I see a little bit of chatter about the Fairness Doctrine bubbling up, and I have to admit I am conflicted on the issue. First, I just don’t like it. Second, I swore over and over again that no one on the Democratic side was interested in reviving it (and in truth, Obama won’t touch it, most likely), so if they did revive it, I would have a good bit of egg on my face.
Having said that, this:
And I’m sure Rush is apoplectic.
This is becoming a tough call, when opposition to the Doctine was a no-brainer. Anything that makes Malkin and Rush that mad can’t be all that bad. I’d oppose chocolate and puppy kisses if they endorsed them.
That’s just how I roll these days.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
Why did you oppose the Fairness Doctrine, John?
Doesn’t that "public airwaves" thing have any resonance with you?
Just Some Fuckhead
The only downside I can see to a revival of the Fairness Doctrine is more AM sports talk radio.
Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist
It is amusing to see that these screechers think that airing opposing views is a deadly attack.
I’m sure Rush is pooping his copious pants, all right. He can’t even run his own show without call screeners weeding out any dissent.
Personally, I don’t think the Doctrine is the best way to handle things, but I don’t know what would be better. Except to take a big fat sledgehammer to the media conglomerates and make the consolidation thoroughly illegal again.
kommrade reproductive vigor
So Uncle Sam is the bad guy now.
Christ.
Fxd.
Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse
I’d like to see the Fairness Doctrine reimplemented using slightly different rules. If x hours a week goes to someone too stupid or venal to understand the use of Ctrl-F, 2x hours a week must go to someone who can give an honest and fair argument, no matter what their political stance is.
John Cole
@Ivan Ivanovich Renko: I’m a registered Democrat now, even after the rapture of the Bush years. I thought it was pretty clear I hated America.
John Cole
Appropos of nothing, when I was having dinner earlier I thought of this Sadly No! post comparing Stanley Kurtz to Big Gay Al and started laughing out loud.
The people around me looked at me funny.
jenniebee
I swear, if Move On started a campaign opposing extending capital punishment to seven year olds, Malkin would screech about how awful some seven year olds are and stake out a toddler’s countertops.
NRO would run diatribes claiming that executing children is the only way to preserve traditional values on either side of a "25 Best Conservative Novelists of All Time" list that includes a paean to Dickens.
slag
I’m starting to roll that way too. A lot!
That said, I’m in favor of whatever monopoly/consolidation-busting measures they can come up with. Not of Fairness Doctrine in its orig incarnation.
John Cole
Any of you watching the Eers and Nova? Jesus.
I need to go make sure my couch is safe if this keeps up.
DougJ
You know that I like about the “Fairness Doctrine”? That it’s called the “Fairness Doctrine”! It makes it that much more satisfying to scare the righties with it that it has the same kind of fucked up Orwellian name they like to give things — Clean Skies Initiative, Patriot Act, etc.
(I have zero idea whether or not I support the Fairness Doctrine.)
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m watching Waitress. Crying funny.
Annie
Ironic. Malkin calling someone else a "nutball." Their strategy is so transparent that it makes me shriek — because it always works.
Identify a problem/conspiracy (preferably one that doesn’t exist). Put Dems in the middle and talk about it endlessly — play the victim card, all the while claiming that the left always plays the victim. Make sure that somehow the MSM is part of the problem/conspiracy.
And, of course, claim the high moral ground (by not being a victim, by claiming a loss of rights, quoting the constitution, and by insisting they are only addressing the problem for the good of the country, and of course, patriotism).
With the economic meltdown, no one is seriously considering the Fairness Doctrine (no one was seriously considering it before but that is besides the point).
If we ignore them, they really will go away…….Without us, they have nothing left.
The Grand Panjandrum
I think bringing up a new Fairness Doctrine would have some unintended consequences none of us would care for, e.g. extending some form of it to the intertrons. Let the righties have the old dying media. By the time the dumbfucks in the Republican party figure out Twitter the rest of the world will have moved on, as it were.
sgwhiteinfla
You know, I went and actually listened to the clip they posted and it was somewhat counter to what the article said. First of all while the Rep DID say he favored the Fairness Doctrine he also acknowledged that it might not ever get re introduced. Second of all he didn’t say he was introducing it in a bill that he was sponsoring, in point of fact he said he WASN’T putting it in the bill. And third and perhaps most important the interviewer himself pointed out that President Obama is opposed to the fairness doctrine.
And THAT is what they are tripping on? Wait, I forgot. We ARE talking about Rethugs here. By tomorrow I am sure the story will be that the Fairness Doctrine was some how snuck into the stimulus bill. Its tiring keeping up with all the wingnut lies.
amorphous
@John Cole: To late, it’s burning on your porch. It was Tunch, but he’s craftily disguised in a coonskin cap and carrying a musket.
Left Coast Tom
(I have zero idea whether or not I support the Fairness Doctrine.)
I think the Fairness Doctrine is reasonable enough given that the airwaves belong to the public, but all things considered I think zero is a reasonable priority to attach to the idea. If I had to choose between right wingers making public asses of themselves over the idea, versus actually restoring the Fairness Doctrine, I’d much rather see the former.
