Nov 8th, 2008 at 10:02 am
A Question of Fairness
Am I the only one who’s confused by all this conservative organizing against the re-imposition of the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio? I understand why they oppose that move, but why are they putting so much energy into blocking something that nobody is trying to do. A Fairness Act bill was submitted in the House in 2005, but it only 16 cosponsors. No such bill was submitted in the last conference. Barack Obama opposes reintroducing the Fairness Act. And speaking as a paid-up member of the vast left-wing conspiracy, nobody on our side is getting any marching orders about this.
I guess they need something to talk about on the radio shows, but I’d just focus in on Obama’s plan to turn the United States into a socialist dystopia.
54 Responses to “A Question of Fairness”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
COIN
Congress
DC
Denmark
Economics
Economy
education
Energy
Environment
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
Philosophy
planning
Political Reform
Proliferation
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Science
Sports
Stimulus
Sweden
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 8th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Talk radio these days has been an absolute wasteland of intellectual discourse. Although it is helpful when folks like yourself come out and rule out an insane idea like the fairness doctrine.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:06 am
It’s fear mongering, that’s all. If you’re gonna keep squeezing cash out of this turnip, you’ve gotta have a fear campaign. Now that the election is over and the Congress is lame-duck they’ve gotta come up with something to tide them over until President Obama takes office. Gotta keep the loot coming in to the 527s and conservative organizations. What better way than to tell the base that the evil Socialist Democrat Party is going to take them away their talk radio teat?
Remember when we had all of this flag-burning stuff going on and no one was really burning any flags? Same principle.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:11 am
this is like being confused about why gun-nuts are buying guns in huge quantities right now, convinced that the obama administration is going to confiscate them, despite his completely ordinary common-sense position on guns.
it’s because they live in an alternative universe of lies and distortions.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Just for a little schadenfreude, I have started listening
to the local station in San Diego that carries
Michael Savage. If any poor souls takes these guys at
the face value, they must be really depressed at
the foregone conclusion that the end of capitalism
is imminent and that Obama will tie all conservatives,
especially white males, in chains and send them off
to a remote island.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:24 am
More and uglier pictures of the demon Limbaugh, please.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:25 am
The object is to get as many influential Dems as possible to disavow bringing back the fairness doctrine. The right ran this game back when the civil rights legislation came along: next thing you know, they will want compensatory preferences. The idea was to use the then-present unviability of affirmative action to get pro-civil rights pols on the record against affirmative action, in order to foreclose against it becoming acceptable later.
All’s fair in love and politics, I guess, but no one not on the loony right should be afraid of Rush Limbaugh, or any of that defeated and disgraced faction.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I generally agree.
But Matt should note that some Democratic senators, e.g. Feinstein and Durbin, recently have mentioned reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine — and the issues are interesting.
On the other hand, Rush, Hannity etc. have been raging against Obama for a year. They seem not to have affected the vote. Their evident impotence may indicate that we don’t need a Fairness Doctrine at all, at least from an electoral standpoint. Aesthetically and morally, they’re a blight on the land, but that’s another question.
Dan Tompkins
November 8th, 2008 at 10:33 am
This off-the-wall right wing concern is symptomatic of the current pathology of their declining, decadent movement. After hearing some of the utterly nutty charges and assertions made recently by conservatives I know who I would have considered previously to be of at least average intelligence, I have concluded that they are now thoroughly lost inside the labyrinth of their own echo chamber, and simply don’t even hear what their opponents are saying anymore. We can also expect them to start mobilizing against government ownership of the means of production, or against the incarceration of straight white males in socialist re-education camps.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Preemptive strike?
November 8th, 2008 at 10:43 am
My take on it is that it’s a preemptive strike against possible reregulation of the broadcast industry. Limbaugh’s audience would go down 90%, if he wasn’t broadcast on five stations in the same town.
They can howl that reregulation would be “fairness doctrine” in disguise.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:43 am
I tend to agree with those who suggest this is pre-emptive. In fact, there are very good, and long standing, reasons — many of which are referenced in the ‘findings’ section of the bill Matt cited — for doing this. Not least, because “a monopoloy of ideas is antithetical to our democracy.”
