The Fairness Doctrine is like Elvis. Or Jesus. Dead for a long, long, time but sighted or resurrected whenever convenient to scare the dittoheads, make a fake political headline-for-a-day, or frighten the begging-to-be-frightened listeners of religious radio.
(photo: Comrade Genachowski)
Rush, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck, the Marx Brothers, Pat Robertson and Rev. James Dobson- all have warned that the subversive, socialistic and dangerous Doctrine (not ever a law) which required access to broadcast stations of opposing views, and discussion of controversial issues, would be revived by Barack Obama, his FCC henchpersons, or Congressional running dogs like Nancy (Shiver) Pelosi.
It was a convenient right-wing straw man, a conspiracy theory that buttressed the right's dire predictions that Obama was an evil dictator on the brink of cancelling the Constitution; used in Christian pastoral infomercials to scare the money out of their flighty listeners.
Despite FCC Chair Julius Genachowski testified in 2009 he wasn’t going to revive it. And he never has. No matter candidate Obama was against bringing it back, and President Obama never even proposed to. Or that Speaker Nancy Pelosi never brought it up when she had the power, or did Leader Harry Reid.
Despite all this the policy remained, fallow, on the books.
Limbaugh, Beck et al, kept it alive by warning that it might be revived in the long-debated "localism" initiative proposed by the Bush FCC, and continued in the Obama years by Genachowski.
Wednesday, a real stake (maybe) was thrust into the heart of the beast (again). Responding to a letter from Republican House members Genachowski said it unequivocally ... again. "I fully support deleting the Fairness Doctrine and related provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations."
And delete it they did.
Will this die as a show topic and scare tactic within the right-wing media bubble? We're not sure that news of the Fairness Doctrine's erasure even pierced the bubble. Have the dittoheads been apprised? Probably not.
We predict that like Elvis, Jesus, and Frankenstein, The Fairness Doctirne shall rise again in the perfervid rehtoric of the right. (Once Weiner's penis has been dispatched).
Let's start a rumor...the Fairness Doctrine is coming back...but it will also require broadcasts in Spanish!!
Two bogeymen, one stone. Perfect.
Posted by: Pete | June 09, 2011 at 10:18 AM
That's about what it amounts to...
Radio is a product and people are free to choose which product to purchase.
(Or so they should be)
The fairness doctrine is like forcing someone to buy Pepsi everytime they buy Coke.
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | June 09, 2011 at 10:22 AM
I disagree. The Fairness Doctrine was to force station owners to balance the news. As combersome as it was for broadcasters, the measure kept mega-owners from packing the election process with their favored candidates. We are seeing the results today. While many stations balance their news with comments from both sides of an issue, they have little desire to make sure the opposing view gets equal time.
Posted by: Bill Wippel | June 09, 2011 at 11:18 AM
Public radio is a good example of what the fairness doctrine should be. KUOW was correct in letting Mass go when he wanted to stray off topic and have a discussion about out-of- state tuition without an opposing view.
Posted by: Coiler | June 09, 2011 at 12:44 PM
It doesn't matter what the Fairness Doctrine is or isn't, whether it's a good idea or bad. It's not coming back, any more than clear channel AM stations broadcasting to hslf the country are coming back. Different era now, different media landscape, different political realities. Period.
That was the point of BlaM's post. The Fairness Doctrine is a dead issue. It is, to go all Python on folks, an ex-Doctrine.
Speaking of things that aren't coming back, isn't it time for another Cliff Mass post?
Posted by: Pete | June 09, 2011 at 01:25 PM
oh gawd, I think Mass is going to set himself on fire.
Posted by: Coiler | June 09, 2011 at 03:41 PM
TV media other than FOX is "All Obama the great, all the time".
Pro liberal in print as well for as long as I can remember.
Talk radio is much more conservative in general.
It's crazy to think that opposing views can be fairly represented in any of these formats.
