Crying Wolf on the Fairness Doctrine

If nothing else, this blog is about us on the right doing a better job communicating and knocking down barriers to our effectiveness that come from within the movement.

A great example is how many on the right are all lathered up about the return of the Fairness Doctrine under an Obama Administration.

I have two words for these people: Not happening. Not only has Obama, though a spokesman, flatly denied any interest in reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, or otherwise failed to show any interest in the issue, but his pursuing it would be political suicide. Even if you don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth, believe that he is not this dumb. 

Not only would the Fairness Doctrine constitute a direct provocation to the Right without any tangible political benefit in the Center or the Left, but Democrats now the advantage in both mainstream and alternative media and have less reason to go after conservatives' atrophying talk radio advantage.

As tirelessly chronicled elsewhere, sites like TPM and HuffPo and ThinkProgress are the liberal talk radio. Obama raised a motherlode from the Internet in a way conservatives have been unable to do using talk radio because the Web is an all-encompassing home for communication and activation. Not only do you you have a mechanism for motivating people, but you have the click mechanism for funding and real-time response. Even when talk radio is successful at driving action, as with the immigration debate, its versatility is limited by the number of talkers on the AM dial. On the Internet, the number of activation channels is unlimited and the surround sound from this cacophony is persistent. The Left understood that the web was the medium of the future, with flailing catchup projects like Air America reduced to window dressing.

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but liberals are unlikely to upset the apple cart with alternative media because they now dedicated channels of their own, unlike in the early Clinton years. The reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine went nowhere when Rush was on the rise in 1993, and it will go nowhere next year or the year, especially with conservative talk radio no longer the center of the universe.

So, why does it bother me that some people focus on the issue?

First off, even with the proliferation of media, there is only so much bandwidth in the media ecosystem for conservative opposition messages. Do you really want to waste it on a nothing-burger like the Fairness Doctrine? There are enough legitimate threats -- endless bailouts, runaway deficit spending, nationalized health care, card check -- that I don't think we can afford to throw away our limited political capital on a non-issue.

Second, conservatism in the public arena has had a substance problem these last few months. Call it the William Ayers Effect -- for what we were talking about when the economy went to hell in a handbasket this fall. Obama is promising drastic and radical change on the issue that's of central and singular importance to the public -- the economy. It is on that issue, and on very few others, on which we must engage. If Obama revives the Old Deal on top of the $700 billion bailout, that will be a huge shift felt for generations to come. If he ultimately succumbs to automakers' demands for a bailout, he'll have rewarded the most pathological sectors of our economy and crippled what's left of the domestic manufacturing base. Ditto for nationalizing one seventh of the economy in addition to the everything else that's been nationalized in the last sixty days.

The Center for American Progress's talk of going 76 years back in time to the Old Deal -- when its president John Podesta is leading the Obama transition, is dead serious. It's time for conservatives to be similarly serious about how they want to oppose Obama.

Be afraid, be very afraid, but not because the Fairness Doctrine is coming back.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)


Only by making it public, does the threat go away

Do you really want to waste it on a nothing-burger like the Fairness Doctrine?

WHAT?!?! A "nothing burger" ?!?! Free Speech is nothing ?!?... Let me make it clear. In our fair city of Austin Texas the local Democrat Congressman Lloyd Doggett voted to take away my First Amendment rights. So did almost 200 other Democrats ... when they didnt have as many people on the Democrat side. This is the kind of issue that should have only a handful of supporters. The level of contempt for free speech by the Democrats is shocking.

Obama wont push this ... whoopie. But can you be sure he wont bend or secretly have FCC slip some shackles on radio on the sly? Or let it get into a big bill that he signs since he wants the whole bill ... The only way we can prevent the worst abuses is by making enough of a public stink that it forces the obama and Pelosi folks to issue denials.

If they really wont pursue it, then make them pay the political price for their vagueness. Only by making it public, does the threat go away. This is not crying wollf ... this is political INNOCULATION.

Have no fear.  It's not like they ration bytes and bandwidth so tightly we cant talk about this threat and a dozen other ones at the same time.


It's now a prerequisite for being a Republican, isn't it?

While you're at it Freedoms Truth, make sure to 'make noise' about atheists wanting to take away Christmas. That's the only way to stop those evil atheists! Make noise! Let freedom ring!

Liberal Garbage

should be called Liberal Garbage. That's my point. This Censor the Airwaves Docrine is evil and should be opposed by every American who give a flying wallenda about free speech.

