‘Fairness Doctrine’ claim is just evidence of persecution complex
Remember early in the Obama administration, when the NRA and other groups were warning that the government was going to start banning handguns and even confiscating weapons? It had no basis whatsoever in reality, but as a business move it was brilliant. Sales of gun and ammunition soared as purchasers rushed to beat the crackdown that never came.
The talk-radio industry was playing the same game, whipping their audience into a frenzy over the Fairness Doctrine, which the new administration was allegedly certain to reimpose at any moment. The fact that the administration had no plans at all to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, and neither did Congress, mattered not in the least. What mattered is that the gullible could be convinced to believe it, because it confirmed their sense of themselves as persecuted.
And hey, if it works once, why not again?
Conservative talkers like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are rallying their listeners with a very old — and very successful — battle cry, accusing the left of trying to curb their free speech.
“So believe me, I wouldn’t be surprised, folks, if somebody in the Obama regime or some FCC bureaucrat or some Democrat congressperson has already written up legislation to stifle and eliminate conservative speech, and that legislation is sitting in a desk drawer someplace just waiting for the right event to clamp down because that’s what all this is,” Limbaugh said Monday, in his first show since the shooting. “And every time an event like this happens, they get into a trial run in hopes that this is the one that they can succeed in shutting us all down.”
This theme remained a constant on talk radio, conservative blogs and Fox News throughout the week, as conservative commentators accused liberals of exploiting the tragedy to score political points without any evidence linking the shooter to conservative media. But beyond the political tit-for-tat was a media regulation debate that gave conservative talk radio a chance to talk about one of its favorite topics: itself.
As Politico points out, there’s absolutely nothing to it. A week ago, in the wake of the Tucson shootings, U.S. Rep. James Clyburn did some squawking about the need for restraint on radio, but he hasn’t followed it up and has no apparent intention of doing so. “A week later,… no one is seriously pursuing the idea of returning to the long-defunct policy, which required media on the public airwaves to present both sides of controversial political issues,” Keach Hagey writes. “Not Clyburn, not another Democrat who echoed his call for regulatory remedies, Rep. Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), and not the Federal Communications Commission, whose chairman opposes reinstating the policy.”
But in the strange world of right-wing radio, persecution sells. Persecution validates their sense of being a people oppressed, and it strengthens the binds between the host and his audience, because both are supposedly targets.
Except of course they are not, except in their own fevered imaginations.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
444 comments Add your comment
RW-(the original)
January 17th, 2011
8:30 am
Funny how its supposedly this gullible right-wing mass that’s being whipped into hysteria by these radio entertainers but it’s primarily left-wing writers that are always squawking about it.
I wish you all a safe and reflective Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
Darko
January 17th, 2011
8:33 am
I’m sure if Bookman thought there’s be a “fairness doctrine” applied to newspapers, his opinion would change.
Normal
January 17th, 2011
8:36 am
Think maybe Rush has a guilty conscience and is afraid of losing his job?
Bob
January 17th, 2011
8:38 am
Why worry about what right wingers say when one og the top dems in congress believes we need it.
Jay, will you write about how clueless Clyburn is and how he got a new leadership post ?
“The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine”.
So a nutjob shoots some people and we need to rethink the parameters of free speech.
Scout
January 17th, 2011
8:38 am
Vigilance ! Liberals are so sneaky and backstabbing it’s best to stay ahead of the curve.
“The best defense is a good offense !”
Normal
January 17th, 2011
8:39 am
It’s called freedom of speech y’all, Freedom from the Right and freedom on the Left.
“I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it?” …
You also have the freedom not to listen…just sayin’
Normal
January 17th, 2011
8:42 am
Seem that Bob didn’t read the essay…
Dave
January 17th, 2011
8:45 am
It’s not as if they need to pass any legislation to get the fairness doctrine reinstated. Obama just needs to get his lackeys in the FCC to do his bidding. I mean, they did take over regulation of the internet (over Congress’ urging not to and a federal court saying they didn’t have the power)….
Power Comm
January 17th, 2011
8:46 am
C’mon Jay, as a super-lib you must certainly know that it’s the LEFT that perpetuates the notion of “Victim Mentality” and persecution…it’s the very foundation of the philosophy! In fact, the very concept of the “fairness doctrine” is rooted in the idea that somehow the playing field must be leveled– despite the fact that liberal talk radio always fails MISERABLY whenever it is attempted. “Persecution Complex?” Brother, you had better take a look around your side of the aisle. What a weak, uneducated and sophomoric article.
Steve
January 17th, 2011
8:46 am
Operation Iraqi Freedom The Fairness Doctrine
The majority of Americans can read and have a computer. The more open society has become with technology the more convuleted and opaque the the gov’t has become. Who the hell knew what Sonny was doing on a daily basis and the feds throw 2200+ page health care garbage at us and tell us “its good for you”.
The Fairness Doctrine- what a joke.
Paul
January 17th, 2011
8:46 am
The battle between the two little kids in the back seat of the car goes on. “He pinched me!!” “He looked at me!!” “He started it!” “Did not!” “Did so!!”
So Rep Clyburn and Rep Slaughter didn’t follow up with legislation? So what was the point of their comments? I notice Rep Clyburn also didn’t issue any sort of a ’sorry about that’ statement after he sat in the audience and listened to Pres Obama’s scolding.