Best method is to let the market decide.
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | June 09, 2011 at 03:46 PM
Aaah yes it is election time and nothing evidences that more than the idiot (even tho professed smart) Knute Gingrich shooting himself in the foot yet AGAIN. Why he thinks he has any kind of chance at running for Pres is beyond me. It's got to be his ego and superiority complex. This guy is a JOKE and the Nation, if they didn't realize before surely will write him off big time. Knute, go write another book and continue to fool your supporters that you're some kind of genius. Sir, you're nothing but a fuck-up now go away and give the stage back to the other fools, like Michele and Sarah, cause dude you don't have a snowball's chance in he'll of being a serious candidate. Hahaha.
Posted by: Sarah | June 09, 2011 at 04:08 PM
I can't see the fairness doctrine coming back, but seeing it said by my brother, Obama that it is not coming back is enough to make me wonder. I don't know if you people have noticed that Obama does not always do as he says he will. Sometimes, he may just make promises to get what he wants but does not deliver what he promised.
I don't want to call him a liar but he sure can avoid doing as he said he would.
Posted by: South Tacoma | June 09, 2011 at 04:12 PM
The "fairness" doctrine will never come back. Isn't that funny? "Fairness" is now a dirty word. It is a sign of the times and how the right think. Imagine, RB, just how contaminated your brain could become if it were exposed to two sides of an issue.
Posted by: The Anti-Dori | June 09, 2011 at 04:17 PM
It isn't so much the Fairness Doctrine as it is who decides what is fair. Fairness is not a dirty word. Would Obama and whomever he apoints to head the FCC be the deciders this year and next. Would Michele Bachman or Newt Gingrich be the deciders in 2013 and on?
I would much rather decide for myself and just change the channel.
Government ain't very fair in the way they do anything else.
Posted by: South Tacoma | June 09, 2011 at 04:58 PM
There was a movie based on "Greed is good" so Fairness must be another one of those Ayn Randian things to avoid.
Posted by: Coiler | June 09, 2011 at 06:03 PM
I would much rather decide for myself and just change the channel.
And when there is no channel to change to? You will hear only one side. When you can hear only one side, then you being controlled by people choosing for you. You have it ass backwards.
Posted by: joanie | June 09, 2011 at 08:10 PM
I would much rather decide for myself and just change the channel.
And when there is no channel to change to? You will hear only one side. When you can hear only one side, then you being controlled by people choosing for you. You have it ass backwards.
Posted by: joanie | June 09, 2011 at 08:10 PM
Joanie, you got it Bass Ackwards. With the internet and information availability the Fairness Doctrine is a dead dog issue.
Be smart and move on to something else.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 09, 2011 at 08:35 PM
Two words - Red Herring.
Posted by: KS | June 09, 2011 at 08:40 PM
You really are dumb, Puget Sound. Really, really dumb. A lot of people don't have the internet. Especially in those rural areas where there is only one radio station.
You haven't traveled very much, have you? Or is it that you just don't have the capacity to think very much?
Posted by: joanie | June 09, 2011 at 08:55 PM
For those of you who do have two completely operative hemispheres to their brains, I'm watching "Client 9" on Netflix. Haven't seen it before. If you haven't seen it, you should watch it. You'll see the kind of corruption KS, Chyx and Puget Sound seem to love.
Posted by: joanie | June 09, 2011 at 08:58 PM
What does traveling have to do with anything ? Name a rural area that has only 1 radio station. Random bullcrap, besides who gives a flying fark ?
Posted by: KS | June 09, 2011 at 09:00 PM
You'll see the kind of corruption KS, Chyx and Puget Sound seem to love.
Posted by: joanie | June 09, 2011 at 08:58 PM
Yeah, that kind of corruption like taking out the bad guys and getting to the truth and restoring justice. Justice is on an individual basis and is way different from social justice, which only cares about the collective (for the benefit of you brainwashed ditto-libs and libtards).