Apprently you don't think Congressman who vote to directly attack the first amendment rights of people shouldn't be shamed out of their horrible viewpoint through public opposition. It is only through such public outcry that we keep our freedoms safe. You should be THANKING me, because it is the freedom of voices you would AGREE with that will be spared as well.

The shame then is on you, for calling a defense of the first amendment 'paranoia' and for your bogus ad hominem against Republicans. Funny how you are incapable of discussing facts and viewpoints, but have to sink to personal attacks.


You're missing the point

The point is that the chances of getting this through are slim to none, so why are you wasting your time with it?

Show me where I made a personal attack in that post?

And while you're telling me to thank you, feel free to thank me for serving your country, so you can defend YOUR voice. You know, since we're demanding thanks of each other.

name-called against all republicans

by calling them and us all paranoid. That's a personal attack.

more than half the Democrat caucus in the House and senate is on the record in favor of Federal Radio Censorship, and a pro-Federal Radio Censorhip FCC appointee was made in the Obama transition team. it's justified to raise this issue.

Further, my point was that irrespective of the risk of implementation, the very fact that so many Democrats were pro-censorship and willing to attack fundamental freedom was an issue to concern us. If they will attack freedom here, where else will tey do it??? ... they will fidn many ways to undermine our freedom.

"And while you're telling me to thank you, feel free to thank me for serving your country, so you can defend YOUR voice." Are you know joing the anti-Federal Radio Censorship side? If so, well done, and welcome aboard.

I'm in favor of turning sand into ice cream

It doesn't mean I think it's a possibility. That's how much I doubt this Fairness Doctrine will even be brought up.

I'm already on the "Anti-Federal Radio Censorship" side. I'm also on the "Anti-Patriot Act" side. And the "Anti War-on-Drugs" side. And lots of other sides. (Including on the "Active Duty USAF" side.)

Does it concern me when politicians hold opposite views from mine? Only unless they're in a position to effectively force change.

Stopping the Old Deal

Obama is promising drastic and radical change on the issue that's of central and singular importance to the public -- the economy. It is on that issue, and on very few others, on which we must engage. If Obama revives the Old Deal on top of the $700 billion bailout, that will be a huge shift felt for generations to come. If he ultimately succumbs to automakers' demands for a bailout, he'll have rewarded the most pathological sectors of our economy and crippled what's left of the domestic manufacturing base. Ditto for nationalizing one seventh of the economy in addition to the everything else that's been nationalized in the last sixty days.

I don't disagree with this.

Can the Senate GOP rerun the old plays of 1993 and 1994 and slow this puppy down? Filibuster?

the huge shift is already here

YOU voted for NO taxes, YES war.

More fool you.

Beggared in retirement

Scrounging for food under the ice

Obama promised a middle class tax cut

But what he called a tax cut was a bait-and-switch plan to repackage his various welfare-statist panders ... oh, and take credit for the Bush tax cuts all while bashing them.

The only REAL middle class tax cut proposal out there is authored by Newt Gingrich!,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

commentary on it:

Pressure on Obama to raise taxes more than he promised, meanwhile his 'promise' (aka THREAT) to raise taxes immediately will be 'put off":


We agree on how unlikely a Fairness Doctrine would be.  However, it is important to point out that, while Democrats may have abandoned the crude cudgel of the Fairness Doctrine, they haven't given up the basic goals involved.  The CAP/Free Press report outlines a way they can achieve "balance"  through other, procedural regulations.

The Fairness Doctrine may be dea, but the threat is still out there.

bah! it's no threat if your IDEAS are all they're cracked up to


If you can't compete in a market with alternatives, then you don't deserve to exist.

Free Market Thinking -- the type that applies to government monopolies too (you've heard the stories about private fire trucks?)

A non-issue

For all practical effect, it is Limbaugh's (Savage, et al) purpose to inform voters as to why they should not vote Republican.

They're not changing hearts and minds.  They're preaching to the choir.


One of the big changes of the last election cycle was the number of voters under 30.  And they voted for Obama by something like 80%.

The GOP needs to find a way to reach those young voters.  Talk radio runs counter to that.


If Rush cared about his country as much as he cares about his wallet, he would find another business opportunity to engage in.

As it is, if the GOP remains so dependent upon him going forward through the 21st century, they fully deserve to lose election after election until such as time as they are able to learn better. 