Attention.
And talk radio and tv has material for another week. Higher ratings. $$$$.
And the kids in the back seat look at the parents in the front with expressions that say “Who, me?!!?”
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 17th, 2011
8:47 am
The good news in this essay is that Bookman implicitly agrees that the Fairness Doctrine is a terrible idea and he would oppose such an expansion of FCC powers.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2011
8:48 am
Jay, a practical request. Given that you probably have some older radio hounds within easy reach over there at Cox, could you maybe draw upon those resources to give some in here a quick overview of what pre-deregulation broadcast radio licensing really entailed as recently as the mid/late 80s, as opposed to having people’s imaginations run wild?
Maybe in addendum to this post, or possibly as a new one?
/drive by
Dave
January 17th, 2011
8:49 am
I do believe that the fairness doctrine will probably not be reinstated like it was before, but instead by “backddor measures” such as new FCC regulations having to do with “community ratings” and “standards” or whatever they’re calling it nowadays. And Dems have been clamoring for “something to be done” about the “hateful rhetoric” of talk radio and the fact that liberal broadcasters such as Air America have failed terribly…
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 17th, 2011
8:50 am
If the FCC had not recently made a naked grab of power – to control distribution of content on the internet – the conservative fear over a similar power previously actually exercised by the FCC would be laughable. Regrettably there is nothing laughable when the national socialists reign.
Bob
January 17th, 2011
8:50 am
Normal, I read it. It tried to make the point that the right was making up claims about the fairness doctrine, I pointed out that the third ranking member of the dem party in the house was bringing it up. Is that to hard for you to understand ?
@@
January 17th, 2011
8:55 am
jay, have you ever stopped to consider that maybe, just maybe the left shouldn’t even mention placing restraints on free speech?
Oops! Asked the wrong fella, I did.
JDW
January 17th, 2011
8:55 am
I have a better idea…lets just make Rush et al tell the truth. All you have to do is rewrite the libel laws to make it possible to sue them when they lie. I don’t see why anyone would have an issue with that…they don’t lie do they?
Normal
January 17th, 2011
8:55 am
Bob,
And I see you as bringing up knee jerk re-actions of a politician as a defence agaist the Doctrine.
That’s what is hard for me to understand.
andygrdzki
January 17th, 2011
8:56 am
Howdy All from Iraq….. The first week spent in Afghanistan and now winding down my visit here to Baghdad.
I was talking to a couple of young Iraqi people today that work for our company, and they told me that they have no hope. Most don’t care about the Americans being here, they think it has been a good thing for their country.
They have no hope because of the different factions fighting. In their early 20’s, and they have no hope. They kept it a secret where they work, because they may get threats from local neighbors. They are not sure who to trust.
One young person is working for us is a dentist by profession, but he is now working in an office. These people are very educated and hard working. I have been very impressed by our staff. In our compound, we are safe, the meals are good, and the ladies washing our clothes iron our underwear… Talking to my wife, she told me not to get used to that…..
No hope from young people in their 20’s… really sad. The training we have conducted, they have eaten it up….. they thirst for knowledge.
And the Afghani people, the same way. Great friendly people. I walked into supermarket and had to laugh, on a shelf I saw bottles of Old El Paso Taco Sauce. I saw many other items that you can find in Publix as well……
The left and right in Iraq, Afghanistan and US are causing the same problems. We need to tell the truth about the issues and have honest dialog. The big difference in the US, we don’t get our points across with guns and bullets.
Leaving Iraq on the morning of the 19th and back in the US on the 20th…. Jay, some traveling home music would be nice.
Well, 4:50 pm here in Iraq and a few things left to do…… You all be safe……
Paul
January 17th, 2011
8:58 am
Are the grouping of Hannity-Beck-Limbaugh the Left’s version of “those people”?
I ask because as I read thru the Politico story and some repubs at other places, their pictures were right at the top with the caption “Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are rallying their listeners”
Then this paragraph “Conservative talkers like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are rallying their listeners with a very old — and very successful — battle cry, accusing the left of trying to curb their free speech.”
Yet nowhere in the article did I read anything supporting this assertion with cites from Hannity or Beck. Did a quick google on Beck and Fairness Doctrine and the results were 2008, one from early 2010.
So what do we have here, another case, just after Pres Obama’s put-down of the Left’s hyperbole after the shooting, of the Left building a case made up from…. imagination?
For the record, I wouldn’t be surprised at anything Hannity says. Showmanship pays. And I’ve quoted before how Rush said on an NPR interview his job was to get the largest audience possible to attract advertisers who would pay the most bucks possible. Beck? He gets tossed in the same pot by the opposition with refutation largely consisting of character attacks.
Mark T
January 17th, 2011
8:58 am
Exactley @@…Bookman dosent want to write about the left wanting to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, just the right’s “hysteria” calling them out on it
Jay
January 17th, 2011
8:59 am
Thanks for the update, Andy. Travel safe.
AmVet
January 17th, 2011
9:00 am
The Republican Cult of Victimhood.
Most of them, as noted in that 8:38, attack incessantly. It is what Tricky Dick, Ronnie, Newt and Dickhead C. have commanded. And then feign being poor misunderstood, set upon saints. This perfectly deflects away from their own serial disasters and scandals, and endless, deadly incompetence.
