GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Essence of Problem of “Fairness Doctrine”

by

At Protein Wisdom, Dan Collins gets at the essence of the problem of the “Fairness Doctrine,” “The problem with defining diversity of perspective is, of course, that someone must do the defining.”

That’s one reason why, in determining who should be allowed to speak out on issue of national concern, I prefer freedom to fairness.  It boils don to who gets to determine what’s fair and what’s not.

Just look at where the Obama Administration is turning to define fairness:

The new news is that the administration may be farming out the task of what constitutes acceptable diversity to . . . MoveOn.org, which has been compiling a large database of unacceptable outlets.

Read the whole thing as Dan provides more examples of “fairness” on media outlets whose bias escapes the notice of MoveOn. Seems the only bias these people find intolerable is that from the right.

Comments

  1. The so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is a call for government – i.e., appointed bureaucrats – to monitor the ideological content of speech. It’s hard to imagine what could be more un-American.

  2. It’s interesting to see how you as conservatives squirm when the issue of the fairness doctrine is brought up but refuse to recognize the intellectual schism in how you regularly denounce the “liberal mainstream media.”

    I’m so enjoying seeing the shoe on the other foot these days. Keep up the dramedy. This is more entertaining than most television these days.

  3. George, what intellectual schism?

    Yep, we denounce the liberal MSM. Our primary problem is not that they say what they say, but they say it and claim to be objective. We’re not asking that the government shut down these outlets nor that it mandate balance.

    You see, George, we’re a private organization. We believe we should be free to be critical of the MSM.

    Do you understand the difference? Let me repeat, just because we’re critical of the liberal MSM doesn’t mean we’re asking the government to mandate balancing it out.

    So, please, please, please tell me where you find that intellectual schism ’cause I, for one, sure don’t see it.

  5. I was reading Jonah Goldberg’s LIBERAL FASCISM over the weekend, and enjoyng it (as disturbing as it is) for the many damning quotes from “enlightened” Staat-shtuppers. But when Goldberg wrote it, it appeared Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic presidential nominee, and so there’s a chapter on Clintonista power-lust but only a couple of mention of Obama. Given the push to revive the Fairness Doctrine (or whatever legal Trojan Horse the Annointed One and his followers use in its place), Goldberg should issue an updated, “Yes, We Can” edition. The publisher should adverstide it with the slogan: “Now. More Than Ever.”

  9. What are four Senators going to do?

    I know it makes you guys feel good to think that Rush Limbaugh is threatening to liberals, but no one really gives a shit. I’ll bet you million dollars that there is no fairness doctrine implemented under President Obama, sound good?

  10. What are four Senators going to do?

    Persuade 47-53 other Senators who are philosophically inclined to regulate speech – since government regulation, or increasing the power of the State, is already their answer to absolutely everything.

    C’mon, Levi – Don’t ask questions with such obvious answers. Don’t throw us such obvious softballs.

  11. I’ll bet you million dollars that there is no fairness doctrine implemented under President Obama, sound good?

    Let’s see… At the rate Presidents Obama, Geithner, Bernanke, Pelosi and gReid are (1) deficit-spending, and (2) hyper-inflating the money supply, by 2012 a million dollars should be worth about $10 in today’s money… so… Yeah. Sounds good!

  12. P.S. Note the point of GPW’s post. It would be quite a grand thing if Senate Democrats tried to bring back the Orwellian “Fairness” Doctrine, and Obama signed it. It is so grossly, blatantly un-American that it will make a wonderful issue for the GOP, and the length and bitterness of the debate may well derail some other Democratic initiatives. So maybe we’re half-wishing here that they will go ahead with their threats (made in the 2008 campaign) to try and bring it back.

  13. I know it makes you guys feel good to think that Rush Limbaugh is threatening to liberals, but no one really gives a shit. I’ll bet you million dollars that there is no fairness doctrine implemented under President Obama, sound good?

    Levi,
    There is a great deal you need to learn about your own party and about history. Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994 after about 30 years in the majority. They subsequently lost the presidency in 2000 and 2004, as well as midterms that they believe, and history dictates, they should have won.

    They lay a large part of the blame at Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio’s feet even if you do not.

    What’s more, if you were paying attention, you would notice that everything at the top of their agenda, from the deceptively-named “stimulus” to socialized health care, to immigration reform, to seizing control of the census, is designed not to help American’s, but to make Americans more dependent on big government, and thus them, and make it impossible for them to ever lose power again.

    But you are right about one thing. Obama is not terribly eager to pass a new “fairness” doctrine — he wants to accomplish the same thing with “local control” and direct FCC regulation. So while he may not go the fairness doctrine route, he is still very much intent on driving conservative radio off the air.

    Fascism always comes from the left.

  15. Elephant – I’m not a Democrat. That party is a total joke, and you seem to hold them in higher esteem than I do if you think them capable of pulling off the sort of political feats you’re describing. They’d probably need 75 seats in the Senate to even begin to think about nationalizing health care.

    I’m also totally capable of understanding the importance of talk radio to the conservative movement and to conservative electoral success. It keeps you all nice and placated, frothing at the mouth about illegal immigration or abortion or General Betray-Us ads or GOD DAMN AMERICA, while the Republicans you send to Washington are giving themselves tax cuts and figuring out how to get away with war-profiteering — but Oh! Look over there! Obama isn’t wearing a flag pin!