Let's not exaggerate

Under 30: 66-32 (+34 for Obama).

This is an ugly number, but it's not 80 points.  Reagan won the under 30 crowd by more than he won other voters.  That generation became the most Republican generation in the post-Depression history of the country.

I worry that too many people buy the unproven assertion that people get more Republican as they get older.  There is much more evidence that people acquire political views in the 16-30 year old range (different for different people), and that political affiliation stays rather stable over time.  So the people who acquired political views under Carter/Reagan are the most GOP of any generation alive.  The people acquiring views under Clinton were even.  And under Bush/Obama, they are becoming the most Democratic generation alive (yes, more than the FDR generation).  And they are more D than the Reagan generation is R.

It was 80% alright

I was speaking to a polsci prof about this yesterday.  He gave some interesting clues as to why.

He pointed out that the freshmen he teaches can't remember any other president than W.  Most of them hadn't entered high school by the time of the invasion of Iraq.  The under 30 crowd has never seen a presidential election where Bush was not running.  Therefore, they tend to equate Bush with 'the President.'

And the president is so very unpopular these days. 

umm... can you cite some sources?

or give me your polisci prof's e-mail and I'll ask him? that's kinda different from the exit polling...

Agree w/ Jon

We have to be cognizant that there is some level of threat out there and we need to have a basic strategy at least outlined in how we may repond to a "fairness doctine like" tactic. 

I also agree with Patrick that there plent of very important issues to worry about.  Rahm Emanuel has spoken candidly on the Adminsitration's tactic to use todays financial crisis to advance their very left agenda.

This very left agenda includes (but certainly not limited to) tax increases, wealth redistribution, nationalized/universal healthcare, the threat of the government stepping in on our 401K's, BIG BIG government, the creation of a national civilian security force, cap and trade, not allowing drilling on our own land and shores, amnesty (which most conservatives would be okay with IF the borders were secure NOW), green energy at any cost, and card check.

We have a lot of work to do to counter these efforts.  Without a sure Senate filibuster firewall, we must have a very strong grassroots voice to Washington and the Administration. 

And....I will keep bringing this up, we must have a strategy to counter the liberal establishment and the Dems from defining who we are.  Karl Rove and George Bush allowed the dems and the liberal establishment to beat them to death for the past (6) years with no effort whatsover to counter these constant attacks (also effecting the party significantly).  We must have a methodology of defending our views and our party and it much reach the masses and/or the mainstream media. 

I assure you, every attempt (by us) to counter the Administration's liberal agenda will be portrayed as simply being obstructionist's to Barry's grand beautiful plan for America.  We must be able to demonstrate why we appose these issues and why our ideas are better for America.

why do you like Dumb Money so much?

I'd think that you'd be all for a retirement system where we would be allowed enough flexibility to short stocks, for gods sakes!

Green energy

Oh the horror!

once again

still no conservative has presented a counter proposal. it isn't just about stopping a new New Deal. its about if you guys were successful in stopping it. if the entire country said ok, no new Deal, on right what do we do now?

will the Right have ANYTHING besides just regulate a bit less and get out of the way, and trust us, THIS time free market will solve it all.


It's not JUST about blocking democrats, voters still aren't voting for you if you are never actually giving ACTUAL counter proposals!


I am going to ask this alot because i have noticed, just like when the economy was melting, The GOP is still doing it, you aren't actually talking about how to solve this crisis, oh I now get it that NOTHING the Democrats will do will work, but again I ask and will continue to ask


what is the consevative solution to the current economic crisis? and how long untill conservatives join in and start giving real answers to what we can do to fix this?

Let's keep it up!