Much of it, of course, is orchestrated by the integrity-lacking Three Talking Head Stooges, as noted above.
And in the vast pantheon of neo-con mental masturbation, these men are the greatest of mentors for right wing bloggers everywhere. Whose daily diet apparently consists solely of red herrings, misrepresentation and playing stupid. And who ignorantly bemoan free speech in the endless attempt to turn decent, civil, public discourse in the cesspool of animus and personal insults that they desperately desire this forum to become…
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2011
9:01 am
“Fairness Doctrine’ claim is just evidence of persecution complex”
BINGO!!!!
Now if we could just make it the law of the land that news outlets had to tell the truth or be shut down – we’d all be better off.
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2011
9:02 am
“Bookman dosent want to write about the left wanting to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine”
Ok, so YOU do it. Give us the FACTS about it. We’ll all be very interested to hear them.
Jay
January 17th, 2011
9:02 am
Ragnar, I have made my opposition to a new Fairness Doctrine quite explicit.
And your claim about the FCC trying to control content on the ‘Net says a lot more about the right’s need to justify its persecution complex than it does about actual policy and reality.
Mark T
January 17th, 2011
9:04 am
Rep. Clyburn: Bring back Fairness Doctrine
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C), one of the most outspoken voices in the wake of the Tucson shooting, tells the Charleston Post and Courier that he wants to bring back the controversial Fairness Doctrine.
Howard Dean: Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine Because Fox ‘Makes Stuff Up’ and ‘Americans Don’t Know What’s Going On’
Sen. Stabenow wants hearings on radio ‘accountability’; talks fairness doctrine
Donovan
January 17th, 2011
9:05 am
Here’s a lession to learn that the Democrats need to know…When you and your left wing associates open your mouth(s) with inflamatory statements, you will get a reaction from the right that warrents free debate. When that free debate is spun negatively by the left it will not be tolerated by the right as hateful blow-back. Clyburn started such unnecessary discourse in his overrated position as presidential lap dog and should be held accountable for his politicised rhetoric. Don’t blame the right for its reaction. Blame the Democrats. Once again, they drew first blood. Nice try, Bookman. Your side started this whole mess from the get-go with all these wild accusations.
Mark T
January 17th, 2011
9:05 am
there ya go Doggone/GA
kayaker 71
January 17th, 2011
9:06 am
Limbaugh and Hannity come right out and state their views and their political positions. NPR usually skates around a political piece, afraid of losing it’s federal grants, but definitely poses a liberal slant to most any political debate. If the fairness doctrine was imposed, free speech would certainly take a hit. What’s next? The government should not be involved in what we say, most of what we do (if legal) and how we think. The First Amendment states that the government will not “infringe upon the freedom of the press”. It says nothing about providing a platform where a wounded loser can express his/her views.
Jay
January 17th, 2011
9:06 am
“Now if we could just make it the law of the land that news outlets had to tell the truth or be shut down – we’d all be better off.’
No, Granny, I disagree. Such a law would give government the authority to determine what is truthful and what is not, and that would be extremely dangerous. That is a power reserved to we the people, however poorly we may carry it out.
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2011
9:06 am
Sorry Mark T – you’re quoting opinions, not FACTS. Where are the FACTS that prove the “left” wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, just to get you started, what bills to bring it back have been introduced in either House of Congress?
Enoch
January 17th, 2011
9:07 am
The president has not waded into the fairness doctrine.
But…the professional left has been on that horse for a long time. A couple of weeks ago, a crazy person without political leanings shot people in AZ. The response was to blame talk radio and limit their speech. Clyburn, before the Wes cold demanded the retune of the fairness doctrine. Calling for better treatment of the mentally I’ll might have been logical but the response from the left was just partisan. Jay mostly stayed out
Notably, virtually none of the liberal media outlets have decried the attempts to limit speech, including this one.
Dave
January 17th, 2011
9:07 am
“Now if we could just make it the law of the land that news outlets had to tell the truth or be shut down – we’d all be better off”
How many would we have left after that? None probably…
Mark T
January 17th, 2011
9:08 am
Are you serious? I’m quoting opinions?…So your saying that those 3 Dem senators didnt say that…I believe that called a FACT..you might wanna look up that definiton
Palin Fan
January 17th, 2011
9:10 am
If Conservative Real Americans and believers in the Constitution do not stay on guard against the Obama socialist movement, Obama will take your guns, ammo and freedom of speach.
Jack
January 17th, 2011
9:10 am
Fevered imaginations caused the 2008 election debacle.
Joel Edge
January 17th, 2011
9:10 am
“except in their own fevered imaginations.”
I don’t know. This little Tucson episode doesn’t exactly make me feel all warm and fuzzy about you liberals concern about my rights, free speech or otherwise.
This blog can be boiled down to “keep moving, nothing to see here. Ain’t planning on any limits on freedom here.”
Thanks, but I don’t feel reassured.
Jay
January 17th, 2011
9:10 am
So Mark T., the fact that those Stabenow comments took place in a single interview almost two years ago — Feb. ‘09 — and nothing has happened since — that doesn’t change your thinking in the slightest, does it?
No, because your need to feel persecuted must be gratified.
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2011
9:11 am
“So your saying that those 3 Dem senators didnt say that…I believe that called a FACT”
Oh I have no doubt they SAID that, but what have they DONE to bring it back. Words are just words. They can talk all they want, but if they don’t actually present a bill to be voted on it’s all just hot air.