.
Posted by: KS | June 09, 2011 at 09:07 PM
What does traveling have to do with anything ? Name a rural area that has only 1 radio station.
Posted by: KS | June 09, 2011 at 09:00 PM
Really,KS, do you have to be this dumb?
I know; none of you wanted to say it. But this is the stupidest thing on this blog today.
Posted by: BlackRhino | June 09, 2011 at 10:06 PM
Did I hurt your feelings - Rhinoplasty ? Keep carrying Joanie's water like the lemming you portray yourself to be.
Posted by: KS | June 09, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Well, this "fairness Doctrine" sure brings out the idiocy in some for something that doesn't really have teeth...
There's plenty of right and left viewpoints in the media and we go to what we like.
There's the token Righty on MSNBC like Krauthammer and FOX has token lefty Juan Williams...
Plus the other names I can't think of at the moment.
At least they have it for argument.
It's the idea of being forced to hear "the other side" that is the problem.
I like talking politics with my commie friends as much as my non-commie friends.
But it's never forced. It's a choice.
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | June 09, 2011 at 10:33 PM
Well, good for you, Bastard. The thing is . . . and see above for the context you've apparently forgotten . . . not everyone has the choice.
But I guess as long as you do, screw everyone else.
It's interesting, isn't it, Rhino, that liberals are never afraid of hearing both sides. It is only on the right that the sheep need to hear the echo chamber.
Posted by: joanie | June 09, 2011 at 10:40 PM
haah, Joanie is the Demo libs' version of Ann Coulter, wih herr ridiculous generalizations and blanket, selfserving condemnations and demonization of the other side..... i've been listening to this smug, arrogant jackass Coulter plug her stupid latest book all week, and I've been thnking that i've never hard such sustained asininity in all my life...and then i remembered Joanie......hahaah haa Joanie....
Posted by: Tommy0008 | June 10, 2011 at 12:21 AM
It's interesting, isn't it, Rhino, that liberals are never afraid of hearing both sides. It is only on the right that the sheep need to hear the echo chamber.
Posted by: joanie | June 09, 2011 at 10:40 PM
yes, your slavish devotion to mike malloy and rhandi rhodes represents both sides of an argument. one can hear it now, which one hates Bush more, which one Blames Bush more, which one will crack the first Bush assassination joke.
Yeah, two sides is what you get.
But show us wrong. Which conservatives do you listen to on a regular basis? C'mon, don't skedaddle. Which conservatives do you read on a regular basis? After all, 'Voltaire' (sarcasm intended) someone like you who is looking for both sides of the argument surely must be able to name at least a few folks you read or listen to from the conservative side.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers corrective actions for Joanie | June 10, 2011 at 03:39 AM
You really are dumb, Puget Sound. Really, really dumb. A lot of people don't have the internet. Especially in those rural areas where there is only one radio station.
You haven't traveled very much, have you? Or is it that you just don't have the capacity to think very much?
Posted by: joanie | June 09, 2011 at 08:55 PM
A lot of people? KS hit it on the head. How many are we talking Joanie? Hell, if you have a landline you can do a dial up.
This is typical Joanie. She spews misinformation and when called lets see her response. Will it be:
1) Skedaddle -just run away
2) Confusion -facts and reason has a way of doing it to Joanie
3) Obtuseness. Playing dumb
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers corrective actions for Joanie | June 10, 2011 at 03:43 AM
I'm interested in your answer to PSB's question, Joanie. Tell us how you get your information from the conservative point of view?
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 10, 2011 at 06:37 AM
A lot of people don't have computers. You work with/for people with a certain income Ps and no doubt they have access to technology. And in rural areas sometimes they have 4-5 music stations but that's it. Have you ever gone driving up around Republic? Waterville? Burns? Lakeview? Davenport? Have you ever driven across the country on small backroads across farms where people work at a way of life that leaves them with little time or interest to listen to the radio outside of sydicated Rush? Have you ever tried listening to the 2 country music stations with no other options? You live in an urban bubble. Joanie is right.
