Bill to "restore the fairness doctrine" be introduced during first 90 days Obama's admin.?

Kinda like spreading the wealth around...

Related question, covering the entire first term, as well as if the FCC reenacts it without a bill being introduced/passed: http://www.hubdub.com/m21490/Will_the_Fairness_Doctrine_be_reimposed_during_Obamas_first_term

Y'all are NUTS. Don't nobody care bout your right wing radio freaks, all panicked that the sky is falling. But it's fun watching everybody spin on this one.

I can actually see some fundie using the 'fear of the fair doctrine defense' to explain why their republican core values turned them to child molestation.

ALL your worst fears are coming true, dear GOP. What a golden age I'm living in.

C2R - Welcome to the golden age of censorship.
Sen. Stabenow wants hearings on radio 'accountability'; talks fairness doctrine
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Stabenow_wants_hearings_on_radio_accountability_talks_fairness_doctrine.html?showall

(Senator Stabenow's husband, Thomas Athans, is the co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA Radio network and is now the Executive Vice-President of liberal Air America?)

So, lets see, Democrats are very actively trying to dictate everything from which industries should succeed and which should not to what kind of products we can and cant buy, they are seizing control of industry from auto manufacturers, to banks, to the entire health care and energy industries, they want to eliminate opposition through the fairness doctrine.... the only thing that differentiates them from fascists is their patriotism.

Caveat: I do not think it will happen within the first 90 days.

So, does anyone actually think the fairness doctrine is a good idea? There must be some free speech "as long as it agrees with me", hypocrites out there.

@chatarra
I guess that was "communists" instead of "fascists". although - communists are quite patriotic normally.
if it's true what you say, I think the US could take advantage of elevating to a three party democracy :-)

It is indeed a wonderful moment when you get to watch Republicans get all freaky because they might not get to hear Limbaugh fart into the microphone tomorrow.

I would actually be in favor of any "doctrine" that would make radio worth listening to again. I'd even tolerate drug-addict Limbaugh 24-hours-a-day on his own station if we could somehow convert radio back to a medium for music and information again. Jesus, there's no point in even turning on a radio anymore. Even when I was a kid, it was too many ads and too few songs. But now it's just ridiculous. Do you think Rush can hook me up? I've got a vicodin craving.

he's probably got a bahama connection seeing how that's where he gets his viagra. yes....good ole Rush Limpbaugh.

@ # 4 above, I've been stewing with how to succinctly say something like this, but you've nailed it precisely.

Senator to Force Vote on Bill Banning Fairness Doctrine
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090219171331.aspx

An interesting read -

Gawd, I lived in Michigan and Debbie Stabenow is a worthless bitch to have as a Senator. I couldn't stand her then and have no reason to change my mind still.

She want's to push a Fairness Doctrine but voted to support things like Real ID, allowing the sale of Clusterbombs to Israel knowing they'd use em on civilians and the Military Commissions Act. Grrrr...

Erik, you're article pointed out something I'd not previously considered with the Fairness doctrine. Christian radio. If this fairness crap passed how precisely would they be affected? Would they have to put up some time for other religions and atheists?

hee hee... Rev Phelps might demand that Christian radio air his "God Hates the World" song an equal number of times they air any "God Loves the World" songs.

@FoF....now that's a funny thought.

riot> could be. My concern is more about free enterprise. If I own a radio station that has programming that does not draw listeners, thereby limiting my advertising rates and my stations income, I go bankrupt or change my programming. Capitalism 101, what a concept! Sure beats someone telling you that you have to serve lasagna in your bar-b-q joint because there are no Italian restaurants in town.
Just my $.02

Erik, we're on the same page with this one. I know if I started a station I'd be downright homicidal being told what I HAVE to broadcast.

But that restaurant analogy isn't a very good one; the only way it would be fitting is if the BBQ joint you ran was owned by the public as the airwaves are. If I, John Q. Taxpayer, had given you the property to build a restaurant that would serve the public trust, I'd be a little miffed if I couldn't get anything but ribs and pulled pork and cole slaw...and I'd be even more miffed if you spent a good part of your time spreading half-truths and un-truths about all the other restaurants in town.

It ain't free enterprise when you're living on the public. Remember that. If the Right--and, for that matter, anyone else--wants to be able to spout whatever they wish without balance, the can buy space on cable or satellite.

Having said that: I don't think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated; I believe the more Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Rusty Humphreys, Laura Ingraham, and the rest of the lunatic Right open their ridiculous stupidity-spewing mouths, the better it is for the Left.

sqlman> I might find some credence in your rant if the public built my restaurant for me.

riot> (gasping and clutching his chest as he re-reads riot's post)
Cheers!!

"Why Not “Test Drive” the Fairness Doctrine At the Oscars?"
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8631

Afterall, it's being broadcast on public airwaves...

Hey, my entire crowd is full of lefties and centrists and NONE of us are for this fair doctrine bit. We manage to avoid right wing radio really easily.

One of my best friends sells advertising for a Christian station out of Portland. I'll ask him if this is being discussed around his station and see what the 'buzz' in the industry is saying.

Note to Destry> Please note that the settlement details require a bill being introduced to settle as "Yes"...FCC rulings don't count like they would here: http://www.hubdub.com/m21490/Will_the_Fairness_Doctrine_be_reimposed_during_Obamas_first_term

Cool beans, riot....I'd like to hear.