Paul
January 17th, 2011
9:13 am
G’morning, Granny Godzilla
Dug out yet?
You may want to reconsider in light of “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..”
Exceptions held Constitutional by the Court are pretty well-defined and limited.
Mark T
January 17th, 2011
9:13 am
And Clyburn Jay?
Jimmy62
January 17th, 2011
9:14 am
You even quote a Democrat talking about restrictions on free speech, then tell us it’s a fever dream. Either the guy said it, or you are lying. And why didn’t he follow up with more? Because the Tea Party and other people who value freedom came down on him hard! The very quote you put in your column completely validates my vociferously denouncing any restrictions on Freedom of Speech, and the Fairness Doctrine has undeniably been brought up in conversation by some Democrats. Democrat Senator Jeff Bingaman said in an interview that he thought the Fairness Doctrine had served the American people well, and that it could do so again. And I’ll guarantee if “right wingers in a frenzy” didn’t say anything then yes, the Democrats would find ways to restrict freedom of speech even if they don’t call it the Fairness Doctrine. All this effort to link Sarah Palin to the psycho in Arizona was simply a way to find an excuse to restrict freedom of speech.
Jay, you are either lying or wrong, and there’s plenty of documentation to prove you are not correct. Which is it?
Dave
January 17th, 2011
9:15 am
From the LA Times (March 2009):
“But now, leading Democrats have been openly urging its resuscitation. Though the new doctrine would apply to broadcast television as well, the Democrats’ real target is AM radio, where opinion is open and vociferous and where right-of-center talk shows dominate ratings — the one medium in which conservatives and libertarians have an advantage.
“You either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side,” Bill Clinton argued the other day, “because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the … talk shows.” And Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) told liberal radio host Bill Press, “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a [fairness] standard.” Stabenow promised congressional hearings by the end of the year.
Although the Obama administration has said it is not inclined to support a new Fairness Doctrine, other top Democrats who have endorsed, or at least seemed sympathetic to, the idea include congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as well as Sens. Tom Harkin and John Kerry (who blamed his loss in 2004 on the regulation’s absence).
But here’s the reality: A new Fairness Doctrine, which could be imposed either by legislation or through FCC rule changes, wouldn’t achieve more balance. Rather, it would obliterate political talk radio. If a station ran a popular conservative show — say, Hugh Hewitt’s — it would face pressure to run a liberal alternative, even though almost all left-leaning efforts to date have failed to capture either listeners or advertising revenue.
[snip]
The Obama administration may say that it doesn’t back a new Fairness Doctrine, but it has suggested it might support another reform, called “localism,” which should also worry defenders of media freedom.
Localism would impose greater “local accountability” on broadcasters — that is, it would force stations to carry more local programming. Localism, as sketched out in a recent FCC report, also could require stations to set up permanent community advisory boards (including “underserved community segments”) that would have to be regularly consulted on “community needs and issues.”
This measure — a kind of community organizing applied to the airwaves — could complicate life for national syndicators like Salem Radio, which make conservative and Christian shows available from coast to coast. (The regulation also would impede liberal syndicators, though liberals are fewer and far less influential in the world of talk radio.) As a candidate, Obama supported both localism and the idea of relicensing stations every two years, rather than eight, as is currently the case — which would make the new monitors a constant worry for stations.
Localism is wildly impractical. How would board membership be decided? Would liberals sit on the board of a conservative station broadcasting in an urban area? Or would, say, an Islamic community leader sit on the board of a Christian station that broadcast in an area with a large Muslim population? And what kind of power would these FCC-mandated boards wield? Would stations be able to reject their advice without jeopardizing their licenses? What seems all too likely is that groups of professional activists would colonize these community panels and demand that their preferred issues be covered.
The idea is as philosophically misguided as the Fairness Doctrine. After all, stations already serve their communities — their listeners and advertisers. If they don’t serve them, they go out of business. Local-content shows flourish if, and only if, they can win an audience.
By what right does the government tell listeners what they can or can’t listen to when it comes to political speech? The upshot of enforced localism likely would be similar to that of a new Fairness Doctrine: a diminished presence of conservative voices as broadcasters shift formats or get out of the business entirely.
All this is blatantly unconstitutional. The 1st Amendment says Congress must make no law that abridges freedom of speech or the press. Imagine the outcry if Washington bureaucrats began regulating or “advising,” say, The Times for fairness or to increase local content. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has long applied different standards to airwaves and print, claiming that the scarcity of broadcast spectrum justifies government oversight. “
Mary Elizabeth
January 17th, 2011
9:15 am
I have noticed a trend of many on the Far Right to perceive themselves as victims. Growing up in the 1950s South, I observed that white Southerners, particularly males, continued to perceive themselves as victims of the Union, a hundred years after the Civil War. Sadly, I still see many far right conservatives with that same “victim” psychology today, as they rail again the federal government. (It should be remembered that approximately as many Union soldiers, as Confederate ones, died in the Civil War, but their psychology did not nurture – for generations – the bitterness of being victims of the Southern Cause – which would not forfeit slavery without war.)