Posted by: sparky | June 10, 2011 at 06:55 AM
mike malloy ... rhandi rhodes .... skedaddle.
Nothing new. It's always the same with you. You're an echo chamber of yourself.
The Queen:
Birch Bay, Queen, Birch Bay. Even twenty miles north of Bellingham, it's hard to get liberal radio. I get KPTK although not clearly but I listen till I can't anymore. Sometimes KGO but not always able to get it. So, I listen to C2C when I can find it; last weekend Dennis Miller and Mark Levin (obviously reruns).
From the National Telecommunications and Information Administration: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/part2.html
"... Key findings include:
Despite the Internet's only recent emergence as a new media, approximately one-third of all Americans already have Internet access from some location, either at home or outside of the home. Almost one-fourth of Americans have access at home.
Whites are more likely to have Internet access at home than Blacks or Hispanics are from any location."
Posted by: joanie | June 10, 2011 at 08:15 AM
I know you were probably in a hurry to get to work, Joanie, but the report you reference appears to use data from 1998...13 years in the world of technology makes this report totally out-of-date and inaccurate when trying to make a case for what's going on in today's world. Try again...I think you'll find those numbers have increased drastically.
Both Miller & Levin are good choices for conservative talk.
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 10, 2011 at 09:51 AM
Have you ever driven across the country on small backroads across farms where people work at a way of life that leaves them with little time or interest to listen to the radio outside of sydicated Rush?
Posted by: sparky | June 10, 2011 at 06:55 AM
I thought all of the yokels and rubes out in the sticks were too STOOPID to be self important, smug Liberals.
Come on... The poorest among us seem to have more features and gadgets on their phone than I do anyplace in my home.
All of the Lefty blogs are easy access for them.
My favorite are the dirty faced, huddled masses begging for money on the side of street corners and FRWY ramps...
Holding their sign with one hand and texting with the other.
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | June 10, 2011 at 10:18 AM
Excellent point RB, I'm sure we've all witnessed that. You see it at grocery stores with welfare shoppers and you see it at free food distribution centers. I've always been perplexed at how these supposedly poor people can apparently afford the top of the line high tech gear???
Posted by: KIROSam | June 10, 2011 at 10:54 AM
"texting in the other."
You know, I've never seen that.
"top of the line high tech gear" - you actually ask them to show you what they're using? Rather callous, don't you think?
I think our good rightwingers are exaggerating. That's typical of the right. have to agree that the "yokels" are pretty "STOOPID" since all they generally get to listen to is Limbaugh et al.
Posted by: The Anti-Dori | June 10, 2011 at 12:09 PM
Little Dorrit (Dori Monson), was back in Scrooge mode again today as he railed against free and reduced lunches in Seattle schools. He also went on to say that his daughter did a stint helping at a food bank the other day and reported to Dad that many of the folKs were talking on cellphones as they gathered their food. Monson was outraged that we were giving free food TO PEOPLE who could afford cellphones ("one of the finer things in life" according to Monson). Is this guy really that out of it? Does he NOT realize that most of these phones were probably base phone/ data plan models , running maybe 10 dollars a month or 20 at most. These folks almost certainly have only a cell phone , not a land line IN ADDITION. Does he really expect poor people to live without a phone, thus cutting themselveS off from any chance of gettign a job or even casual labor, not to mention communicting withtheir kids? one of the "finer things in life"? Maybe in 1995 it was. If Monson suddenly became jobless and poor, the first thing he would get would be a cheap cellphone so he could rustle up some work, and keep in touch with the girls. He would not consider it a luxury. Get real, Dori, and get into this decade, you hypocrite, and meanspirited, phony clown.