It’s the fact that most Democrats seem to have adopted such views that makes Fairness Doctrine Ranting so amusing.
bvac
I’m disappointed that Democrats seem to be approaching the Fairness Doctrine from the "balance of opinions" angle. The Fairness Doctrine should be about one thing and one thing only, dealing with monopolistic corporate ownership of publicly leased airwaves. If the same assholes didn’t own half the stations in the country, there might be a chance for different programming to flourish.
Check out this letter to Rush Limbaugh. I think it gets right to the point. What do you think people like Rush care more about: being forced to air opposing views, or being taxed for their use of the airwaves?
demkat620
@John Cole: God almighty, August seems like forever ago.
I really hate the idea of the fairness doctrine. Let it alone, they are dying, let them go.
The fairness doctrine is the rallying cry they need.
John Cole
Any of you drink Stash Earl Grey tea?
I am really liking it, although I am sure there will be a dozen people telling me it really sucks and I have no taste.
LaDonne
Having lived during the time of the Fairness Doctrine and then discovering Rush on a weak-ass local station around 1987, I’m of the opinion that every little snippet of a Dem yappy about it makes them scream bloody murder. Even today, Hannity had scraped together a package of sound-bites from mostly unknown Dems talking about it (including one interesting bit from Al Gore).
From what I’ve heard in the three and one half weeks since Obama took office, they don’t know what to do with themselves. Hannity called Obama a liar numerous times today. Bennett thinks that Obama kissing the woman in FLA was not presidential, and Rush took an unplanned vacation last week.
They will implode soon enough. I hope various little known Dems keep randomly talking about the Fairness Doctrine. Before we know it, regular folks tuning in will wonder what the hell Rush, Hannity, Bennett, Medved et al are talking about and switch to a sports station.
Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse
Earl Grey is your aunt’s perfume dumped into hot water. Ptui!!
(One down, eleven to go. We can do it!)
Stuck
That’s pretty much my default position on most things. As far as talk radio goes, it’s not a fairness doctrine problem so much as a monoploy problem, What we have is 3 or 4 big media companies controlling nearly all the stations. And all they have to do is trot out the wingnut TP that no one wants to listen to left talkers so you can’t expect us to put them on. I don’t have time to put up links, but that’s just not true, though it is probably less than right wing listeners.
The real problem is in the TV news market that has also been consolidating venues that lesson diversity. But the real really big issue is, imo, profit driven news reporting as entertainment rather than as a public service. When the frequencies were handed out to the big three networks decades ago, (and also applies to modern cable news), there was an understanding that we (the people)will rent the airwaves cheap as long as you provide quality news secondary to profit making in that area. Well, obviously, that’s gone the way of the Dodo.
bvac
On the other hand, what is so crazy about balancing commentary anyway? It’s already the law that any public broadcast that gives free time to candidates must give their opponent equal time. Why should it be any different for "matters of public importance?"
KG
Don’t need the Fairness Doctrine to deal with the monopolies. Just need the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. And it needs to be enforced rigorously – like give that section of the DoJ half the DoD’s budget.
Aaron
John, Everyone,
You dont seem to get it. Theres a reason why 20%+ still think Bush was great. Theres a reason why conservative ideas, no matter how idiotic are still fashionable. They have left planet earth and created there own whole little bizzaro world with Rush, and Malkin, and McCain.
The only reason these wackos are taken seriously by the right is that they only hear the rights bizzaro world take on events and issues. And if we are ever to build a national consensus about the serious problems facing our nation, is if people hear the truth and they sure wont hear it from Rush or Fox news.
Yes bring back the fairness doctrine.
Isnt the fact that the right bitterly opposes it a big enough clue that its important???
Stuck
@John Cole:
I don’t drink tea, I chew it. Green tea lemon ginseng mixed in with a pinch of Cherry Skoal. That way I can be a real man and liberal weenie at the same time.
Annie
You know, the President should stop this nonsense in its tracks. He should come out and say: "The Republicans are holding the country hostage hoping that my administration will fail, so they can win in the next election. For me and for my administration the only Fairness Doctrine is for the Republicans to put country before politics and the next election, and for them to work towards economic recovery and growth. For my administration the only Fairness Doctrine is to stop wasting the publics’ time on supposed policies that don’t exist, and focus on policies that actually will help the country. Enough is enough. It’s time, we focus on what is important and cut the crap."
PS. In our house, Tunch would be considered "dainty." Our cats are each 25lbs and growing…Happy Valentines Day. Our cats can’t wait.
Ash Can
You can say that again. As I type this, Harry Reid is hanging out on the Hill, keeping the lights on for Sherrod "Number Sixty" Brown, economies around the world are blowing up like a string of firecrackers, and Michelle Malkin is fear-mongering about…the Fairness Doctrine? What the fuck planet is she living on? What kind of crap is she inhaling?
BTW, I can understand how reasonable people (e.g. our host) could have reservations about the Fairness Doctrine because it requires business owners and managers to accomodate clients they otherwise might not want to accomodate. However, this has been an ongoing dilemma for any privately owned but publicly-accessible property (Jim Crow laws, anyone?). On top of that, in this case, the public ownership of the broadcast airwaves makes an equal-access measure such as the Fairness Doctrine all the more appropriate.
Just Some Fuckhead
I drink green tea for breakfast every morning and a cup of chamomile tea every afternoon at work. Never tried Earl Grey but my last assistant loved it. He’d go on and on about how I should try it. I’ll have to check it out.