A person who had every reason to consider himself a victim, but refused to do so, was Martin Luther King, Jr. Although MLKJr. called the injustice of Jim Crow exactly what it was – straight on – he never indulged in the pettiness of name calling of others to paint himself as a victim. Instead, he continued – until the moment he was assassinated – to be an activist for justice, never a victim. In fact his father taught him never to let another person cause him to sink so low as to hate. As a result, Martin Luther King, Jr. not only raised the consciousness of others, but he gave his life dignity, as well as higher meaning.
Let us all honor the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. today.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2011
9:15 am
No, Jay I think you are wrong.
Consider the Akre case.
“In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly. ”
Eventually these questions could be resolved in courts – BUT if the law does not require truth we’ll never even get to court.
Paul
January 17th, 2011
9:16 am
Palin Fan
“If Conservative Real Americans and believers in the Constitution do not stay on guard against the Obama socialist movement, Obama will take your guns, ammo and freedom of speach.”
But isn’t that what you on the Palin Right want? Guns for everyone? Ammo for everyone? No badmouthing of America? According to your quote, that’s what Pres Obama wants. Use his socialist agenda to redistribute the wealth inherent in guns and ammo?
//sarc//
Jimmy62
January 17th, 2011
9:17 am
Jay, don’t you get it? If we didn’t bitch about it, then those random quotes you say mean nothing would have become something. It’s only because the Tea Party and right wing come out against it hard every time a Democrat mentions it that the Democrats don’t take it further. It’s sure as hell not because those Democrats suddenly realized the value of freedom. If they did, they wouldn’t have brought it up in the first place.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2011
9:17 am
The Left, with the help of the Liberal legacy media, has successfully turned the Tuscon shooting into the need for more pleasant political discord. They lost the debate when it really counted, back in November, so they search for any distraction to improve their standing. Makes me want to shout from the gallery.
Talking head after talking head has attacked Conservative media trying to somehow link them to the Tuscon shooting.
All the ban-the-guns, Nannny staters came out of the woodwork right on cue.
You can’t trust the Obama administration even when they are in plain sight. Anyone with a scrap of grey matter knows to watch what Obama does, not what he says.
Obama is already moving to impose his wishes through regulation because he can’t win legislation.
Some of Obama’s cabinet and czars are the most radical in modern times. Left over agitators from the 60’s.
Yet, Jay says the Right feels persecuted. Yea, it’s all in our imagination.
Wait…Wait… I left out the Reverend Al calling for congressional hearings to control talk radio.
Mark T
January 17th, 2011
9:17 am
Doggone…I never said that anyone has introduced anything, Obviously you have a hard time understanding things since it seems I always have to explain them to you…I simply stated that Jay’s column mentioned the Right’s hysteria about it but not the Left saying in FACT that they wanted to resurrect it
Jay
January 17th, 2011
9:17 am
What about him, Mark?
He’s one member of a minority party in the House. And from the comments of one member of the minority party of the House, the right wishes to construct a massive conspiracy to take away their rights to free speech?
Even though he has made no attempt to act upon them? And even though Obama has come out and said explicitly that he does not support the Fairness Doctrine? And even though the head of the FCC has said the same thing? And even though no legislation is moving through Congress, and has absolutely no chance of moving should anyone attempt to try it, which they’re not?
Despite all that, you attempt to build a great hue and cry around the comments of one out of 435 House members?
That is the very definition of a persecution complex.
Brad Steel
January 17th, 2011
9:18 am
…whipping their audience into a frenzy over the Fairness Doctrine,,,
The gullible saps who believe the AM radio bombast can be whipped into a frenzy over anything their radio or the loudmouthed pundits spew. They are sheep.
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2011
9:19 am
“I never said that anyone has introduced anything”
In other words…you’ve got NOTHING.
AmVet
January 17th, 2011
9:21 am
Fight to restore the days of unabridged free speech, cons! (But pay no mind to the serial mendacity of your mouth-pieces…)
Help I’m being repressed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS_1bzaj2fw
OK, off to pay for more corporate welfare. And the Crusades…
Mystery Meat
January 17th, 2011
9:22 am
Just the other day on the Global Warming topic Jay explains to Josef in great detail why it is so important to bring up these topics and discuss them. He essentially says that we cannot ignore the possibilities. NOW, when it’s a subject that he finds “ridiculous” he just can’t understand why someone would bring it up AGAIN.
The Fairness Doctrine is a possibility. If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t exist.
kayaker 71
January 17th, 2011
9:22 am
This entire debate usually surfaces following an incident similar to what happened in Tuscon. Gibbons wasn’t even in the ER yet when the left was spouting about how radical right wing elements were responsible for the shooting and how their rhetoric contributed to what happened. The first predictable target was Palin, then followed Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, Boortz, Herman Cain, and others from the right. 60 Minutes had a very informative piece about the shooter last night and during the many interviews, all of the interviewees who knew the shooter well stated that he had no political leanings, did not listen to the radio, did not watch TV and cared little about politics. But the left has to rant on and on about how free speech and “inflammatory rhetoric” fans the fires of discontent and is responsible for who know what. Palin’s response via Face Book is worth a read, no matter what your political beliefs. One of her best.
Steve
January 17th, 2011
9:25 am
Granny- your thougt processes are so off the wall they are humorous. Could you imagine a gov’t that could statistically prove that praying five times towards Mecca was healthy, extended life expectancy, and therefore reduced health care costs? I stopped listening to NPR years ago because of the volumes of lies expressed.