    Finally, government is a good thing. We’d still be living in caves and foraging for berries if it wasn’t for people getting together, getting organized, and getting roads built, and irrigation canals dug, and walls erected, and on and on. Government has given us the freedom to be creative and scientific, governments have saved the world from tyranny. The idea that we can now discard government, when human civilization is as large and as complex as it has ever been, in favor of pure, free markets, is just utter insanity. I think it’s you who needs the history lesson.

    That’s not to say that government has no cons, or that free markets have no pros. Devoting yourself singularly to either of those philosophies isn’t just unwise, it’s suicidal. If we’re smart about this, we can have enjoy the perks of both while minimizing or even eliminating entirely the drawbacks. What’s wrong with that?

  16. They’d probably need 75 seats in the Senate to even begin to think about nationalizing health care.

    They already have begun nationalizing heathcare with the expansion of SCHIPS and the federal health care czar they slipped into the stimulus. Try to keep up.

    while the Republicans you send to Washington are giving themselves tax cuts

    …and everyone else who pays taxes, which of course doesnt include Democrats. Most of you dont pay any to begin with, and the rest, like just about everyone Obama has nominated, simply cheat.

    and figuring out how to get away with war-profiteering

    So far the only people guilty of war profiteering are Dianne Feinstein and Jack Murtha.

    The idea that we can now discard government, when human civilization is as large and as complex as it has ever been, in favor of pure, free markets, is just utter insanity. I think it’s you who needs the history lesson.

    Well that’s clearly the straw man, so you must be Dorothy! Or perhaps the wicked witch?

    Who said anything about not needing government?

    I said Democrats were trying to increase the size of government, and make Americans dependent on it, which is a pretty good definition for soft tyranny.

  17. The idea that we can now discard government, when human civilization is as large and as complex as it has ever been, in favor of pure, free markets, is just utter insanity.

    Nobody is talking about “discarding government”. What we’re talking about is the subordinating freedom and liberty to arrogant bastards who think they know better than we do, those who believe that we’re too damn stupid to spend the money that we earn.

    but no one really gives a shit.

    You don’t think the folks who have created failure after failure after failure in the medium give a shit? The only people who don’t give a shit here are the people who don’t want to listen to liberal bullshit.

    You also forget Harry Reid already abused his power demanding that Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen, be silenced and several liberals in the senate signed on to it. If nobody gave a shit, they wouldn’t be taking such desperate measures. Al Franken wouldn’t be trying so damn hard to matter and make a little coke money in the process.

    Elephant – I’m not a Democrat. That party is a total joke, and you seem to hold them in higher esteem than I do

    You’ll pardon me if I call bullshit. If I had a dollar for everytime I’ve read such a comment, I’d be in the bracket for Chairman Obama’s punitive taxes.

  19. #12: The “Fairness” Doctrine will never cross Obama’s desk. What will happen is that his new FCC chief will make it a “regulation”, not a law. Failure to follow the regulation will result in having the offending outlet’s FCC license revoked. This way His Holiness the Obamessiah will get what he wants – silencing of his political adversaries – while being able to say that *he* wasn’t the one who put it in place.

  21. Come on. Levi could be a Green, an imported European socialist, a Communist, a Left neo-fascist (but I repeat myself: fascists are leftists), or an Independent sympathizer with any of the preceding.

    Just as I happen to be an ex-Democrat, now-Independent sympathizer with classical liberalism / semi-conservative libertarianism.

    Finally, government is a good thing. We’d still be living in caves and foraging for berries if it wasn’t for people getting together, getting organized, and getting roads built, and irrigation canals dug, and walls erected, and on and on.

    What a contorted viewpoint. Yes, government is a good thing – When it does what it is supposed to do, which is: bring the use of retaliatory force under objective control. Government is supposed to evaluate (as objectively as may be possible) who has injured whom, and then redress the matter, isolate the offender, etc., so people won’t destroy society with private wars and vendettas. Also, government is to be the designated agent in preventing and/or fighting foreign wars. Yes, government is good, insofar as it fulfills those purposes. But the rest of what you mentioned is bullcrap. Government’s job is NOT to build the Pyramids. Government’s job is NOT to “get people together”, and only a closeted fascist (a closeted worshiper of State power) thinks otherwise is.

    Government has given us the freedom to be creative and scientific

    No, Levi. *GOD* has given us the freedom to be creative and scientific. Governments are merely something we all institute to protect that. And government very often fails to protect it, becoming the oppressor that must be protected against.

    You’ve taken something granted by God and attributed it to government instead, thus placing government in the place of God… Good job, as I said earlier, of worshipping State power.

  23. The Fairness Doctrine can only be fair if it will include NPR, PBS, tv networks (ABC,NBC, & CBS), and the print media, newspapers and magazines, like Time and Newsweek. If Republican legislators insist on the act to be all inclusive, I wonder how many Democrats will vote for it. If it is only aimed at talk radio, it will be as ILC #12, said, ¨it will make a wonderful issue for the GOP. .¨

  24. I kind of miss the ol’ days of arguing the Fairness Doctrine with cowboyBob Mr Moderate and raj and the other lower case clan. They brought a much better game to the debate. Sigh.