Richard Bottoms
>That’s just how I roll these days.
Glad to hear it.
There are no bad Democrats, there are no good Republicans.
Fuck every single one of them.
Obama got a quick and early lesson about just what these bastards are about and he’s quite ready to let Rahm Emmanuel get medieval on their asses. Make Susan Collins Obama’s bitch and then work to replace her ass with a Democrat the very next election.
Stuck
@Jules Crittenden » Friday The 13th:
It must be hard times over at wingnut central when Critterdumb has to trackback to BJ trolling for some trolls.
DougJ
@Jules
This trackbacks from Jules C are priceless.
Brick Oven Bill
I do remember being mocked here when I noted that the President made an error when he took on Rush Limbaugh by name with Congress. My point was that talk radio should be silenced quietly, by an FCC appointment and a technical rule. I then explained that the President had empowered Rush by addressing him directly, and that Americans do not like authority figures using the power of their office to win arguments.
I was then informed by several commenters that nobody wanted to silence radio voices. But my point still stands. Obama was foolish to bring up Rush by name, as it has empowered talk radio. Silencing a debating partner is most effectively done quietly.
It disturbs me somewhat that, because the Democratic leadership has changed its position, so many people here have as well.
RandyH
With all of the choices we have in where we get our information these days, the Fairness Doctrine is probably no longer necessary. It was originally put together (I think) to prevent what was happening in Germany and Italy, where the fascist ruling class used it successfully to spread their propaganda with no dissenting views for the radio listeners to consider. If you hear propaganda over and over enough, eventually a majority will believe it.
Now there are more media outlets and, most notably, the Internet. But the problem of media consolidation needs to be dealt with. There really isn’t much diversity in radio or TV content anymore and that’s just wrong. Most media really should be locally owned and there should be hard limits of how many broadcast frequencies can be owned by one person or family of corporations.
John Cole
@Stuck: I think he just checks memorandum every night or the trackbacks at Malkin’s and just tries to see if he can get me to pay attention to him. The other night he linked to a DougJ post and thought it was me. I don’t think he even reads what he links to, to be honest.
I just ignore him. I do find it amusing he gets all wrapped up about “bad” language, especially after he got a big hardy har har himself out of the Cantor AFSCME video the other day.
Stuck
@DougJ:
According to Jules, we’re all a bunch of potty mouths anyway. He must have a secret need for it then,
*or maybe not
Ash Can
@Jules Crittenden » Friday The 13th: Hey John, who’s your friend?
ETA: Never mind, I see you already cracked on him just above.
demkat620
@DougJ: And on cue Brick head shows up. I miss Darrell, I really do.
LaDonne
The argument for the Fairness doctrine won’t work anyway. Don’t get me wrong, I live in a market saturated with all of the ringht wing talkers it can take. But one thing that is left out of every rating done of every area is public radio. They don’t include them in the ratings — I don’t know why, since I’m not in the industry, but I would suspect that it’s because they don’t rely on advertising per se.
Were public radio in the mix, we would see different numbers wrt to listeners. And public radio is expanding into HD better than the right wing talkers are. Just look at their websites.
DougJ
It really is disturbing that the Dem leadership has not changed its position and that John is making jokes about the whole thing. Scary stuff!
John Cole
Props to Mark Murray for pointing out the obvious.
Someone else got there first, buddy.
Mark
Let’s not refer to him as "Rush". Calling him by his first name makes it sound like he is a good friend.
amorphous
@Mark: Perhaps "El Rushbo"? (But you have to say it like Rush does, like there’s an entire ham sandwich caught in your throat.)
RandyH
@Mark:
Ed Schultz calls him "Druggy."
camchuck
Is this a joke or the newest Michael Steele initiative?
GOP Problem Solver
Zzyzx
I still think the Fairness Doctrine is powerful just because Republicans are terrified about it and Democrats just don’t care… Trade it for something and see how the talk show hosts react.
sgwhiteinfla
John Cole
Speaking of first read, did you see Chuck Todd’s whining ass post earlier? He no likey the White House beat. Then I guess some folks called him out and then he played the "yeah well you wouldn’t say that if the other guy won" card. Really Weak Sauce.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/13/1794356.aspx
BTW Brown just voted aye so the stim bill officially has passed.
RandyH
Well Sherrod Brown just showed up to the Senate floor and cast the 60th vote needed for the stim bill. It’s done.
kommrade reproductive vigor
@Mark: But typing "Fat Feculent Drooling Worthless Sack of Shit" takes too long.
Leo
Which is bad for Obama how? Raising the profile of the most unpopular part of the Republican party seems like sound strategy to me.
PaulB
Uh-huh, mostly because it was an incredibly stupid, and eminently mockable, thing to write. Rush is incredibly unpopular and Republicans have now hitched themselves to him.
ROFL…. Yeah, that would be so "quiet" and generate absolutely no press or controversy. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?
Yes, but see, the thing is, your "explanation" was not only wrong, it was really, really stupid, unsupported by anything resembling logic, reason, or data. But then, that’s par for the course with you.
gbear
Malkin and Rush should make themselves afraid. VERY afraid.
They’re more fun to watch when completely off the deep end with paranoia.
Actually, that’s the only time they’re fun to watch.
Umm, actually, they’re never fun to watch. Forget I said anything.