Thanks Jay for your thoughtful approach to the issue.
Here Spot
January 17th, 2011
9:25 am
Its called “Net Neutrality” and its already in the works. As usual Bookman is out to lunch.
Jay
January 17th, 2011
9:26 am
And Dave, thanks for posting that excerpt from the LA Times, because it proves my point perfectly.
The excerpt comes not from a news story, but from an oped piece two years ago by a conservative author warning that “the Democrats are keen to crack down on conservative talk radio — crack down on free speech they don’t like, that is — is now impossible to deny.”
Impossible to deny, they say. Yet in the two years since, absolutely nothing has happened. There has been no attempt to even try to make something happen.
“… impossible to deny,” yet in reality totally groundless and without foundation even then. And here we are two years later, and the claim is still being made.
Paul
January 17th, 2011
9:26 am
Mystery Meat
Isn’t the difference that climate change has a wealth of scientific support and those who oppose the research usually do so on narrow grounds, while in this instance we have a couple instances of the usual suspects venting their personal opinions and letting it end there, while their opponents construe that to be a majority of evidence?
Here Spot
January 17th, 2011
9:26 am
Bookman is a communist in liberal rags.
Dave
January 17th, 2011
9:27 am
From Broadcasting and Cable (June 2009):
Fairness Doctrine Still Kicking
“Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps may have wished to drive a stake deep into the Fairness Doctrine issue. However, his recent comments on the subject have only helped keep it alive and kicking.
In a speech two weeks ago, Copps said the doctrine was long gone and not coming back. If he had stopped there, he might have put some criticism to rest, though certainly not all of it. However, he went on to characterize critics linking the doctrine to pending localism proposals as “issue mongers” and “conspiracy theorists [who] see [the doctrine] lurking behind every corner.”
As it turns out, some of those theorists are broadcast attorneys who see the localism proposals as just such a back-door effort, with perhaps even greater content-control implications than the doctrine itself.
The doctrine, which required broadcasters both to actively cover issues of public importance and to seek out opposing viewpoints on such issues, has become something of a political football in the past few years. Democrats raised the specter of its return, much to the displeasure of conservative radio talk show hosts and some Republican legislators.
And despite President Obama’s statements to this magazine that he is not interested in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, it continues to concern broadcasters. It has gained new currency of late with FCC proposals to boost localism; these include creating community advisory boards that stations would have to consult with to determine what type of public interest programming they’d need to put on.
Combine that with the Obama administration’s pledge to make programming diversity a priority communications policy issue, and Copps’ passion about the doctrine, and you have a potent brew keeping it alive and current.
Copps has said he can’t characterize how his successor, Julius Genachowski, will address the diversity issue, but has in effect advised him to make the localism initiative—proposed as part of the FCC’s media-ownership rule revision of December 2007—his first priority. That worries NRB [National Religious Broadcasters] chief Wright, who told Copps in a letter that his members could support both minorities and women and still be “wary” about diversity initiatives that might affect broadcast content.
One veteran communications attorney who asked to speak on background took issue with characterizing the “localism” initiatives as Fairness Doctrine lite, suggesting they could be even more constricting on content than the doctrine itself. “Localism isn’t Fairness lite,” he said. “Why have government oversight program-by-program when you can set up a regime to oversee them all?”
The attorney called the doctrine a sideshow, “both by ditto-heads [Rush Limbaugh fans] and by those on the left who claim to be shocked, shocked that anyone would suggest they want to impose such a doctrine.”
Another veteran First Amendment attorney said that the doctrine per se won’t be back. He said it would be like a hot poker to both the right wing and religious broadcasters: “The Obama administration has done a pretty good job of splitting up the evangelical movement. Why would he throw it away for that?”
But he also said that despite Copps’ protestations, the localism initiative could be problematic for broadcast speech: “Last year’s localism decision, both the advisory boards and the programming forms, are a not-very-thinly-veiled Fairness Doctrine. But not just fairness. It is the commission determining the content of programming. Oh, yes, that is very high on the administration’s agenda.””
Mark T.
January 17th, 2011
9:28 am
You Guys are sad, so the mere fact that they say it means NOTHING to you?…I guess I have a little more concerns about my freedoms than you..Oh and Jay, you as well obviously missed the point, you are so quick to write articles calling out the Right but never the Left…oh no way they coul ever do anything wrong!
Brad Steel
January 17th, 2011
9:29 am
Palin’s response via Face Book is worth a read, no matter what your political beliefs. One of her best.
One of her best? There’s a nice contradiction in terms. She used actual words or did she make up more new ones? Did she add more stuff to her word-salad speaking?
Lord Help Us
January 17th, 2011
9:29 am
Alas, one who regularly espouses the coming apocalypse by way of various evil ‘leftist’ consipiracy (including the Fairness Doctrine) is silent today.
Neal Boortz is mourning the loss of his longtime sidekick Royal Marshal…who despite his allegiance to one of the Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity acolytes, seemed like a cool dude.
I actually have a soft spot in my heart today for Neal…
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2011
9:29 am
It would be interesting to know how many posting here even know what the Fairness Doctrine requiered when it WAS in force. (Hers’a clue: it was NOT about limiting anyone’s right to free speech)
Normal
January 17th, 2011
9:30 am
Off topic, but I bet Rep Gifford really likes Sailors!