TCDem2, I share your thoughts completely.  I'm an independent, probably best described as fiscally conservative and socially moderate.  I look at candidates and their ideas, regardless of party, and frankly couldn't care less what is 'good' for either party -- I'm interested in what is good for my family, community and country.  I'm interested in competency and effectiveness.  I've always been open to voting Dem or Repub, depending strictly on the candidate's positions and track record.  I'm not trying to put myself on a pedestal, but think I could accurately be described as a true swing voter who lacks loyalty to either party.  But the past two elections have given me pause.  It seems Repubs are concerned about very little except 'what's good for the party', what keeps 'the party' in power, and 'the base' happy -- but next to nothing is said about policy ideas or much of anything that affects the average person's life.  Low taxes, yada, yada, yada -- okay, well, then, would you mind explaining how 'borrow and spend' is superior to 'tax and spend'?  Now you are all wound up about the deficits and figuring out how to be 'obstructionist' to Obama's proposals -- yet a competing proposal of your own is never offered.  Or at least admitted to?  It would be a shame if we increasingly have a one-party government but to be honest I see more differences and hear much more substantive debate in Dem primaries, between more-conservative and more-liberal leaning Dems.  All I hear from Republicans is taxes, war, extreme so-con policies, and that Dems are evil.  I appreciate alternatives in elections and would join you in continuing to challenge conservatives on this and other sites to point me to actual, on-the-record, alternative policy proposals by conservatives/Republicans whenever they criticize Dems/Obama, because that's my new standard:  if you can't articulate and defend your alternative proposal, you won't get any of my attention if all you have to offer is name-calling, obstructionism and diversionary tactics to nonsense sideshow issues. 

And on the Fairness Doctrine issue:  everyone but the choir they preach to recognizes Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc., as performers, and no serious person would consider their rantings to be 'news.'  As far as I'm concerned they can stay on the air, unopposed, until they are taken out feet-first with a toe-tag.  They do far more damage to promoting truly thoughtful conservative proposals and viewpoints than any benefit they'll ever bring, with moderate Dems and independents.  Nothing but freakshows on the order of Jerry Springer.


 As usual, you have a great synopsis of the Party and its problems.  I hope you have the ear of the right people.  Keep up the good fight.



I agree with you on many points, but have to disagree on the general premise that an Obama administration won't try to to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine.

First of all, you are correct that Obama is smart. He's also a political opportunist. He was able to read the climate in the primaries and sense that 2008 was a better year to run than 2012, especially when in 2007 everyone was already resigned to Hilliary as the Dem candidate.

If the political climate is such that he feels he'll be able to push this through, he will. I think the biggest indidicator of whether the climate will be accommodating for this is whether or not the Dems get a 60 seat filibuster proof Senate. If the Dems can ram through the Fairness Doctrine without a loud debate, I'd expect them to do it. 

I agree that Talk Radio presents much less of a threat to the Dems now that they have flexed their Internet muscles. That doesn't change the fact that it is still a threat to them. Many of them have a personal vendetta against talk radio, and if they have the political where with all to do something about it, I expect that they will.


vendetta? is it so hard to understand the demagogues

are a danger to democracy? Perhaps the only true danger to democracy? (no socialism isn't a danger)

I found this interesting, as

I found this interesting, as I was very worried about the Fairness Doctrine being a high priority for a Democratic Congress under Obama leadership, particularly since there are so many members with personal vendettae against talk radio.  However, it makes sense that the other issues such as the unrestrictive bail-outs and the nationalization of health care, among other economic power grabs really whet the liberal appetite.  Liberals correctly see the broadcast media, public supported media, and much of the internet as a voting bloc solidly in their pockets, a bloc invested in seeing the Obama agenda succeed at all costs, because he is their candidate. So, why veer off an otherwise winning strategy and risk galvanizing those who would wince at the infringement of the 1st amendment?

The Fairness Doctrine is a frightening prospect, but we must do the harder work of articulating what it is that will make this country rise out of the economic crisis it is in.  McCain was unable to do this.  We need leaders and spokespeople who can not only clearly outline how the failure of the mortgage lenders occurred and why it was largely a political fall out from a Democratic agenda to support "affordable housing" without oversight, but also explain clearly and forcefully how economic freedom in the marketplace allows businesses, and as a result, Joe the Plumber and Wenda the Waitress to succeed.  This is the hard part. 

The real terror lies in the slow and steady decline in love for America, the traditional America that stands for self-reliance, liberty, and the "shining city on the hill" which Reagan so consistently and beautifully hailed.   The creeping guilt and desire to apologize for America's overly successful influence in the world is the thing that scares me more than anything.



America never was America to me.

... quoting Hughes. I hope and trust that people are able to believe in that America that never was, but yet will be.

The world depends on it.

Folks the left hates truly free speech

They absolutely do not care for dissent of any kind.  They only care about protecting the left's ability to promote its message.  If you need further proof, then simply go to any college or university campus as a conservative and try to promote your point of view.  You will be shouted down, you will called a racist and a hate-monger, etc.  by mindless sycophants who couldn't come up with a single, truly rational thought to save their life.  This essay makes a good case for why this is so.

