The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Chuck Schumer (D-New York) wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine
Another Democrat has come out in support of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine required radio broadcasters to balance their coverage of controversial issues. For every conservative commentator, they had to have a liberal one, and vice versa.
In practice, it meant radio stayed away from controversy altogether, the better to avoid FCC sanctions.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
Over at the National Review's Corner blog, Jonah Goldberg called Schumer a "moron" (I can second that.)
Really? So political speech and hardcore pornography: the founders saw no difference between these things? Or forget the founders, since Schumer and Co. usually do. Does Chuck Schumer honestly think the two are comparable? That the state has the same interest in regulating porn as it does in regulating political speech?
Censoring donkey-human porn from public airwaves is not the same as censoring criticism of someone's tax plan. My God, what is wrong with these people?
A revival of a "new and improved", 21st century Fairness Doctrine is one of the things that worries me the most about a Democratic supermajority. Just wait till the Democrats try to extend the idea to the Internet (and why wouldn't they?)
Many on the left sincerely believe that the only reason the yokels in states like Kansas keep rejecting their perfectly good ideas is because of the influence of right-wing talk radio. They would do anything to destroy it.
Thomas Jefferson would spit in Chuck Schumer's cornflakes.
Posted by Terrence Watson on November 4, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chuck Schumer (D-New York) wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine:
A revival of a "new and improved", 21st century Fairness Doctrine is one of the things that worries me the most about a Democratic supermajority.
Posted by Terrence Watson on November 4, 2008
The Fairness Doctrine cuts both ways, it would cause as many problems for Air America as for Clear Channel. I suspect that if Schumer really pushed the issue Limbaugh and the others would move to Sirius and the Fairness Doctrine would be moot for them.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-04 11:26:04 AM
Interesting points, but I still think liberals would benefit more from the Fairness Doctrine than conservatives. Conservative talk-radio has shown it can be economically viable. Liberal talk-radio not so much.
Something like the Fairness Doctrine would help level the playing field, to the detriment of conservatives and the benefit of liberals.
But good point about satellite radio. Hm.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-04 11:30:25 AM
"Censoring donkey-human porn from public airwaves is not the same as censoring criticism of someone's tax plan. My God, what is wrong with these people?"
They are Liberals and we all know that Liberalism is a mental disorder. I mean that.
Further, the fairness doctrine will not fly because it would need to apply to newspapers and Television as well. These are almost completely one-sided leftist. The lefties won't go for that shit if I know liberals.
Posted by: John V | 2008-11-04 11:54:33 AM
Further, the fairness doctrine will not fly because it would need to apply to newspapers and Television as well.
Posted by: John V | 4-Nov-08 11:54:33 AM
The Fairness Doctrine only applies to holders of broadcast licenses for terrestrial transmission. It doesn't apply to newspapers.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-04 12:04:40 PM
What a joke. So does a rock and roll station have to play a country, hip hop? If Schumer claims to be a fair man, he is going to have to implement across the board. LOL The failure of AA still has their tighties in a wad.
Posted by: Jeff | 2008-11-04 1:22:41 PM
I am one of the yokels from Kansas that happens to believe that the US constitution is one of the two most influential writings in the world, the bible being the other (I guess that proves I am a yokel if I believe the bible is influential).
My point is that, because of the constitution, we have the right to freely criticize our government in this country, and the 'fairness doctrine' will squelch that right. There is nothing fair about the 'fairness doctrine'. 'Fairness' can't be legislated, it is too subjective. What I think is fair is absolutely not what Chuck Schumer thinks is fair,thank God! (There I go again)It seems obvious to me that the yokels understand the constitution better than the liberal establishment!
Posted by: EJ from Kansas | 2008-11-04 2:04:41 PM
The fairness doctrine is IPSO FACTO a bad precedent at best, and outright violation of property rights at least. Property rights are the foundation for all other freedoms, if I own a station or a show I can say what I want. So long as the person can touch the dial and isn't force to listen. All arguments for this kind of artificial free speech creation is so Canadian (read cbc) in its idea that it defies logic, no matter what affiliation politically you have. The idea that liberal stations will be threatened is b.s. they'll simply win arguing that there are too many right-wing stations to begin with. Would conservatives use leftist tactics when they know they won't work against their creators?
You can look forward to Holocaust denial days, Statues commemorating the Wehrmacht soldiers, censorship etc. Fun times a' comin.
Posted by: Condor | 2008-11-04 3:32:17 PM
Property rights are the foundation for all other freedoms, if I own a station or a show I can say what I want.
Posted by: Condor | 4-Nov-08 3:32:17 PM
What does property rights have to do with it? You don't pay for a broadcast license in Canada or the US. You are effectively being given transmission spectrum for nothing.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-04 3:44:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.