Posted by: Tommy008 | June 10, 2011 at 01:24 PM
I remember a moment a couple of years ago when I was driving across southern Idaho and there were five different talk stations available, every single one of which was carrying the same Rush Limbaugh program. So much for our free media system. It reminded me of state radio in authoritarian countries.
Different topic: I'm not especially sympathetic to the folks who panhandle at ramps and intersections - a lot of them look a lot more able-bodied than I am - but be fair. Even if people have seen panhandlers with fancy equipment (I haven't), it costs a lot less to have a phone, even a smart phone, than to have rent for an apartment. And if you are homeless and trying to get or keep a job you pretty much have to have a phone. I'd rather see them still connected to society than not.
Internet access isn't essential to getting a job, but it's getting close. And yeah, that "1/3 of all households" study is way out of date. At this point there aren't a whole lot of people under about age 65 who don't regularly access the Internet from home, work, or the library.
Posted by: Pete | June 10, 2011 at 01:25 PM
How do you know that, Pete? Rural farms and the internet? The working poor in rural areas? I agree that study is out of date but can you produce some better numbers? Accessing the internet from work often has limitations. There are limited numbers of computers at libraries. If you have to leave home to find internet access, what good is that except for specific purposes. Can you say people really have "internet access" if they're having to leave home and take turns using it? If I didn't have access at home, I'd not be relying on the internet to keep me informed.
Posted by: The Anti-Dori | June 10, 2011 at 02:03 PM
Here are some numbers from a 2010 report. Yes, rural areas still lag, as do minorities, but Joanie's assertion (with irrelevant data to back her up) that only 1/3 of today's households have access is so obviously absurd. I'm actually surprised she didn't know better...
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/NTIA_internet_use_report_Feb2010.pdf
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 10, 2011 at 02:45 PM
Perhaps I defend Joanie too much. But I see her thinking more critically than it seems most of you do. Really, do you think internet cafes, libraries and work/school stations will keep a populace informed?
Easy to take her on but think about it more carefully. What do we really mean by "internet access?" Is she wrong?
I've been looking for current numbers without success. Anybody else? Sparky, you're the one I'd rely on for honest stats.
Posted by: The Anti-Dori | June 10, 2011 at 02:47 PM
Sorry, my link was outside the bounds of space. I hate to hot link because I like folks to see where they're headed.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
Reports/2010/NTIA_internet_use_report_
Feb2010.pdf
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 10, 2011 at 02:52 PM
Did you read this carefully, Radio Queen?
"NON-USE
Non-usage at home. Collectively, the proportion of those Americans who do not use the Internet at home declined between 2007 and 2009 but persists at a level higher than 30 percent today. Utilizing a household measurement, the percentage dropped by seven percentage points during the span, registering 31.3 percent in 2009. Measured in persons (three years and older), such non-users numbered 36.8 percent in 2009 and had dropped almost seven percentage points in two years.
Those persons who do not use broadband at home total more than 35 percent of all households and approximately 40 percent of all persons, with a larger proportion in rural areas. More specifically, 36.5 percent of households and 40.8 percent of persons did not use such high-speed Internet at home in 2009. The urban-rural gap was found to exist, regardless of the unit of measure. In rural areas, 45.9 percent of households and 48.4 percent of persons had no home broadband access, while the corresponding numbers for urban areas are 34.1 percent for households and 38.9 percent for persons. In 2007, the overall figures and those for rural and urban respectively registered more than ten percentage points higher."
Seems that we all need to read better to get to the truth. Surprisingly, urban households are still lagging behind what I would have expected. The fact that the numbers went down between 2007 and 2009 is significant.
I think "ridiculous" may be a bit of an exaggeration considering I would have expected the numbers to continue on an upward trend. Forty percent urban . . . rural . . . no access in the home? Or am I reading it incorrectly?
Nothing is simple, is it?