It is no suprise that the Pelousy-Dingy Harry Congress has talk radio in its sights and why Obama supports thier view (even if he tells voters otherwise).  They suck at the medium.  They bring their typical activist mindset to the format and forget that in order to succeed that you have to be informative and entertaining.  They don't understand markets, which is why their Marxists in the first place, so they don't understand that you have to attract an audience which in turn attracts advertisers to your program.  That is how a tlak radio program succeeds in the commercial marketplace and since they can't achieve that (just look at Airhead America) they fail.  Sen. Chuck U Schumer has recently called talk radio "political pornograpghy"  that needs to be "regulated" by the FCC the same way it censors adult content on public airwaves (he probably made that statement after downloading some bukkake and midget porn at taxpayer expense). 

That should be all you need to know about the left's idea free speech.  They will not support it.  They think if they fail at a medium where conservatives are succeeding then it must be bad.  They have the attitude if we can't succeed in it, then we can't let the otherside do so.  This is contrary to us pro-first amendment conservatives who for years were getting sick and tired of the leftist bias in the MSM so people like Limbaugh pioneered the alternative media for our point of view.  We didn't demand that big government step in and "level the playing field" we simply understood their is a market for our point of view and created an outlet for it.

Consequently, the left wanted their "aletrnative media" so they started the online nutroots.  Of course we also have out internet presense but it is not as big as the DUmmies, Kossacks and the HuffnPuff.   But sites like this one show we are in this medium as well.

Free Market Fallacies


So, the Right is all for free marlets and competition, unless it threatens one of their mainstays?

Air America grew from nothing to a network syndicating over 100 radio stations with presence in every major market in the country, from Seattle to Miami, at one point in less than 18 months.  They gave Progressives a breath of fresh air in states where Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, and Beck were the only program choices avaiilable for 12 hours at a time.  They gave Progressives the drive to change things, and helped them realize things COULD change.  Air America was not a failure, it continues on today, albeit much reduced, in most of the nation's major media markets.

Air America gave us Rachel Maddow, the hottest thing on evening cable news.  Air America gave Al Franken the credibility he needed as he battles to become a US Senator.

And Conservatives and their thugs in the media, Sinclair, Salem, and other players recognized the threat, and did all they could to maintain their monopoly of the Nation's free airwaves.

There is documented proof

of illegal collusion among over 100 advertisers and pro-Conservative groups at ABC to strangle Air America and prevent it from gaining a foothold among advertisers.

Conservative like to claim this is about "Freedom of Speech".  It is not.

It is about Corporate monopolists, and their efforts to keep their monopolies at all costs.

Personally, I have no idea what the Fairness Doctrine even means.  Does it mean that radio networks will have to provide equal time for opposing viewpoints?  How?  Who will provide the opposing viewpoints?  Who wil pay for the talent and production?  How will opposing radio hosts and personalities be selected? No one, especially not the Conservatives raising the hue and cry about the Fairness Doctrine, even knows.

AS a matter of policy, I am against monopolies and market manipulation and domination.  In the last few years, radio technologies have been introduced where computer controls three states away set and broadcast and monitor syndicated feeds to local stations, under the control of suits in the corporate headquarters 1,000 miles away. 

I think local communities should have local people on the air, I think we should not let any one interest, Lib or Conservative, command and dominate a medium unless it's by talent and market desire.  We should break up syndicates and ownerships which build monopolies and focus on a desire for profits.

And having Clear Channel or Infinity set the programing for all 47 stations within one state goes against that.

I think the Internet has already decided this battle anyway.  I think young people are far more likely to get their news and info from Huff Post, Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos or Eschaton. They are the voters of tomorrow, who heard Rush and Sean and Neal and Savage screaming for months about Ayers and Wright and Black Nationalism and Redistribution and Socialism, and simply decided that HateRadio has no credibility, and voted opposite to what they heard from them.

Radio has become by and large a white rural market phenomenon anyway, much like the GOP. How much influence did it have the last Election?  It's almost impossible toknow for sure, but I would actually guess it COST McCain and the GOP votes, not gained them, especially among young people and moderates and indepedents who moved as a huge group towards Democrats.



Thank you!

I didn't realize and honestly hadn't thought about how the corporate interests factored into the allegedly 'free speech' aspect of the Fairness Doctrine flap!  I will do more research on that but what you say makes a lot of sense.  I understood it was a big deal to Rush because he wants his big paycheck to keep coming in, but should have realized there are far bigger corporate interests to be served by protecting talk-radio.

