regarding a “fairness doctrine” for the Internet:
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/09/cass-sunstein-supports-an-internet-fairness-doctrine/
So, Pelosi, Slaughter, B. Clinton, and Sunstein are “tea baggers”? As well as Mark Lloyd? Who knew?
By Make it up as you go. on October 7th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Who is this AntiChrist of which you speak? Are you suggesting that the Chairman is considered by the “tea baggers” to be the “antichrist”?
Mr. Obama is no antichrist. He is just a simple failure.
By Jonny D on October 7th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Hey Strom’s Daughter, was your dad there drinking half her glass of OJ while she wasn’t lookin’?
By Red Bank Bar on October 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Nice one, Sid. You made my case. An ex-President, the Speaker of the House who introduces NO legislation, and a policy wonk over a two year period.
I could google “Republicans are Aliens” and get more hits.
Why don’t you scream about PETA since y’all got nothing here?
By OnNoNotAgain on October 7th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Forget the Fairness Doctrine and the Antichrist.
Is Ashley Hester the chick in the pink skirt who was doing your typing on WIS? Weren’t we supposed to get an announcement about THAT?
By sid on October 7th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
If by “made my case” you mean “proved RBB is a moron,” then I guess I did. That’s just what I pulled up in the amount of time it takes you to genuflect to your liberal masters. There’s plenty more out there, and especially on lefty websites (which you probably already know).
Considering the Speaker is supposed to run the House, I’d say it’s important to mention her views (not to mention Slaughter).
And considering liberal apologists still revere Billy Clinton (as long as he doesn’t say mean things about The One), I’d say his views are important. Especially considering he seems to be more effective as an ex-President than The One is as an actual President.
And considering two appointees by The One support this “fairness doctrine,” I’d say that’s kinda important. Interesting you bring up PETA, though, considering the Sunstein reference.
By Strom's Daughter on October 7th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
My daddy, Strom Thurmond, even screwed me.
I told Mackenzie Phillips about this many years ago, because her daddy and my daddy actually hung out together.
Mackenzie’s daddy made my daddy laugh once by saying that he could have been in a group called The Mamas and the Crackers.
A lot of people don’t know this, but this relationship is how we came to have a restaurant in Columbia called CALIFORNIA DREAMING.
Yes it is.
By Red Bank Bar on October 8th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Pathetic, Sidney. Give us a link to an actual bill.
Don’t cry, Sidney. I know it’s tough when you’ve been exposed as chicken little.
By sid on October 8th, 2009 at 10:59 am
So, unless a bill is actually introduced, RBB, there is nothing to worry about when influential politicians talk about something that would infringe on our rights? As the first article linked mentioned, Slaughter introduced legislation in ‘04 and ‘05. But I guess she, or someone else, couldn’t possibly introduce it again? You seem particularly dense, even for a liberal.
By the way, you said it was only being discussed by those concerned with true freedom, while I have already proved that to be false. Discussion, the point you raised, does not require legislation. Again, you can’t possibly be as dense as your posts indicate, can you?
The tears you imagine you perceive, were they to exist, would be tears of laughter. Your take on politics could be considered so childlike in its innocence that it is comedy gold.
Of course, you are really just regurgitating the leftist tripe you live to consume. Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of testing the water? Or maybe you just don’t care about your rights?
Sounds like you’re completely enamored with the concept of the nanny-state. You don’t exhibit any real skills or reasined thought, so it would make sense. As a failure at debate and discussion, you have few equals. Makes one wonder in how many other areas you are a failure.
Being a failure would certainly explain your desire to have the government take care of everything for you. You’ve already got folks telling you what to think, so why not expand the sphere of influence?
By Red Bank Bar on October 8th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Bwwkkk, bwwkkk, chicken little
By sid on October 9th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Well, since you seem so terrified of having a reasoned discussion, or addressing actual points I’ve made, we’ll go your route.
Sssslrrrp, sssslrrrp. Just imagining the sound one might make while kneeling before his liberal masters.
By Martha Washington on October 9th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
hey wheres my comment!