It seems to me that the real telling thing in the corner post is that they’re looking for something besides the “fairness act” to call it, thinking they need a rhetorical wedge.
Finally, what’s their motivation? Surely the point here is to protect the ‘right’ of a few extremely rich conservative powers to monopolize large chunks of media in single markets and across the country. Surely we can say that has had quite a bit to do with the general rightward distortion of public discourse in this country over the past couple decades, no? Think how much *harder* it’ll be for the christian right if they don’t have a consolidated media to project their message.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Why are they so worried about this? If there is a Fairness Doctrine, Fox News and conservative talk radio won’t be the only organization affected, right? The so-called “liberal media cabals” like MSNBC or CBS would also have to follow the Fairness Doctrine. So it should be a win-win situation for everyone, right?
Their fear of this shows that they absolutely realize and know for a fact that Fox News are not “fair and balanced”, and the notion of liberal media bias they have been pushing is not true. Otherwise, why would they be afraid? They should be rejoicing; no more liberal media bias, yay!
November 8th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Their talking about the fairness doctrine because Senator Schumer brought it up this week.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/schumer-defends-fairness-doctrine-as-fair-and-balanced-2008-11-04.html
If the Fairness Doctrine is used to eliminate talk radio, the AM band only have foreign language and religious radio.
All of the conservative talk would just move to satellite.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I’m with Mary@5. I’m partial to KO’s shot of the arrogant ass and his cigar. Says well over 1,000 words about him, every one of them true.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Dan Kervick wrote: I have concluded that they are now thoroughly lost inside the labyrinth of their own echo chamber.
This is spot on. (Anecdote alert!) I work with two very well-educated gentlemen in the finance industry in what is perhaps the most liberal county/area in the US. My colleagues are professed conservatives, but one of them admitted to voting for Obama. On Wednesday morning they were matter-of-factly discussing Obama’s plans to enforce a police state. Apparently Obama had announced plans to create some sort of national police force. Being “economic conservatives,” they were concerned as much about the fiscal impact of supplying jackboots to such a nationwide force as they were about the implications for civil liberties.
Still buzzing from the excitement of Tuesday, I simply didn’t have the energy the question the source or the logic of there claims. Is this some talk radio meme? It truly is an alternate universe.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:33 am
It has nothing to do with the fairness doctrine, and the mobilization to get people to buy guns has nothing to do with the second amendment. It’s deliberate manipulation, because the whole viability of the Republican party beyond the 5 percent of Americans who actually benefit from its economic policy depends on fear. Especially since the end of the Cold War, an “us vs them” mentality has to be created every single day. Hence the range of myths and ballot referenda over the last years, on everything from Obama’s religion to terrorism to gay marriage.
They say Joe McCarthy started his crusade basically as an opportunist, and I was never sure what to believe, but I have no doubt at all about the GOP today. It’s sad that, thanks in no small part to talk radio and the end of the fairness doctrine, that enough special interest groups and enough ignorant Americans exist dying to be manipulated.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I’d think Limbaugh would be more worried about Congress enacting a bunch of “Gary Glitter” passport laws. It would mean he and his Viagra would have to settle for evenings curled beneath a warm blanket and the dependable company of Rosie Palm.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I agree #6 and #14. Also, for Limbaugh and others, it’s useful self-promotion to take something that never was going to happen, target it with extra bombast and bullshit, and then claim victory for their oh-so-powerful selves when it doesn’t happen. After having backed losers in both the primaries and the general election, they need to remind their listeners of how powerful they are.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
As an aside, I think the Fairness Doctrine sucked, and in general I would like to see the FCC get out of the content-control business entirely.