Stuck
@RandyH:
I think Shultz also calls Hannity, "Slanthead"
Haven’t been listening to Ed lately, gonna have to fix that.
TenguPhule
I would settle for a Balanced Doctrine that requires radio stations to play "x is a Conservative Moron" after every sentence spoken by Rush and company.
It’s about time both sides of the issue were presented for listeners to decide.
Cain
@John Cole:
He probably stole it from you. Pundits are stealing from blogs now.
cain
TenguPhule
At this point, what’s the difference?
TenguPhule
BOB, the gold standard of idiots everywhere.
sgwhiteinfla
@GOProblemsolver.com
Its snark. If you follow the jay rosen link it says you can put any problem you want in the box and the response will be how big of a tax cut you need to solve it.
John Cole
@sgwhiteinfla: The best part is if you hit “That doesn’t make any sense” after you get your tax cut, it then pops up “Then the terrorists win.”
DougJ
@sgw
I probably agree with Todd there should be more access for something like that. But where was the complaining when Bush offered even less access? Of course, he (Todd) wasn’t there for that, so it’s not necessarily fair to blame him.
I’d like all those CEOs to get grilled by reporters, though.
John Cole
I read the Todd piece, and I thought it was kind of funny.
I know others hate him, but he was honestly one of he few straight shooters throughout the Democratic primary. Without him and Nate Silver, I would have gone mental.
Well, more mental.
sgwhiteinfla
DougJ
I agree that he had a point, but his update was just as bitchy as you can get. He deserved a wanker of the day award for that. I mean why is he reading comments any damn way? He shoulda been like "Im Chuck Todd beyatch, you betta recognize". Instead he was all like "you lefty libruls need to leave me alone"
John Cole
@sgwhiteinfla: Why have comments if you aren’t going to read them?
Joe Klein reads his comments, too.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Godwin’s Rule (via Wikipedia): "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
KRV’s Rule (via Me): As a dispute on the Internet grows longer, the probability that some twerp will attempt to distract spectators from the fact that he doesn’t have Clue One by whining about coarse language approaches one.
Stuck
@DougJ:
Seasoned with lemon pepper on a Rye Bun/
DougJ
I like it better when they get defensive. I hate when they pull the “do you know who I am” bullshit.
Chuck was great about reading/answering emails at Hotline. Second only to Ben Smith in the early days at Politico. And, while I like Ben, I think Chuck’s much smarter.
slightly_peeved
He did quietly silence his debating partner.
His debating partner is the Republican party.
The Republican party are now second fiddle to Rush(-ing to get more Oxycontin). How do you campaign for election when no-one’s listening to you?
John Cole
@DougJ: You know, I see a lot of hate for Ben Smith in some places, and I honestly don’t get it. Sure, Politico is what it is, but Ben Smith ran and runs a really damned good blog.
Brick Oven Bill
I am not a Rush Limbaugh fan, as I know he is not making $50 million a year selling select comfort beds. But Rush is a powerful voice and is much better at communications than the President. Rush does not say ‘uhh’ repeatedly.
A very smart man once told me ‘you don’t wrestle with a pig because the pig will like it, and you will get dirty.’ Although Rush is not my buddy, he is smarter than a pig, and definitely communicates better than a pig. He also has a very large and influential audience.
I predict that the most influential voice in this phase of American history will be Glenn Beck though. Glenn Beck has a TV show too, and banning him from the radio will only make him more powerful.
DougJ
I’m ashamed to admit this, but I went through a few days in a Broderish haze wherein I thought that Obama shouldn’t have brought up Rush because there was some chance of bipartisanship which he was sabotaging by dueling with El Rushbo.
Now I’m 100% convinced these clowns take their marching orders from Rush and they should be called on it. How much make believe are we supposed to tolerate?
sgwhiteinfla
John Cole
Its not the reading thats the problem, and I probably could have worded that better, its the weak ass response. Joke Line as we like to call him definitely reads the comments but you won’t get him to whine like that in an update to save your life. The most he will do is fix a typo if we point it out or if he is just blatantly factually wrong he will post an update after we throw a fit for awhile. Now Mike Scherer on the other hand melted down during the campaign. When atrios gave him wanker of the day and the commenters were getting on him he just about went full wingnut but then later he came back and apologized.
So to make a long story short, yeah he should read the comments but to react so defensively for a guy of his stature is patently ridiculous if you ask me. But maybe I am setting my bar too high.
DougJ
I love Ben Smith’s blog. He works hard, he’s often insightful, and he’s a good guy personally (I sort of know him, though not very well). But I think that Todd is legitimately very intelligent as an analyst in a way that Ben isn’t.
sgwhiteinfla
Just so we are clear, this is the part of Chuck Todd’s update that I am referring to as WEAKSAUCE.
He creates a strawman that the only people banging him for whining are Obama supporters who would change their tune if it were McCain in the White House without any basis for the assertation. Like I said, bitchy.
jrg
Let the wingnuts have their fact-free programming. When Rush gets on the air and mocks Parkinson’s patients, does that really strike a chord with most of the population?
The opposition chose to be represented by shock jocks who want to piss people off. Let it ride.
John Cole
And while we are heaping praise on people, can I once again throw in a word for Jeffrey Toobin? Over and over and over again, he is consistently the only talking head who has a personality, who says what he thinks, and who doesn’t seem locked in some alternate reality.
