Article

2009-11-10 Home Front: Politix

Who's afraid of the big, bad Fairness Doctrine?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2009-11-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 Nice sleight of hand! Yeah, what could possibly be wrong with a government commission deciding on what is 'fair' and who gets to speak.

Posted by SteveS 2009-11-10 01:40|| 2009-11-10 01:40|| Front Page Top

#2 This sounds very much like the old arguments in favor of racial segregation. That it is just more "natural" that people live and work and go to school apart based on their skin color. That the force of law was needed to insure that there wouldn't be "race mixing". That 'they' "are just happier with their own kind."

Defenders of segregation could rationalize the most obvious oppression and disparity. So apparently can defenders of censorship.

Instead of the "Fairness" Doctrine, why not take what the chairman of the FCC has said to heart, that what the media needs is more "diversity"? However, since the media are in huge white dominated corporations, this should mean using the antitrust laws to break up the great monoliths.

Just because those great monoliths are almost entirely leftist shouldn't matter at all.

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-11-10 07:40|| 2009-11-10 07:40|| Front Page Top

#3 About the 'author' (from article comments section}:

Mr. Almond quit his position as a professor at Boston College because Boston College invited Bush's African-American Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, to speak at Boston College.

Doesn't this tell us everything we need to know about Mr. Almond?

Posted by Tom- Pa 2009-11-10 08:21|| 2009-11-10 08:21|| Front Page Top

#4 Sounds like he's all for the 'fairness doctrine' only if it applies to conserative talk radio.

Kind of a "Fairness for me, but not for thee' kind of thing.

And why should conservative talk radio have a nobody like Mr Almond on?

Posted by CrazyFool 2009-11-10 08:37|| 2009-11-10 08:37|| Front Page Top

#5 Lets see what people will pay good money to hear?

Let's be "fair" and see what gets the dinero from the folks. If they want it ..they will pay to hear it.

NPR can compete with Limbaugh and the rest of what comes at you across the dial. Let's see who gets the most listeners, shall we? That's fair.

No need to "regulate" what's "fair". Just leave it alone and see what Human Nature has in its wallet. Regulating Human Nature ? Good Luck.

Posted by Angleton9 2009-11-10 09:14|| 2009-11-10 09:14|| Front Page Top

#6 Where where the people who were concerned about fairness when the liberals and left had a lock on broadcast media in the 60s, 70s and 80s? Why do we now need a Fairness Doctrine for diversity when we didn't need one then? What is different? The success of talk radio and Fox are the only real differences. It's all about power.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-11-10 09:25|| 2009-11-10 09:25|| Front Page Top

#7 And the internet Proc.

Don't for a miniute think that Blogs such as Rantburg, Michelle Malkin, Ace of Spades, etc... are not going to be included in a 'fairness doctrine'. Both the Democrats and Traditional (MSM) media are in terror of the free Internet. And for good reason.

Posted by CrazyFool 2009-11-10 09:28|| 2009-11-10 09:28|| Front Page Top

#8 If the world were right and the Republicans smart the would allow this to pass and then HAMMER newspapers, movies and TV.

Posted by Hellfish 2009-11-10 11:29|| 2009-11-10 11:29|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm sure Newspapers, Movies and TV (MSM) will have an out. Likely something about exemption for 'traditional media'......

Posted by CrazyFool 2009-11-10 11:35|| 2009-11-10 11:35|| Front Page Top

#10 Reasonable opportunity for the likes of Randi Rhodes would be flipping burgers or working at WalMart.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-11-10 14:24|| 2009-11-10 14:24|| Front Page Top

#11 To be honest cable news (except Fox) really needs the fairness doctrine. They won't provide serious alternate viewpoints and they will continue to slide into irrelevancy without it.

What also cracks me up is the conceit that suddenly with lefties on Rush's show from time to time (they are invited now but most are smart enough to avoid a direct challenge) that they'll somehow gain ground. There is a reason Fox News only gets the second tier lefties, those with nothing to lose, because the lefty arguements are generally based on emotional please and stawmen and that rarely survives against logic and facts.

Posted by rjschwarz 2009-11-10 18:11|| 2009-11-10 18:11|| Front Page Top

#12 "Reasonable opportunity for the likes of Randi Rhodes would be flipping burgers or working at WalMart."

Doubtful, Ebbang.

Wal-Mart has standards....

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2009-11-10 18:25|| 2009-11-10 18:25|| Front Page Top

23:18 Frank G
23:06 DMFD
22:56 hammerhead
22:52 hammerhead
22:50 hammerhead
22:41 SteveS
22:40 SteveS
22:39 DMFD
22:35 SteveS
22:25 SteveS
22:01 Mike N.
22:01 lord garth
21:46 Skunky Glins****
21:45 CrazyFool
21:40 Pappy
21:38 Frank G
21:27 Bodyguard
21:27 Broadhead6
21:26 Broadhead6
21:21 Frank G
21:21 Broadhead6
21:20 Frank G
21:09 Rambler in Virginia
20:58 Parabellum