Hinchey All Pinchy

From a moronic piece in Salon calling for a possible return of the "fairness doctrine" to broadcast radio and TV:

Media consolidation "is the most critical issue facing the American people today: whether to allow a handful of people to determine what information we receive and influence the decisions we make," says Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., who will head the soon-to-be announced Media Reform Caucus in Congress. "In a free and open society, in a democratic republic, you need a free and open discussion of the issues. We don't have that today."

Whole thing here (sitting through annoying free daypass ad req).

Let's just point out two quick things: The fairness doctrine stifled political discussion. And the media consolidation bit is a bunch of malarkey. As Stan Lee might say, Read on McDuff!

Comments

[UFP]

Doesn't it seem like Democrats are just trying their hardest to keep Republicans in power as long as they can? How hard will it be for the Right to say "Look! The Left wants to stifle us!", and frankly, it'll be true. Hopefully this "Media Reform Caucus" will be a silly little club and have no real power in the Democratic side of the House, because it's crap like this that is sinking the Democrats and making them nothing more than a permanent minority party in this country.

[Call me snake]

You know, it's things like that last sentence that make this website so irresistable.

Excelsior!!!

[chthus]

This is indeed the most critical issue of the day, and one that I've been hungering to discuss. But where? If only congress will grant such a free and open forum, I'll be eternally grateful.

[Shannon Love]

"The fairness doctrine stifled political discussion."

For the proponents of the new fairness doctrine, that's not a bug, it's a feature.

[joe]

Since the Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast media...

And since, as you remind us on a daily basis, there are plenty of internet sites and publication to provide the content/pov that might be missing from the broadcasters...

You obviously wouldn't be missing anything if a new Fairness Doctrine influenced the broadcasters' content in a way you didn't like.

[Todd Fletcher]

What a rousing endorsement there, joe.

Welcome back Shannon.

[sage]

call me snake, which 'last sentence' are you referring to? The last sentence in the excerpt, the last sentence of the whole article, or the last sentence of Mr. Gillespie's post?

[joe]

Not an endorsement at all, Fletch. I just noticed that the gander was a bit dried out. Care to pass me the sauce?

[SPD]

Don't broadcasting corporations exist that promote alternate viewpoints on various topics? Like PBS (don't laugh; at least they make an effort)?

[Lowdog]

But joe, if the shoe was on the other foot, wouldn't you be upset? I think that's what the big deal is.

[wellfellow]

Joe,

I wouldn't miss anything if people in Arizona weren't allowed to eat chicken, either. I believe it's a problem in principle.

[joe]

Well, fellow, that's quite a different argument than asserting that a Fairness Doctrine would stifle political discussion.

[Shannon Love]

Joe,

The Fairness Doctrine came into being because broadcast media had such colossal barriers to entry and because it was perceived to have such an overpowering voice in the public space. The Doctrine existed, in theory, to prevent narrow interest from gaining exclusive control of a powerful public resource.

In the present world, the very diversity of information channels in all media obviates the need for a Fairness Doctrine. Broadcast is no longer such a overwhelmingly loud voice in the modern world. Regulating speech on broadcast now in such a fashion would not serve the public interest the way the original doctrine was intended to.

I should had also, that in practice the Fairness Doctrine did the exact opposite of its stated function. Broadcasters settled into a consensus Left-of-Center viewpoint which they uniformly broadcast to everybody. Dissenting voices were almost never heard. Proponents of the Fairness Doctrine today want to return to that era where the Left controlled the most powerful mediums.

[joe]

I dig, Shannon. I was just being snarky, about the oddness of Gillespie worrying that a change in broadcast media's policy would stifle political discourse.

[Todd Fletcher]

I don't think it would be harmful, I think it would be irrelevant.

The revealing thing is the blind cluelessness of Mr Hinchey. Although keeping his sort busy with this kind of nonsense may have some benefit.

[Steve]

Just so everyone knows...

You don't have to sit through the day pass commercials every day. If you edit the expiration date of the cookies they give you every time it gets near, the day pass will never expire. (Kind of like copyright term extension).

[Shannon Love]

Steve,

Ooooh! Script time!

[Larry A]

Actually, I think that this Media Reform Caucus might be a fine thing, given the good Representative's reasoning: "In a free and open society, in a democratic republic, you need a free and open discussion of the issues. We don't have that today."

Surely the first step will be to repeal the Patriot Act and Campaign Finance Reform.

Oh, wait. We're talking about the U.S. Congress.

Never mind.

[Eric the .5b]

I was just being snarky, about the oddness of Gillespie worrying that a change in broadcast media's policy would stifle political discourse.

Because it's so terribly mysterious why someone might not worry so much about what people choose to say in broadcast media versus what they're forced to say or to let other people say on their dime.

[Douglas Fletcher]

"In a free and open society, in a democratic republic, you need a free and open discussion of the issues. We don't have that today."

Well how's this for discussion, Mr. Hinchey -- you must be one of the major jackasses roaming the halls of Congress. What an amazing achievement.

Care to rebut?