His reaction to the McCain RNC speech was priceless, and then there was this:
John Cole
BTW, my Mountaineers just curb-jawed Nova.
sgwhiteinfla
BTW I just so happen to notice that the 2nd showing of Rachel Maddow is on and Ray Lahood didn’t have a lot of good to say about his fellow Republican Judd Gregg. Shrewd move putting him on Rachel’s show to kinda sorta attack Gregg for asking the President for a job and then reneging (paraphrasing what he just said)
Mako
Let your loins be girt.
gbear
Boehner needs a spanking. In public. Maximum humiliation.
camchuck
@sgwhiteinfla:
Yeah, I got the snark. Was just setting up for the punchline. Tengu got there @57.
That my question "Is it a joke or a GOP initiative" be addressed at face value says everything about the ridiculousness of today’s Republicans.
I think it was on this blog during the campaign where I read that Republicans are killing political satire. So, so true.
Cruel Jest
Palin/Limbaugh 2012.
Feel the rush.
DougJ
I got Joe to whine pretty hard at me once. See below.
Joe Klein on Swampland:
Patrons Patronizing: I love these sorts of comments from Tom T and Maynard…
Oh please. I’ve been to China multiple times, spent weeks (and, at one point, a month) there. I’ve traveled across the country, visited villages, sweatshops and urban workers. And the point stands: It is in the interests of the U.S. business community–especially those who provide high value-added products, like financial services–to see the creation of a massive Chinese middle class that will have some use for their products, to say nothing of the importance of stability in a country long-known for its paroxyms of lunatic violence.
LiberalTarian
I’m all for it. If the Republicans hate is THIS MUCH, it must be a good thing.
John Cole
Make sure you watch that video I embedded, it will remind you how truly wretched the Clinton people were during the primary. That should not be forgotten.
BTW, the PUMA express is now livid at Obama Cultists, and have chosen to lash out at… David Sirota.
I can’t decide if I want to laugh or root for injuries. Make sure you read the comments at Booman.
Leo
@Brick Oven Bill:
If only there were some sort of objective way to measure how Limbaugh is viewed by the public.
Wait a minute, maybe there is!
sgwhiteinfla
I frikkin love Jack Cafferty too. I don’t always agree with him but he is a crotchety old bastard who speaks his mind.
Calouste
@camchuck:
GOPproblemsolver.com doesn’t work for me, so I assume it is a genuine Steele initiative.
D-Chance.
I have no problem with the Fairness Doctrine… as long as it is applied to ALL media. Including the internet.
So, get ready, Huffers and Kossacks. You need to provide equal bandwidth for "fair and balanced" viewpoints on your sites.
After all, fairness is fairness.
Mako
I’m all for a Fairness Doctrine that gets rid of "Classic Rock".
sgwhiteinfla
DougJ
Good one! Unfortunately when the site crashed Swampland lost all of the original comments. But I still don’t think his update rivaled Chuck Todd’s. I could almost see Chuck Todd wagging his finger at me while I was reading it. Of course it might have a lot to do with the fact that I think Chuck Todd is overrated as a journalist. I know that you have a pretty good opinion of him and don’t get me wrong I agree that he is smart, but he just comes off really really goofy to me. Plus I see him a lot on Morning Joe and the way Scarborough smacks him around and he just grins and takes it is very off putting to me. I never thought he had a chance in hell at MTP even though people kept throwing his name in the ring. But looking back on it I could probably tolerate him more than "Stretch" so maybe I was wrong all along.
camchuck
@Calouste: Huh, link isn’t working now. Too many poor people must have been looking for tax relief.
Calouste
@Brick Oven Bill:
Link please.
DougJ
I know, that bums me out. That was my main hangout til Scherer drove me so crazy I had to stop reading.
Brick Oven Bill
I have no way of knowing the true numbers Leo, but Rush brags about having 30 million listeners. Which means that for every listener, he has two and one half fans, by your polling numbers, and Rush’s likely exaggerated numbers.
If the President of the United States chooses to shut Limbaugh up, Rush will get many more listeners, and much more empathy. But Beck is the one to watch.
Beck is on O’Reilly as I write this. Beck is the Alpha, and he is likable. O’Reilly should do a body language analysis on himself.
Stuck
Gloria looked like Toobin stole her puppy with his rant. I like all three of them, but Gloria may be doing her sisterhood thing. Even Blitzer cracks me up with his dead pan efforts at pointing out tidbits of irony with insights so obvious it’s painful to watch.
John Cole
@sgwhiteinfla: I’m telling you. You need to watch that video I just linked. The Hillary “They don’t want a President who looks down on them” was so shameless. Toobin and Cafferty were awesome
DougJ
I can’t even watch that stuff. It makes me crazy.
You know, though, that reminds me of my favorite myiq2xu quote here:
Shygetz
In my opinion, the problem won’t be solved by the Fairness Doctrine because the problem isn’t left-right bias. The problem is media conglomeration–big business-small business bias. Media should be locally owned and locally operated to ensure that it is responsible primarily to its consumers, rather than acting as a national propaganda instrument for a national/international conglomerate. Require media to be owned and wholly financed by people in the viewing/listening area, and the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary.