I also agree with the other poster who wonders why many on the right are so afraid of the airing of competing ideas.  Apparently protecting their own speech is the priority,  not necessarily free speech.

monopolies always act to keep the monopolies

and broadcast media is a monopoly...

Rush will still be on the air if fairness doctrine gets implemented. his carbon copies won't all be, though.

MediaMatters is Soros funded propaganda house

There is so much irony in using a biased source like media matter to 'prove' something about media manipulation, it boggles the mind!

NOBODY 'strangled' Air America, the audience was/is too small for its buildout.

Personally, I have no idea what the Fairness Doctrine even means.

Yes, this is very clear from your misleading and ignorant statements! The Doctrine is Government censorship and control of the radio stations under the false and absurd view that Govt knows best how to allocate opinions, and can dictate 'balance'. It's absurd and in the eye of the beholder. The Govt shouldnt have any say in what a radio station runs or not. Its a clear 1st amendment issue.

We have one dominant paper in major cities - do we force equal time there? Why Not? It is obviously a restriction on the press if that is done, but why attack radio and not newspapers, when in fact there is a lot LESS diversity of views in newspapers than in radio.

I think local communities should have local people on the air,

And I think women should not wear those silly tongue piercings, but making a Federal law or FCC rule out of personal preferences is an offense to liberty. Stations will do was local listeners demand or they wont have an audience. Listeners have decided that local DJs arent vitals, so many stations have gone the "bob FM" format - no problem!

I think we should not let any one interest, Lib or Conservative, command and dominate a medium unless it's by talent and market desire. 

Clearly the New York Times, and the liberal MSM doesnt dominate based on market desire or talent, .... HAVING the NEW YORK TIMES AND AP SET THE NEWS FOR ALL 50 STATES GOES AGAINST THAT. thus by your logic, the liberal journalists should hand over a potion of the paper to balanced voices on the conservative side. Govt knows best, right?

Of course that is absurd. The liberals only hate those media that dare to swim against their own prejudices. As you clearly show ....

"HateRadio" - That is a bigotted, lying, ugly, low-down smear-mongering statement. How dare you. More hate is found on Kos and the left-sites than anywhere else, and your exhibition of such a slander shows your real agenda. You are just another LibTroll who hates the voices on the conservative side and just wants to shut them up because you dont like them. Wash your mouth out with soap.

There are alot of voices in the media I have. Olbermann the hatemongering deranged fool. Krugman and his breezy lies. The arrogant pinch and his New York Times. Screechers like Maureen Dowd, the 'racist under every bed' types like Eugene Robinson. And then the biased journalists that are a dime a dozen in DC. But the worst are the slugs on Kos that peddle smears against Bristol Palin or who work in Media Matters to crank out propaganda, or who feed the various avenues of anti-right venom.

Yet on not a single one of these would I wish their First Amendment rights be harmed. Voltaire's statement applies - I will defend their right to say what they will, no matter what their opinion. These liberal propagandists may be selling rotten and even poisoned fruit in the marketplace of ideas, but its necessary for ALL our freedoms to keep the marketplace open and away from Government interference.



Umm... I'm pro more newspapers

In my city we've got at least three, two of which publish free editions paid for by advertisers.

If we de=monopolize radio, can we demonopolize newspapers and TV too?

It's really pretty simple folks.

Monopolies are NOT in the public interest. they are and will continue to be a National Security Issue.

I'm pretty sure Krauthammer is in EVERY paper in the country, at least on Sundays. Newspapers make an effort to present all sorts of views on the editorial page -- often times having lineups of "pro" and "con" whatever the issue of the week is. At least my paper does that.

Hate Radio is what the people who back it call it. Yes it is a foul media, and calling it that is no smear, simply fact.

In other news, the best ice cream that you can get is found in Costco, vanilla only. They found the Haagen Dasz too cheaply made, so they upgraded. The price? $10.00 a gallon.

[this anecdote added to prove to you that yes, I do in fact know someone capable of corporate or national espionage. I am not lying when I say Hate Radio is what the backers call it.]

Who the hell wants to say bad things about Bristol Palin? I will feel free to say bad things about her mother's views on childrearing (because those are actually a political topic), but she's an innocent victim...

Media Matters is NOT Funded by Soros.


And discussing newspapers and radio in the same breath is absurd.  They are apples and oranges. 