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/01/navy-giffords-doctors-battlefield-tested-011610w/
Here Spot
January 17th, 2011
9:30 am
Perhaps later today we might all get together and burn some books!! Like uh..Huck Finn…yes…we could start with that one.
Mark T.
January 17th, 2011
9:31 am
Hey Jay, let me ask you this although I know I probably wont get a repsponse….Why are many on the left and in the mainstream media crying about Sarah Palin’s target chart when the Left did the EXACT same thing in 08 just with bullseye’s…why has that not been mentioned?
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2011
9:31 am
“so the mere fact that they say it means NOTHING to you?…”
That’s right…it means nothing. Just as calls for “second amendment solutions” means nothing. Words are just words, it’s DEEDS that matter.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2011
9:31 am
Steve
I think challenging your thought process is beneath me.
Mystery Meat
January 17th, 2011
9:33 am
We know what it was about Doggone/GA. You don’t have the corner of the market on intelligence.
Jimmy62
January 17th, 2011
9:33 am
Jay, your continued obtuseness is starting to worry me.
Democrat after Democrat has mentioned bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and even you admit that. They haven’t gone further and introduced a bill BECAUSE we on the right who value freedom raise a cry against it whenever it’s mentioned. Had we not, then hell yeah a bill would have been introduced. Thankfully Democrat politicians seem to have few actual principles, and they would rather get reelected than follow through on something they believe in (restricting freedom of speech for Americans).
Jay
January 17th, 2011
9:33 am
OK, Dave, now tell us what has happened regarding this grave threat to free speech known as “localism” in the many months since then.
In the minds of many on the right, as you have documented, it was a sinister backdoor means of attacking talk radio. So did that dire threat ever materialize? Did it ever exist in the first place?
Or did it prove to be just a sad, contorted, and utterly groundless means to keep ginning up paranoia?
Please, update us on what happened.
Bob
January 17th, 2011
9:34 am
MarkT 9:04, Those examples do not count, even dems know that stabinow and Clyburn are clueless hacks.
carlosgvv
January 17th, 2011
9:35 am
Republicans have been using the same propaganda methods used by advertisers to con people into believing liberals are out to get them and take away their freedoms. America has dumbed down to the point where there are enough of the simple-minded to fall for these lies and keep a large number of Republicans in power. It is unlikely these mindless will ever realize they are nothing more than tools.
Lord Help Us
January 17th, 2011
9:39 am
Fairness Doctrine, Gov’t taking away our guns, Obama is a Socialist, Obama is a Fascist, War on Christmas…
All constant red herrings on the right wing airwaves and endlessly parroted here…And all BS…(yawn…)
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2011
9:40 am
“when the Left did the EXACT same thing in 08 just with bullseye’s…why has that not been mentioned?”
Maybe because they WEREN’T exactly the same? There is quite a difference between targting PEOPLE and targeting states.
Lil' Barry Bailout
January 17th, 2011
9:40 am
Remember early in the Obama administration, when the NRA and other groups were warning that the government was going to start banning handguns and even confiscating weapons?
———–
Um, no?
Talk about attempting to whip up a frenzy…
Mark T.
January 17th, 2011
9:40 am
Bob
January 17th, 2011
9:34 am
MarkT 9:04, Those examples do not count, even dems know that stabinow and Clyburn are clueless hacks.
BOb, they might be clueless but they are eiected officials and the point I was making is if your gonna call out the right on their hysteria about it, then call out the Left as well for wanting to bring it back…Jay points out that the opinion of one senator dosent mean he speaks for the rest, well ditto…the fact that one person on the right worried about it dosent mean he speaks for the rest either
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2011
9:41 am
“You don’t have the corner of the market on intelligence.”
Coming from you…I’ll take that as an acknowlegement that I *have* intelligence. Thank you for recognizing it.
Chris D.
January 17th, 2011
9:41 am
I would be all for a fiarness Doctrine if it applied to the general news media as well….Was thinking, where are allt he daily news tories about gasoline prices? When Bush was in office and gas was approaching $2/gallon. News every night lead off with gas prices up 3 cents, 5 cents etc. Their over $3/gallon now, and not one peep from the media. And if Bush had promised something during the election like the closing of Guatanamo Bay prison if his first year, the media again would be asking EVERY day, when you closing it? Why is it not closed? Beating it into the public day after day. When’s the last time any news media commented on Guatanamo? Bet it has been months without any stories.
Mystery Meat
January 17th, 2011
9:41 am
Everyone is off looking up Fairness Doctrine on Google and Wikipedia.
Steve
January 17th, 2011
9:41 am
Granny- you are indeed a funny little lady. More gov’t anyone?
Mark T.
January 17th, 2011
9:43 am
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2011
9:40 am
“when the Left did the EXACT same thing in 08 just with bullseye’s…why has that not been mentioned?”
Maybe because they WEREN’T exactly the same? There is quite a difference between targting PEOPLE and targeting states.
My furture conversations with you are now over…I dont debate 3rd graders that keep making excuses, If you really think that Palin’s intentions were to actually “take out” human beings and not to try to remove them from office then you are no different from Loughner
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2011
9:43 am
Steve
I have always pitied the humor impaired.
Better government anyone?