John Cole
@DougJ: Whatever you do, don’t say his name three times. Betelgeuse. I I swear to god he shows up whenever you mention him.
sgwhiteinfla
John Cole
I was talking about Cafferty on that embed you put up. Toobin was awesome too. But there is something about Cafferty just bringing it on home after Toobin had already taken Hillary down with the truth about how absurd her comments were. Cafferty was like "I was a college drop out and I could read the damn thing and figure it out" I damn near ruined my computer.
John Cole
Damnit to hell. They just killed my favorite recurring character on Monk.
McMartin
@John Cole:
Stash Earl Grey tea is one of the few Earl Greys I actually like. It’s not good enough for me to go out of my way to drink it, though.
Stash’s Peppermint herbal tea, however, is amazing. The only peppermint-based tea I can buy at the grocery store I like better is the Trader Joe’s Mint Melange. (While you’re there, also grab their Mango Black tea.)
dww44
Back in the summer I had a wonderful time on the LTE pages of my paper when it started publishing all these "out of the blue and from out of its readership area" letters from conservatives pushing voters to contact their Rep. to get Pelosi to release a piece of legislation from committee called "The Broadcaster’s Freedom Act". I knew something was afoot in conservative land when the minions were writing programmed LTE’s to newspapers.
After getting really educated on it, I realized that its demise gave us Limbaugh et al and our inability to talk without anger and vitriol about the issues of the day. So, yes, it wouldn’t be a totally bad thing to have some version of the Fairness Doctrine reinstated.
I have visions of apoplexy dancing in my head.
larue
John Cole, once upon a time the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Provision were the REASON any one got local news about local affairs, and regional and state and national news spoke about shit that mattered.
Where the fuck you been? Or are ya too young to recall Reagan deregs of the FCC, the airwaves in general?
You don’t RECALL the glory days when shit was called for shit, because there WAS a fuckin FD and ETP? A time before deregs? And then consolidation of media, across the board? Because OF deregs?
WTF, are you a neocon/fundie/big biz media owner or stockholder?
Or are ya just effin nutz?
Please.
Harumph.
Steeplejack
@John Cole:
LOL. I was wondering where he had gone. Not in a "I wish he would come back" way, though.
Ninerdave
My favorite Toobin moment. Again reacting to a McCain’s speech, the Green Screen Speech:
"That was AWFUL…"
John Cole
You know, before I go to bed, I wonder how many people are going to turn out to be Brick Oven Bob silly and accuse me of actually supporting the fairness doctrine by tomorrow morning, simply because they read this post and can’t tell I am joking?
Ninerdave
@John Cole:
I just think you’re a commie pinko socialist
Stuck
Boener size hissy fit. Scroll down to video, then to 4;35 mark if you don’t want to watch the whole thing
Brick Oven Bill
John Cole;
After a couple of cocktails, I will disclose that I think that you are against restricting speech. I feel that we both know speech to be good. Free speech is a good thing. Men have died for this.
Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s
I’m confused.
Why would the Democrats want to give equal time to Republicans in the ‘liberal media’?
Why would the Republicans be upset that the Democrats wanted to mandate that the Republicans get equal time on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and NBC.
Maybe it’s because their is on liberal media bias?
TenguPhule
It will be (X + y^2) + 1
Where X will be trolls, y will be the people who don’t read past the post down to the comments and the random D(ickless)Chance that pops into the margin of error.
bvac
I can’t stand Gloria Borger. Thank god Jeffrey Toobin exists solely to stomp on her toes.
Steve in Sacto
Malkin’s damn right! Government should get out of the way and let anyone broadcast on any airwave frequency at any time. Close down the FCC. Less government regulation is always better…
Rome Again
@Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s:
Exactly Jay. These people always give away the game and don’t even realize it.
Ninerdave
@Rome Again:
No…they don’t care.
libarbarian
This is EXACTLY why it should be open to the public without onerous restrictions on content.
Dr. Squid
This might be a bit of a misinterpretation, but…
As per LGM, knowing that the Fairness Doctrine isn’t worth wasting any legislative time on, we should amuse ourselves by poking wingtards with the Fairness Doctrine stick once in a while.
F’rinstance, Mark Levin’s reaction to a poking should be just priceless.
Ailuridae
This is my first post. I’m a little confused – isn’t the content of the Armed Forces Radio governed by an entirely different set of standards than private US radio. It fully paid for by taxes after all. I seem to also remember a pretty good article by an Eric Boehlert type that indicated that Rush being on the air on Armed Forces Radio directly violated those explicit programming standards?
Note: I think I remembered it wrong. It was Wes Clark on HuffPo making the argument after the "phony soldiers" comment. The larger point still stands – why is someone with such "respect for the military" as Malkin unaware how AFN’s content is regulated?
Ailuridae
Ah, I Found the link in question and it was from Boehlert:
According to the Department of Defense’s own broadcasting guidlines, "All political programming shall be characterized by its fairness and balance," and "equal opportunities" for "balance" are especially important "during presidential election years."
kommrade reproductive vigor
Palin/Wurzelbacher 2012.
Feel the flush.