Anyhoo, as others pointed out, a major part of the shtick of this segment of the entertainment business is the notion that they are constantly under seige. So, that is what this is all about.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
If right-wing talk radio wants hegemony over AM radio, I say let them have it. I’m also willing to cede to them corduroy roads, buggy whips (oooh, hot!), corsets, lard, castor oil, chewing tobacco, cock-fighting, the Confederate battle flag, eight-track tapes and Hank Williams Jr.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
This speaks more to right-wingers’ persecution complex than anything else. It’s always struck me that the party of rich, white men, of evangelical Christians, thinks the world is out to get it. Memo: You control the world. Well, did control the world. Heh.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
It has to do with a number of influential senators bringing it up – Schumer, Feinstein, Durnin, Reid.
Let’s try this thought experiment: Say it was totally reversed politically in terms of who held the house, senate, and presidency. Let’s further posit that a few influential Republican senators started talking about banning abortion at the federal level. Would you sit quietly and assume that it was “just idle talk”, or would you start worrying that it might lead to some activity?
November 8th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine would lead to the firing of right wing media HOSTS. Their ejaculatory whining is just self-interest.
November 8th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I’ve got a better idea: Current FCC rules limit each coporation to a maximum of 8 stations in a given market. Why can’t Senator Obama decapitate the right-wing noise machine by appointing FCC commissioners who lower the number to a maximum of 4? That will force Clear Channel and RadioOne to start selling off spectrum for other groups to use.
Also: Currently public stations of a certain power are required to run “public service” programming for a certain number of hours. Why not expand that rule to corporate stations? If they refuse to comply, just strip them of their license.
See, there are so many ways to use the FCC to beat the shit out of the opposition!
November 8th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
On Wednesday I saw a list of items for Obama to enact in pursuit of a progressive agenda and reinstating the fairness doctrine was #2 on the list. There are people talking about it out there and it does give the wingnuts a “war against Christmas” type victimization topic.
November 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Why can’t there be some way to put more weight behind slander charges. Both side would be forced to be more honest. Not just we need to give the opposing party more opportunity to sling more mud.
That seems fair to me
November 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
But Matt should note that some Democratic senators, e.g. Feinstein and Durbin, recently have mentioned reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine — and the issues are interesting.
Schumer, too. I’m not a big fan of this kind of thing, and with respect to talk radio, I’m not overly eager to hear a reduction in radio wingnuttery because of its genuinely robust entertainment value. There’s nothing to keep you company — and keep you chuckling — when you’re heading up I95 through the wilds of Maine to the Canadian border — like Rush Limbaugh.
The so-called “liberal media cabals” like MSNBC or CBS would also have to follow the Fairness Doctrine. So it should be a win-win situation for everyone, right?
Well, in fairness to the wingnuts, it’s not like their side would be setting the rules, so I think this time their usual paranoia might be somewhat justified.
In other news, it appears talk radio might not need persecution from Stalinist Liberals, given its shitty demographics and declining listenership.
November 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Tim says:
Why are they so worried about this? If there is a Fairness Doctrine, Fox News and conservative talk radio won’t be the only organization affected, right? The so-called “liberal media cabals” like MSNBC or CBS would also have to follow the Fairness Doctrine. So it should be a win-win situation for everyone, right?
That’s assuming that everyone agrees on a definition of fairness. Is Keith Olbernman considered to be more fair and balanced than Bill O’Reilly? Less so? The same?
Excatly who is going to determine what constitutes “fairness” or what the “middle” is around which you need to balance your point of views?
Their fear of this shows that they absolutely realize and know for a fact that Fox News are not “fair and balanced”, and the notion of liberal media bias they have been pushing is not true. Otherwise, why would they be afraid? They should be rejoicing; no more liberal media bias, yay!
The assumption appears to be that MSNBC and CNN are more fair and balancd than Fox. Whether MSNBC and/or has a liberal bias or no bias is in the eye of the beholder. There is not necessarily an objective way to determine this. What Limbaugh and others fear is that with the Democrats in charge, liberal biases will be ignored and conservative biases exaggerrated in the imposition of “fairness.”
(I should point out here that although I use Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN as examples to prove a point about bias subjectivity, none of these would likely be affected by the Fairness Doctrine as all of them are cable rather than broadcast).