Sqlman,
I find fault in your argument because I don't believe that the public actually owns the airwaves. John Q Public doesn't subsidize much (if any) of the broadcast industry with tax dollars. Airwaves are free, because the government or private enterprise cannot figure out how to charge for airwaves. (Exception being satellite radio and cable TV). The radio stations have figured out that advertisers will pay to have their message carried across the airwaves, which is how radio stations make money. It is a commercial enterprise as long as they are privately owned radio stations. Some radio stations depend on pledge drives tapping money from loyal listeners for their existence.

This is why the idea of the Fairness Doctrine seems so absurd. Politicians telling private industry what they have to include in their radio broadcasts in order to be considered fair. Especially when the Main Stream Media is usually biased towards the left to begin with.

Why does the proposed Fairness Doctrine only apply to radio?

@Sqlman
"Having said that: I don't think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated; I believe the more Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Rusty Humphreys, Laura Ingraham, and the rest of the lunatic Right open their ridiculous stupidity-spewing mouths, the better it is for the Left."

Minor point - reinstated is the wrong word as it implies that Fairness Doctrine has been in effect before.
And I do agree with you that it is best if Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Rusty Humphreys, Laura Ingraham, etc are on the air. lol

In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

@chatarra: au contraire! The public *does* own the airwaves, and broadcasters using those airwaves are legally bound to follow certain rules. That's the price they pay for using them: legislators (not politicians) telling private industry what they have to include--and, of course, not include--in their broadcasts.

'In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the “public interest, convenience and necessity.” This means that it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license.' (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html) Hmmm...somehow that doesn't seem to define Limbaugh, et al. so well... :)

sqlman - whats the difference between a legislator and a politician? is a quarterback not a football player? if the left can't compete in the free market vs the right they want the govt to intervene to make it "fair." can you say socialism?

@FoF,
Thank you for the link and the info.

@Sqlman,
You are correct. Once again, I am better educated because of my time spent on Hubdub.
As DieselDog asked, what is the difference between legislators and politicians promoting the return of the Fairness Doctrine? An unbiased view of the participants shows this to be a politically motivated movement, aimed at stifling the political opposition. If this passes, watch out internet bloggers.

I am very pleased to hear so many lefty hubdubbers are equally against this oppressive legislation. While I am not a big fan of Air America, I would certainly NOT want to see them saddled with this rule either. Sometimes I like to drift over there for a while and it would be a real pain to know that they were also hobbled with trying to meet the demands of the Fairness Doctrine. If I want to hear something on the air, I would not want to wait for equal time viewpoints to pass. Like most listeners, I can make up my own mind, without being force fed equal time.

To his credit, Obama seems to NOT want to pursue this legislation.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/02/63031039/1

techinally the people own the airwaves. they don't own them literally tho. its like the state parks..their owned by the people but regulated by the govt. you can't go to a state park and build a house or cut down a tree even tho its owned or partially owned by you. the govt has to give you permission. usually they charge you a fee for that permission..ie i can cut firewood on state property if i buy a permit. so i gotta pay the govt to cut firewood on property i "own." now for the airwaves that the people "OWN." if i wanna broadcast a radio show i gotta get permission from the govt and they charge me..ie a broadcasting license. so again i'm paying to use something i supposely "OWN." its not the true definition of own if ya ask me. i own my car and can paint it green with pink poka dots if i want..no govt permission needed. the govt is a tricky bunch and use words to trick the people into believing all kinds of mumbo jumbo. if anybody thinks they own the airwaves try and sell your share to somebody. you can't sell what you don't own. they control-regulate it, they collect the money from the permits they issue..etc have any of you ever got a check for the fees the govt collects for using the airwaves you own?

"We've already had an opportunity for fairness, if you will, with respect to talk radio when a group of people got together and financed a liberal talk show host, one who aspires to enter this body at some time. The public spoke. The station went out of business. It went bankrupt...Let the public decide what they're going to listen to."

Sen. Bob Bennett

Senate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine
By Jim Abrams | Associated Press
February 26, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate has barred federal regulators from reviving a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves. The Senate vote on the so-called Fairness Doctrine was in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time. The Federal Communications Commission implemented the doctrine in 1949, but stopped enforcing it in 1987 after deciding new sources of information and programming made it unnecessary. President Barack Obama says he has no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans, led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., say they still need a guarantee the government would not establish new quotas or guidelines on programming.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96JF8V00&show_article=1

Can we clear something up?

Will this settle as yes only if its the "Fairness Doctrine"

It should settle as no if attempts to censor radio are introduced via another bill right?

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", or more succinctly, if it looks like shit and smells like shit....
My thought is that even if the Demoncrats change the name, as they often do to mislead the minions, but it achieves essentially the same results, it should settle as yes.

I understand where you're coming from, but I feel as though we should settle by what the question specifies.

The Fairness Doctrine is specific. And the background seems to go into some detail as well.

I'm fine either way, as long as I know what the category editor's interpretation is.

I believe the bill would need to be widely accepted and intrepreted as the Fairness Doctrine to justify a yes settlement. The bill Durbin has which deals with radio ownership, is only a small aspect of the intent of the Fairness Doctrine.

Ok, sounds reasonable. Seems you know what I was getting at destry ; )

i just love seeing the righties running around all freaked out over nothing.

spin those wheels guys. keep telling yourselves your new president is really a muslim Kenyan, because that really does warm my heart.

now ...here's somethings he probably WILL do:

Get rid of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in favor of gays serving openly.

Zero funding of Abstinence Only Sex Education.

Increase by 133%, the Title X funding (read: Planned Parenthood)

So.....HA

Are you high? You must be hallucinating if you see righties running around all freaked out.