Chuck Butcher
It really is priceless to watch the knickers knot up over, what, 3 Democratic Congressmen out of about 364 of them? I sure don’t have much problem with the idea of bringing back the market saturation limits. Hell, you might want to take note that without GHW Bush’s exception NewsCorp in the US wouldn’t exist as it was a foreign controlled media…
Oh yes reichtards, you abase yourselves at the feet of foreigners for your US fair and unbalanced Republican talking points. Nitwits sucking up to a right wing Aussie who sucked off the Bushes.
Shygetz
Oh, you mean I can operate a radio station out of my basement and say whatever I want on the air? Wow, that’s news to me.
Oh, you meant it should be open to the WEALTHY public that is able to pay the necessary licensing fees. But they are the REAL public, right?
J Royce
The good use of the Fairness Doctrine today is how well it illuminates the Right wing.
First, if the Right actually believed its own talking points of a "liberal media" they would be anxious to have a Fairness Doctrine so they could get their message out. So that points up the bald hypocrisy of the Conservative Right.
Second, the Fairness Doctrine was put into place in response to fascism to prevent the apparently inevitable takeover of the media by the Right (ie, Wealth) to propagandize the population to their point of view. It is instructive that the Rightwing Conservative Reagan repealed it, and that the current Right is in a frenzy to avoid it. If it quacks like a duck, etc.
I remember when the Free Radio Austin had its doors literally kicked in by Corporate goons years ago, and I would argue that the past thirty years WERE in fact a fascist takeover of America, and we are living in the stillborn wreckage of that failed ideology. However, most people don’t seem to see how liberal radio is blocked and hobbled by the Money Class and "agree" with the Rightwing talking point (ie, propaganda) that liberal views cannot survive in the Free Market(tm). If you believe that I have a war to sell you.
Really, I don’t have a ton of faith in my nation anymore. If the Right finds the button it needs my benighted land will rally to the wrong … again. How stupid can a people be to fight a World War against the Right and then simply surrender to it despite all the warnings, all the damage, all the history to know better.
The notion that this blog’s ex-Con host is bothered that his former cohort might think he would support an anti-fascist measure is also instructive. But just because something is "instructive" is not the same as it actually instructing. People have to open eyes and change for that. That may be what Depressions are for.
Ain’t there a game on, or a "reality" show or something? Yup. Of course there is.
numbskull
John,
larue at 105 and J Royce at 125 have points for you to ponder. It’s not like we have to guess at how this all turned out. Possibly you get a pass for relative youth, but…
NS
headpan
Yeeebuss!!! Get onto my favorite blog and first thing I see in the morning is Wurzelputzer’s boiled egg mug! Fer cripes sake. Where does his bald head end and his chin begin? It just occurred to me that he never has had much face in there in between.
Zzyzx
@D-Chance.: The reason the FD only applies to over the air TV and radio is because those are the only media where competition is restricted. Don’t like the slant of CNN? Start Fox News. Cable can add stations, no problem. However, if all of the local radio stations only broadcast one point of view, it’s not like anyone can create their own station to counter due to the limited number of frequencies.
That’s why the fairness doctrine really was needed in the pre-Internet/Cable TV days and also why I don’t care much either way now.
Montysano
As far as fairness goes, our side is pulling its weight: Jonah Goldberg getting airtime just now on Weekend Edition.
I’m with Zzyzx: the Fairness Doctrine is a relic from a time when media only traveled on the public airwaves. Nowadays, you can easily find your media of choice. If Rush is your flavor, so be it. And to be fair: I gave Air America a chance for a while and found it to be deadly boring. Facts and balanced views are not really that entertaining. But it’s fun to listen to Rush and Sean occasionally, and then hear my wingnut colleagues regurgitate it verbatim. It makes the ensuing smackdown even easier.
Comrade Jake
OT, but did anyone spot CNN’s breakdown of the winners and losers in the stimulus bill? Holy Christ, progressives made out like fucking bandits.
kommrade reproductive vigor
But we aaah Comrade. We aaah bandits!
/Bette Davis.
And whether they want to admit it or not, the fRighties will benefit from things like more funds to NIH and better transport systems.
El Cid
One reason they pre-emptively sh!t their pants (falsely) about the Fairness Doctrine is that they know that for the moment nothing now or soon to be unveiled competes on a high percentage with locally broadcast radio over the public airwaves.
Sirius XM is about to go into bankruptcy. WiFi radio is just barely being fiddled with.
This, radio over the publicly-regulated airwaves (analog or digital) is their field of weaponry to promote their idiotology and a huge source of cash.
Many places (like here in Atlanta) where liberal stations start to get a foot-hold, their owners simply do whatever is necessary to remove those voices from the market — i.e., sell them to some format which makes far less money than the liberal talk (here in Atlanta the former Air America station was purposefully kept on that format just long enough to establish a market so it could be sold off, said the owners, though at least they transitioned back to a previous "Voice of the Arts" format rather than another right wing or sports radio station) or takes off the top-selling liberal talk and replaces it with complete money-losing formats.
How could they not freak pre-emptively at any prospects for changing regulations and systems of corporate ownership which favor right wingers screaming out of every radio for most of the day to most of America?
You could make an argument that a much greater penetration of "HD radio" (digitally broadcast local radio just like the analog-digital TV transition which requires special radio receivers) could help diversify the local broadcast programming, because then one radio station can use the same amount of radio spectrum to broadcast 3 or 4 digital stations.
But HD radio has just not taken off and doesn’t seem ready to either.