November 8th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Doesn’t the fairness doctrine only apply to broadcast networks anyway? So FM/AM radio and ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox (the network not news) would be covered? MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc can do whatever they want.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
It isn’t likely to happen and I don’t think it should anyway. A literal Fairness Doctrine as imagined by rightist opponents would be a stretch, and I don’t think it’s good to mull over hours of content to see how much it leans one way or another – and then demand correction. However, we likely can and should require two things of permitted broadcasters:
1. Recourse for rebuttal by anyone actually mentioned on air in a demeaning way.
2. Require a certain amount of locally-produced content, to fight the power of big absentee conglomerates.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
If I was Limbaugh, I would worry far more about being ’spitzered’ via universal wiretapping than about being muzzled through the Fairness Doctrine.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“It’s always struck me that the party of rich, white men”
I would appreciate your not slurring rich, white men.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Welcome to today’s edition of “Matt Yglesias, Brain Surgean”!
In this edition, MattY doesn’t even know that CAP – the group he works for – has a cutesy workaround for widespread opposition to the FD.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Its the media conglomerates that are the real problem here. I don’t mind media thats slanted one way or the other, heck thats a great American tradition, as long as they are somewhat candid about it anyway. Local content would go a long way towards ending the stranglehold of corporatist propaganda, if not necessarily lunatic right wing yakkers who, lets face it, exist on the local level as well. I like the idea about having fair recourse if you are mentioned as well.
November 8th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Rush, it’s called the “Fairness” Doctrine for a reason. Fox News, do you have a problem with actual, verifiable fairness?
If you folks on the right didn’t spend so much time lying, smearing and distracting, reasonable people wouldn’t feel such a strong need to impose rational rules of media conduct.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:50 am
I’ll take “issues without a constituency on the left” for $100, Alex.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:59 am
“See, there are so many ways to use the FCC to beat the shit out of the opposition!”
This kind of sentiment is what the worry is for. The “Fairness Doctrine” would be nothing more than a weapon to be used by whoever is in power.
November 9th, 2008 at 2:34 am
They are apparently not paying attention to their own blogs. First the alliance of demon liberals and the left wing conspiracy need to gather and destroy all the Bibles. Only then will they be able to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine. (Does anyone have a schedule for when the Bible collection trucks come around?)
January 9th, 2009 at 1:47 am
I suspect it’s more of a “Look we beat the Democrat party” kind of thing. It gives them a cheap and easy “victory” to crow about.
It’s also a fairly nice fund raising pitch–”Look. we’ve proven we can stop B.HUSSEIN OSAMA and his evil Democrat minions. We need more money to keep stopping them. Give now!”
January 9th, 2009 at 1:53 am
Stopping this evil Democrat conspiracy also proves how big and poerful they are, something which makes them get all warm and tingly when they touch themselves in their “special place”
January 9th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Abe -#25 comment is right on. It’s about media ownership. Nobody cares about the Fairness Doctrine, we don’t want it, it won’t work. It’s about as relevant as buddy whips. When the right starts fighting against revision of ownership rules then you can get worried. All the best progressive thinkers on media say we need more minority and more diverse ownership. Not by mandate, but by prohibiting the huge conglomeration that has been going on.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:26 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
laptop battery
February 14th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Rush, it’s called the “Fairness” Doctrine for a reason. Fox News, do you have a problem with actual, verifiable fairness?
If you folks on the right didn’t spend so much time lying, smearing and distracting, reasonable people wouldn’t feel such a strong need to impose rational rules of media conduct.
Fairness defined: The radio hosts with the most audience get the most radio play and the highest ad rates.
The Left has defined the Right as liars, smear merchants, crooks etc. and they have defined themselves as reasonable people. Doesn’t that strike anyone as Orwellian or, maybe Alinskyan (Sp?).
March 1st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
cialis
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:42 am
levitraIncredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:27 am
Great site. Good info
March 14th, 2009 at 5:07 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:04 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:10 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra
April 17th, 2009 at 5:51 am
Rush did me for 120 Washingtons. He’s limp.