Posted by: The Anti-Dori | June 10, 2011 at 04:20 PM
I find myself engaged in this discussion because it gets to the difference between the right and the left. Liberals by definition tend to be more diverse in their listening and reading habits. Whether by internet, radio frequencies, or paper media. Getting caught up in who has access to the internet - especially when it is exaggerated - is futile if the point of the discussion is choice. Clearly, many people do not have choice.
Posted by: The Anti-Dori | June 10, 2011 at 04:34 PM
Anti-Dori, the fact remains that your beloved Joanie posted irrelevant data to back an assertion that only a third of households had Internet access. I posted current data which decidedly refutes her assertion. True to form, you then redirect the discussion to avoid the facts presented and ignore my concurrence that rural areas still lag behind. You are absolutely correct about one thing you said: "Perhaps I defend Joanie too much." Ya think?
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 10, 2011 at 04:53 PM
You are right, Radio Queen. Do you feel better now?
Posted by: The Anti-Dori | June 10, 2011 at 04:55 PM
How I "feel" is immaterial. I just don't understand why it's so difficult to stay on topic and acknowledge facts.
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 10, 2011 at 05:49 PM
Sorry. I didn't know the topic was Joanie. Her reference was outdated but relevant. The trends are similar. And your own link suggests a decline in the stats rather than an increase.
Is Joanie the topic or internet access? If it is internet access, I will be glad to continue. If Joanie is the topic, I''m not interested. Your emotional angst with Joanie is irrelevant to me. I admire her ability to think.
Now that we've established that many people do not have access to the internet and thus "choice," do you have something to add? I'm not one to spend much time on personality issues.
Posted by: The Anti-Dori | June 10, 2011 at 06:02 PM
A-D: Well, 45 comments ago, the topic was the Fairness Doctrine. Labeling my attempt to correct the facts presented by Joanie as "emotional angst" is again a diversionary tactic that is popular with the left.
OK, back to the topic.
"Non-usage at home. Collectively, the proportion of those Americans who do not use the Internet at home declined between 2007 and 2009 but persists at a level higher than
30 percent today."
Your quote from the report. Non-use of the Internet has decreased. That means that usage increased. Perhaps the
chart on page 17 might be easier for you to understand.
Internet usage in the home in rural areas increased from
54% to 60% from 2009 to 2010. Yes, that leaves 40% in rural areas not using the Internet. But wait, look at the chart on page 20. Seems the percentage for those who don't have access available was only 3% in 2010.
Now, what was your point?
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 10, 2011 at 06:51 PM
"Perhaps I defend Joanie too much. But I see her thinking more critically than it seems most of you do. Really, do you think internet cafes, libraries and work/school stations will keep a populace informed?
Easy to take her on but think about it more carefully. What do we really mean by "internet access?" Is she wrong?
I've been looking for current numbers without success. Anybody else? Sparky, you're the one I'd rely on for honest stats.
Posted by: The Anti-Dori | June 10, 2011 at 02:47 PM"
Yes, you seem preoccupied with bailing out yet another poorly sourced and poorly thought out post by Joanie.
Yes, it is to take her on as an illustration of poor thinking.
Yes, too funny now that you cry out for Sparky to bail you out. But we'll see what she posts.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers corrective actions for Joanie | June 10, 2011 at 07:26 PM
Anti dori
I'd stay away from Radio Queen. He has your number. You should learn to be quiet when adults are talking.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 10, 2011 at 07:27 PM
Minor correction - Radio Queen is a she.
Posted by: KS | June 10, 2011 at 07:34 PM
A-D - you seem like someone who likes to engage in transparent debate, but I really don't understand why you predominantly get behind and an alpha regressive and a nasty piece of work like Joanie.
IF you think that's cool or intellectual, you are sadly mistaken. For one, Radio Queen is more honest, has more common sense, is as intelligent (if not more so)a nd less hot air - even though her political persuasion has less in common with yours.
Posted by: KS | June 10, 2011 at 07:42 PM