A few areas are lucky enough to still have liberal-left community supported radio. I still tune in semi-regularly to Berkeley’s KPFA radio, and it was also another Pacifica station, WBAI in New York that launched Amy Goodman / Democracy Now!, but it’s for particular shows and segments rather than able to have a whole day of listening.
I don’t see the current scenario (over-the-air free radio, dominated by right wingers) changing until all large markets are completely able to provide continuous wi-fi reception in cars, and that’s a long way off.
TR
Aside from the conspiracy theories on the right, my favorite part of this is that it shows what a bunch of cowards they are.
For years, their standard line has been that liberals just can’t go toe-to-toe with Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly and the rest — you’ll see it in every single comment thread on a conservative blog — but now that they’re presented with a possibility that those mental giants would, in fact, have to duel with liberal counterparts, they’re scared shitless. Deep down, they know their arguments can’t stand any kind of pushback, so they’re freaking out.
Delicious.
Svensker
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Waitress is a wonderful movie. Just saw it the other day. A tragedy what happened to the writer/director/actress.
Michael D.
@Ivan Ivanovich Renko:
The Fairness Doctrine is STUPID. I’m all for progressive voices, but if you can’t compete on the public airwaves with conservatives, stop whining.
If the Fairness Doctrine were to be enacted, it would be the death of free speech. While Rush, et al sicken me, they have a right to say what they want to say – even if it is stupid.
The Fairness Doctrine would silence talk radio. While I am sure many of you would love to see conservatives silenced, this is not a good thing.
JoeW
I love this fairness doctrine game. It’s like playing peek-a-boo with a 3 year old. You just mention "Fairness Doctrine" and wingnuts squeal to high heaven.
The context doesn’t even matter. Even if you were to say, " I am opposed to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine" Malkin, Limbaugh et al, will squeal like tortured lab rats.
They can’t help themselves.
At the same time, it makes them loudy oppose ‘fairness’ – which is the last thing the repub brand needs at this point.
Fun fun fun.
Pssst. Michelle? Fairness Doctrine!
NonWonderDog
@Michael D.:
Sure, they have the right to say what they want. That’s not the issue. The question is do they have the right to say what they want on a government-provided exclusive platform? There are only so many radio frequencies, and they’re all publicly owned. If you want to broadcast on one, you have to contract with the FCC to get a broadcasting license. You have to convincingly argue that you’re more deserving of the license than your competitors. Why would it be the death of radio if the license requirements said, for instance, that only three frequencies in any one market could go to any one company? Or if it said that every licensee must provide equal time for dissenting views? It’s certainly not restricting anyone’s right to say what they want, it’s merely a restriction on the amount of government property they can say it on.
I dislike the fairness doctrine because it reinforces the "two sides to every story" nonsense (should Science Friday be followed by a creationist program for "balance"?), but I see no constitutional argument against it whatsoever. I fully support limits on consolidation, though.
bvac
What if there was a bill being considered that would force creationism to be taught in every school, and the public airwaves were blanketed with pro-creationism views?
Or how about this. Imagine the government was trying to amp up a war with a certain middle east country, and as this debate of great public importance raged in congress 95% of the voices on talk radio are beating the war drums without any other view presented. Would you dislike reinforcing "two sides to every story" then?
Innocent Bystander
At the rate Republican-conservative-evangelical influence is growing, there’s going to be a time down the road where these same people are going to be begging for a fairness doctrine.
I really don’t care about the doctrine, I do care about monopolistic media consolidation. That said, I really think Talk Radio’s seen their high water mark and its influence is receding. The ‘internets’ is where the action is. The medium where the communication is 2-way. Just look at the last 10 years. RW Talk Radio has grown more dominant in their medium, but American opinion has steadily moved away from their message. I say let them have their echo chamber…most Americans don’t listen to their schtick. If someone wants to pay Rush $50MM+/year to influence a declining audience, I say, great…that’s money not spent effectively on influencing the national debate.
headpan
I consider having to look at JTP’s fug-mug everytime I come onto this website to be *grossly* unfair.
low-tech cyclist
I’ve got nothing against the Fairness Doctrine, but (a) it ain’t happening, and (b) we should be looking at the long run anyway.
What’s the long run? When the Web’s our primary communications medium, and TV and radio happen over the Web, rather than over dedicated broadcast frequencies.
So we want Net Neutrality written into the law, while we’ve got the chance. Then when nobody owns a (non-Web-based) radio anymore, the Fairness Doctrine won’t matter, because a neutral Net will be as fair as fair can be.
mclaren
The reason the Demos won’t revive the Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with logic or justice or good governance — it’s all about cold hard politics.
The Demos know that the kooks screaming drivel on right-wing hate radio are driving the Republican Party right down to zero in the polls, and the Demos love it. Of course, they’re also smart enough to know that the 27 percenters (the lunatic fringe that voted for McCain-Palin, that thinks the drunk-driving C student was a great president, and that puts flag-burning, partial birth abortion and gay marriage at the top of America’s list of problems) go berserk and start squawking even crazier crap than usual when they think the Fairness Doctrine is about to be brought back, and this helps hammer the Repubs in the polls even more badly. So every once in a while a Demo will hint about bringing the Fairness Doctrine back just to keep the right wing hate radio kooks shrieking insane lies and continue destroying the Republican brand.