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2011
9:44 am
1/3/2011 http://www.ajc.com/news/gas-prices-in-georgia-793684.html
12/7/2010 http://www.ajc.com/news/gas-prices-up-11-768560.html
11/22/2010 http://www.ajc.com/news/gas-prices-higher-for-750591.html
NOTHING in the news?
Mary Elizabeth
January 17th, 2011
9:44 am
The debate concerning inflammatory speech should be lifted out of the context of Jared Loughner, who was clearly mentally unbalanced.
The “background noise” of hate speech of the 1860s was extremely negative toward President Lincoln, and so the frenzy of that speech – over time – probably did, indirectly, contribute to Lincoln’s assassination by John Wilkes Booth, an actor and Southern sympathizer.
However, I agree with Jay that the federal government should not intrude on the freedom of the media’s speech, however ugly it might be, because that danger by the federal government of too much government intrusion could possibly cause even greater harm to freedom of speech.
Hopefully, Americans of conscience will speak out against the tactics of Rush Limbaugh and others who, day in and day out, stir the hatred of one segment of the population against the other. The “background noise” that they persist in perpetuating may, one day, create tragedy that is not the doing of a mental patient. If Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, is now attempting to rein in some of brutal speech on his network, then that, in itself, tells the public Fox News has been out of line. The conscience of Murdoch, hopefully, was stirred to act for the betterment of the nation and not just for profit. It it was, he is to be commended for his overt action in curtailing some of the very division speech on Fox News, himself.
Keep up the good fight!
January 17th, 2011
9:44 am
Red herrings and false equivalents, lack of facts, outright lies and false claims…..ahh, the right wingnuts. Waive the flag and God and tell the world how you are the persecuted ones and the only ones with the brains to know but somehow them sneaky libruls are going to outsmart you even thoughyou claim time and time again how stupid they are.
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2011
9:45 am
“If you really think that Palin’s intentions were to actually “take out” human beings and not to try to remove them from office”
I never said any such thing. I said the MAPS were not EXACTLY the same, because they weren’t.
Mystery Meat
January 17th, 2011
9:46 am
Chris D – Actually, I’ve heard about gasoline prices daily on local TV and radio news networks. I think most people know about rising gas prices – unless they don’t have a car.
Soothsayer
January 17th, 2011
9:46 am
. . . [T]he extreme right-wing, which is adept at full use of the newer social media, as well as near-monopolies on radio and television talk shows.
We also know the extreme right-wing, usually without facts or bending facts to their own purposes, fired back at Sheriff Dupnik and others.
Rush Limbaugh, with absolutely no evidence, not only claimed the sheriff is a “fool,” but that the Democratic party “seeks to profit” from the shootings, but that Loughner knows he has “the full support” of the Democrats.
We know that Glenn Beck, two days after the murders, finally spoke out, extending sympathies—and condemning those who argued that a climate of hate was partially responsible for the tragedy. This is the same Glenn Beck who in June erroneously claimed that the media and those in Washington “believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head.” This is the same Glenn Beck who, on his website, posted a picture of him holding a pistol. And, we also know he defended Sarah Palin, stupidly charging that attacks on her following the tragedy could somehow destroy the republic.
Mark T.
January 17th, 2011
9:46 am
Mystery Meat
January 17th, 2011
9:33 am
We know what it was about Doggone/GA. You don’t have the corner of the market on intelligence.
You hit the nail on the head with that one!
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2011
9:46 am
“Waive the flag and God ”
I know you really meant to say “wave” but sometimes there’s more than a grain of truth in a Freudian slip!
Nice Guy
January 17th, 2011
9:46 am
Jay – “U.S. Rep. James Clyburn did some squawking about the need for restraint on radio”
The very fact that anyone in Washington even thinks about such a move begs for the debate of “what if it did happen?” Please stop thinking all this “talk” is unfounded.
And don’t worry, you Left-nuts have your own “sense of being” when you get all fired up about lonney ideas such as rounding up all the illegals in this country and deporting them!! Angry right wingers!
Scoff.
Will never happen, yet this is one of many ideas that fuel the left-nuts.
Keep up the good fight!
January 17th, 2011
9:46 am
Granny, I did see one of your relatives on Colbert Report last week — Gulp Zilla.
Keep up the good fight!
January 17th, 2011
9:47 am
Doggone……..you are correct.
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2011
9:47 am
“You hit the nail on the head with that one!”
When the only “argument” you have is personal attacks, you’ve got NOTHING.
Jay
January 17th, 2011
9:47 am
Mark T., I haven’t delved into the bullseye nonsense on either side because it is, well, nonsense. As I’ve written before, rightwing rhetoric had nothing to do with what happened in Tucson.
However, since you mention the alleged use of bullseyes by the left, let’s take a quick look at it, shall we?
First, here’s the post that the right uses to claim that what Daily Kos did was equivalent to what Palin did (and again, as far as I’m concerned, neither did anything wrong:
http://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/screen-shot-2011-01-08-at-3-05-33-pm.png
Looks pretty inflammatory, doesn’t it? Giffords’ picture right there, and the bullseye and all?
Now, here’s the ACTUAL post at Daily Kos. Notice a difference?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568
Check it out yourself. No bullseye. No picture of Giffords, no targeting of Giffords, just a phrase that talks of putting a bullseye on these districts. No fair-minded person would say that the right’s distortion gave a fair depiction of the actual Kos posting.