Radio is BROADCAST over the people's airwaves, with the express licensed permission of the FCC.  Radio has fiduciary and public-interest provisions attached to every license granted, and the ability and obligation of the FCC to monitor content, assess fines, and pull licenses is in statute. See Janet Jackson's "Costume malfunction".

Newspapers are private enterprises with no restrictions whatsoever on Editorial or news content.  People are free to believe, buy, support any newspaper, or not, at their discretion.  In America, Rupert Murdoch can buy the NY Post, the Reverend Sung Myung Moon can buy the Washington Times, and both use them as launching pads for the most outrageous criticism and editorial scoriation of only Democrats, never Republicans, use them as platforms for "columnists" of hatred who write outrageously offensive diatribes such as Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, all the while losing hundreds of millions of dollars in the process for the pure and sole purpose of having a media presence to use as a megaphone for their politics.  The only protection a public figure has in America is libel and defamation lawsuits, which are usually decided in favor of the media defendants, justices listing First Amendment rights to publish opinions as sacrosanct.

As to whether the NY Times "..sets the News for all 50 States" or the AP does, I would simply point out that the Wall Street Journal, also a Rupert Murdoch property, and nowheres near a "Liberal" paper, has almost 400k more subscribers daily circulation than the NY Times, at over 2M copies daily.

Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about, and only offer kneejerk Con responses as usual, with no credibility.

What's all this fuss

about the Fairness Doctrine?  How exactly will it be the end of conservative talk radio?  As near as I can tell, it would force stations to air "balanced" programming - for every hour of Limbaugh, you'd have an hour of Olbermann.  OK, so it would be no longer purely conservative radio, but on the other hand, for every hour of Maddow on MSNBC, you'd have an hour of Hannity.  Why is this such a bad thing?  Why is this the end of free speech?

Seems to me that one of the problems facing the country today is the one Obama addressed in his 2004 convention speech that propelled him, ultimately, to the Presidency - the vitriolic, overly partisan nature of political discourse today.  Well, when people can tune to a given station (or website) and know that they will never hear an idea they disagree with, when Limbaugh, Olbermann, et al. can spout their ideas unchallenged, we are going to get a deeply divided country lurching left and right, with the out party convinced it's the end of America as we know it.   Much moreso than an Obama win or a 2012/16 Palin win, such a bipolar split will be the end of America as we know.  Initiatives begun by one party will be thrown out by the next, purely out of spite.  The rest of the world will never be able to count on us, as foreign policy careens across the spectrum.  Our influence will diminish, and eventually our ability to maintain our status as the world's superpower.

Democracy ain't easy, folks.  Taking the easy road is seldom, if ever the right answer.  If we have to occasionally listen to a dissenting viewpoint, maybe we'd be in a better position to make better decisions.  Bottom line though - if yours are the better arguments, why should you be afraid of a fair debate??

Loving censorship but hating Bush

about the Fairness Doctrine?  How exactly will it be the end of conservative talk radio?  As near as I can tell, it would force stations to air "balanced" programming - for every hour of Limbaugh, you'd have an hour of Olbermann

Let's try this concept on MSNBC first ... before we roll it out elsewhere. Give Rush an hour show right after the Olber-lunatic.

And that 1/2 hour Katie Couric has ... let's give another 1/2 hour to the Media Research Center to reubt all the garbage she and her producers spew each 22 minutes a night.

Try that FIRST and then lets talk about radio.

to the Presidency - the vitriolic, overly partisan nature of political discourse today.

I agree. Like the plays about assassinating Bush. Like the death threats and death wishes from the left against Bush. like calling McCain "McChimp" etc.

When I mention that Democrats are problem solvers, I can think of only one Republican who can be a problem solver — that is Vice President Dick Cheney if he would just take George on a hunting trip,” GOVERNOR Beshear

Yeah, lots of hate, vitriol and even death threats ... against President Bush. Will the liberals apologize for their 8 years of hate towards a decent and honorable President?!? Hmmmm?

You make my point for me - thanks!

Let's try this concept on MSNBC first ... before we roll it out elsewhere. Give Rush an hour show right after the Olber-lunatic.

Why just the left side?  I guess that's your problem with the Fairness Doctrine - it would affect both sides.

I agree. Like the plays about assassinating Bush. Like the death threats and death wishes from the left against Bush. like calling McCain "McChimp" etc.

