Democrats led by Rep. Henry Waxman and others are pushing to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, a federal rule from before the days of wide availability of cable, satellite, and internet. If a broadcaster put on any programming which expressed a "political" opinion, equal time had to be made available for opposing views. The result was to keep political expressions to a minimum, lest the broadcaster end up giving away so much "equal time" that the requests for it dominate their airwaves. It was repealed in 1987.
Fred Thompson responds to the effort on his campaign blog:
The real issue here is not what you "can" see or hear -- which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It's what you're "choosing" to see or hear.Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio station "Air America" that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can't compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts -- because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can't attract a market or advertisers.
The funny thing is that the success of the current crop of radio talk show hosts is due, in part, to a lot of people's perception that broadcast television doesn't give the views of their audience a fair shake. Maybe I shouldn't admit it, since I dabble in radio myself, but this media used to be viewed as a kind of broadcast ghetto. The bicoastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.
Now congressional leaders say they want to "level the playing field" there too - meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don't trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?
Read the whole post at the link above. Thanks to Gateway Pundit for the pointer.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Candidate Blogs, Primaries, Republican, Thompson
Tags: bloggers, presidential campaign, primaries, Republicans, Thompson
Comments (12)
Read more about what Thmpso... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Brad Marston | October 9, 2007 6:11 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Read more about what Thmpson needs to accomplish in the Michigan Debate at
http://azamatterofact.blogspot.com/2007/10/yabba-dabba-doo-fred-joins-debate.htm
1. Posted by Brad Marston | October 9, 2007 6:11 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 9, 2007 06:11
2. Posted by kim | October 9, 2007 7:23 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Here's the evil. Populism didn't support the liberal talk radio. Answer: suppress the populism.
I'm tellin' ya. Soros is a monster.
==================================
2. Posted by kim | October 9, 2007 7:23 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 9, 2007 07:23
3. Posted by bryanD | October 9, 2007 9:41 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"I'm tellin' ya. Soros is a monster."=kim
Mark Steyn at NRO's The *neocon* Corner:
"Sorry, no sale. The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader. If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man's job, then the boy is fair game."
------------------------------------------------
Thompson: "Fairness Doctrine Makes No Sense"
Amid the Aw-shucksisms Fred's selling counter-conspiracies now.
Have you ever seen "A Face In the Crowd"?
3. Posted by bryanD | October 9, 2007 9:41 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 9, 2007 09:41
4. Posted by kim | October 9, 2007 9:49 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The Frost's Progressive life is not worth living; it is unexamined. Public health is good enough for their children but not public schools? Taxes are for other people?
=============================
4. Posted by kim | October 9, 2007 9:49 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 9, 2007 09:49
5. Posted by bryanD | October 9, 2007 10:53 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Ugh! *sophists: spit!...*
45K combined income in MD
(Tony Snow couldn't "survive" there on $160K.)
$55K house at purchase.
2 brain-damaged kids with education scholarships not in government schools (good!).
This pic strikes a popular chord:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/7418.html
5. Posted by bryanD | October 9, 2007 10:53 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 9, 2007 10:53
6. Posted by bryanD | October 9, 2007 12:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Positive Ron Paul story in NRO(!!!).
On-topic because it mentions Paul campaign opposition research appetizers vis. Thompson and Romney.
The Romney one is a real OUCH!
6. Posted by bryanD | October 9, 2007 12:23 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 9, 2007 12:23
7. Posted by bryanD | October 9, 2007 12:27 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The link:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGVhODdiZjY5NDljNDA5NWUwYTY1NmJmZDBiOWQzM2I=
7. Posted by bryanD | October 9, 2007 12:27 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 9, 2007 12:27
8. Posted by kim | October 9, 2007 2:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sophists, spits.
45K combined income. Self-employed with little taxable income. Likely rich tax cheats. What's the house worth now? How much tuition per year. It's 40K. C'mon, bd, you're sounding like a propagandist not a thinker.
Brain damaged? Not in public schools? Sometimes I think you ought to examine your own assumptions just a little more rigourously. All the more reason to think this bit was fed you. Are you feeling useful?
====================================
8. Posted by kim | October 9, 2007 2:37 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 9, 2007 14:37
9. Posted by P. Bunyan | October 9, 2007 3:18 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I'll support the "fairness doctrine" as long as it's applies to broadcast televsion as well as radio. I'd love it if the CBS Evening News[sic] had 15 mins of Katie Curic's usual communist propaganda and 15 minutes of rebuttal with, say, Ann Coulter at the helm.
When ever I've heard someone ask of a leftist who supports reinstating the fairness doctrine "would you support this being applied to broadcast televsion, such as the network news?" The inevitable reply is "What are you talking about? There's no bias on the network news." And I am reminded that leftist neo-comms exist in their own fabricated reality.
9. Posted by P. Bunyan | October 9, 2007 3:18 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 9, 2007 15:18
10. Posted by Scrapiron | October 9, 2007 11:20 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The democrats have to push the fairness doctrine since they have no one in the entire party that can hold their own in a fight with a goldfish much less on talk radio. Dum De Dum Dum bunch of people, or it could be that the American people catch their lies within minutes when they start slandering and sliming everyone, which is all they know. That puts them in a tough spot.
10. Posted by Scrapiron | October 9, 2007 11:20 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 9, 2007 23:20
11. Posted by Oyster | October 10, 2007 10:18 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Frankly, what the Fairness Doctrine supporting lefties should do is what they propose for all other things they do not like - boycott. Simply don't listen. While they wail and wring their hands over this they listen as much as conservatives do. And while they're istening, advertisers are reaching them. Instead, they act as if boycotting the advertisers will work. It doesn't. Advertisers will continue to pay for airtime because conservative radio has the listeners, both conservatives and liberals alike.
11. Posted by Oyster | October 10, 2007 10:18 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 10, 2007 10:18
12. Posted by kim | October 10, 2007 10:35 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
'Fairness Doctrine' assumes objective 'fairness'. Ain't gonna happen. Fair is a subjective matter, and something at which humans are pretty good. Humans know that censorship is not 'fair'.
========================
12. Posted by kim | October 10, 2007 10:35 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 10, 2007 10:35