Despicable, on both sides - like those who do everything from refering to the President-Elect as "Barry" or "B. Hussein", to actually planning his assassination.  And while I would agree that hate, vitriol and even death threats have absolutely no place in our politics, people can have many legitimate complaints about the way this administration has conducted its business.  Obama hasn't even taken office yet, and the vitriol is rampant.  All of which just proves my point - the absolute scism in the media is causing a potentially fatal scism in the country.


It would do no such thing?

It would not be fairly admininsitered.  Instead, some leftw-ing whiner would complain to the FCC about Rush, Hannity etc. and they would force radio stations who carry their programs to offer liberal shows as well.  This wouldn't work because as it has been shown that liberals SUCK at talk radio.  No station would want to offer liberal talk radio because they would lose audience and thus advertisers.  Then they could be forced to go out of business.  So most talk radio stations would simply switch to another format.

Great piece, but can we stop calling it the fairness doctrine?

One thing the left has been very successful at is summing up policy positions in very favorable frames (sometimes to the point of being Orwellian) for their side: "Make every vote count," "Employee Free Choice Act," "Social security privatization" (instead of what Bush's plan really was: voluntary private accounts for a portion of social security money for a small, youthful slice of the electorate).   I think calling it the "Old Deal" is right, and any other reference to the fact that the Democrats are whipping out a playbook that had medicore results for an industrialized, uneducated economy and applying it to a post-industrial educated economy (are Lehman Brothers execs really going to go build a bridge?).  But we should be consistent in our framing.


great, but you're ignoring the economic research

about exactly how Clinton got us out of Reagan's Recession (I'm going to call it that, as Bush the first was on record against voodoo economics).

that was infrastructure improvements.

Build bridges? Great.

High Speed Transit? Better.

HighSpeedInternet in the Lower 48? Awesome.

It also helped

That the recession ended about a year and half before Clinton took office . . .

you mind if I call this little 50% drop in stock market

a recession?

Good. Thanks.

The best thing the Right could do is advocate for actual standards in economic reporting from the government. Either that or abolish the whole thing so that nobody talks about unemployment anymore.

bear markets and recessions are 2 different things


"Either that or abolish the whole thing so that nobody talks about unemployment anymore."
Unemployment was quite low until the Democrats took the reins of Congress. It's almost as if the Democrats like more unemployed around, they try so hard to get them Govt dependent and do so LITTLE to get the private sector economic back into growth.

umm... you have no fucking idea what i'm talking about.

look at shadow government statistics, and then let's get back to how our gov't has been lying about it's numbers since Reagan (and it gets worse with every single president, bar none.)

Stock market provides an indicator of a recession. If you want to call this a Black Swan Event... feel free to make a blatanly nonfactual argument. Economic growth also provides an indicator of recessions (it's what economists choose to use to call one). By the gov'ts skewed numbers, we are not yet in a recession, even though anyone who looks out the door can see that we are.

Sun fired how much of it's workforce? Jeepers Creepers.

Circuit City fired all of their good workers... but that's a different tale.

The Federal Radio Censorship Doctrine

The Federal Radio Censorship Doctrine - That's what it should be called.

You are correct. In the 1980s, the liberals kept calling the strategic defense initiative "star wars" when in fact it was neither steller nor could it be war-oriented since it was defensive 100%. but the name stuck. The Dems are better at putting their labels on things.

They are calling their bill a 'stimulus' package when it is nothing of the sort. It's a Government Spending Extravanganza, that will have little to no growth benefit (save for the tax reducation part).




nevertheless, it caused an arms race with russia

Reagan brought us EXTREMELY close to nuclear armageddon by not being MAD.

Reagan scared anyone sane -- an actor as president? please.

To illustrate:

Reagan stood up to give a speech, and to test out the microphone (it wasn't supposed to be broadcast), he said "Ladies and gentlemen I regret to announce that we have launched nuclear weapons at Russian targets" -- minutes later, he gets a call from Russia, asking basically "what the hell????" (russia having had spies in the audience). At which point, Reagan was literally there fumbling for words, saying "I'm just an actor!" After that, Reagan and Gorby started to talk more often.

Russia is a paranoid nation, and will always be I believe, it's part of the national character.

Russia also is in a state of perpetual anarchy. Communist russia might have been preferable to having your credit card number stolen every single year.

broken promises

It really upsets me that the liberal illuminati has already showed their deception by changing from the plans they promised

thanks very interesting

thanks very interesting wisdom teeth