Radio

Obama: No Fairness Doctrine For Me

|

The good news: White House just says no to reviving the Fairness Doctrine:

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday. […]

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

Bad news: As Managing Editor Jesse Walker explained in November, there are plenty of other ways the new administration will likely mismanage the Federal Communications Commission.

Link via Instapundit.

NEXT: NYT Takes Toys from Babies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good for Obama.
    Fair’s fair.

  2. Well if he doesn’t appoint Chelsea Clinton as head of the FCC that would be a good start.

  3. Where’s joe to brag about this? Is he still on his cruise?

  4. He’s doing this because everyone but Fox is in the tank for him! He doesn’t need a Fairness Doctrine! Chris Matthews and thrills down legs!

    Seriously, though, that’s good to hear.

    “Plaque is a figment of the liberal media and the dental industry to scare you into buying useless appliances and pastes. Now, I’ve read the arguments on both sides, and I haven’t found any evidence yet to support the need to brush your teeth. Ever.”

  5. Never could figure out why Republicans were screaming about this.

  6. So what? First off, there’s no quote from Obama directly, and second, I think we all know by now that what Obama says he will or will not do has very little to do with what he actually will or will not do.

    But whatever. I don’t think we’re in serious danger of having the Doctrine reinstated. It’s a possibility, sure, but not much of a probability. The democrats have more important things to do, like ruin the economy.

  7. Chuck Schumer will be less than thrilled. I imagine a pity party in a pink parka for that pussy. Of course it will be televised.

  8. Never could figure out why Republicans were screaming about this.

    Because it’s the only thing Obama might have done that Bush already hasn’t…

  9. Well, this could be good news.

    However, what our Parsin’ President has said through proxies is that he opposes instituting the “Fairness Doctrine”.

    Note what he didn’t say: that he was opposed in principle to requiring equal time for differing views or other content regulation. Nope, only the Fairness Doctrine, by name. Which means that the Parsin’ President has miles and miles of wiggle room on this issue.

    One item of discussion between Congressional Dems and the FCC, after all, is what to call their new content regulation scheme.

    So I would say that the door is still wide open on this one. Whether they can take a break from spending our money long enough to get around to it, who can say?

  10. RC is right. BO is a lying sack of shit. He is just going to use the FCC to put in the fairness doctrine by another name. Go over to Politico sometime and read some of their comment threads. Most of BO’s supporters don’t beleive in the 1st Amendment and want the government to shut down FoxNews, right wing blogs and talk radio. If his more derranged supporters had their way, and he has many of them, nothing would be published or said in this country that didn’t march to the party line.

  11. One other thing. If we had something besides a state run media, someone would be asking BO follow up qestions about other FCC actions and ownership laws. Of course if they did that BO would puff up and ask if he could just eat his waffel and the reporter would never be allowed within 100 feet of him again.

  12. Here’s my page on the Fairness Doctrine. As you can see, saying he’s against the FD is basically just for show: he supports things that would have the same impact.

  13. My turn Taktix?,

    Shut the fuck up, lonewhackoff.

  14. We’re supposed to take politico comment threads over declaration of official policy? Uh, ok, John. You do know politico is an infamous troll breeding ground right?

    What’s next? Citing YouTube comment threads for what his foreign policy will be?

  15. Fox News, BTW, wouldn’t be shut down even if the fairness doctrine were re-instated. It’s on cable, cable channels are private, not public airwaves. Ditto the internet.

  16. Scratch the red paint off a leftist and you’ll find nothing but a G’damned facsist.

    There’s two ways to express an opinion. One way involves peacful discourse via keyboards, cameras, typwriters, quill pen, verbal speech, bumper stickers, etc., etc., etc. The other way (used throughout much of the world) involves improvised explosive devices packed with nails strategically placed in proximity to one’s opponent. The latter way is horrible, but in standard use throughout the world. The former is peacful and wonderfull and……..very, very unusual. I vote for the peaceful and unusual First Amendment. I hope the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ supporters see the light and agree. Most of them, however, are too stupid to even see the logic of not swimming in a septic tank.

  17. “Uh, ok, John. You do know politico is an infamous troll breeding ground right?”

    Just exactly where isn’t a breeding ground for trolls? Kos? Read any liberal blog or comment thread and you will find a contempt for free speech. It is more than just the fairness doctrine. Lots of liberals beleive that anything that can be defined as “hate speech” ought to be prohibited. Of course, they know exactly what “hate speech” is. If you don’t beleive these people exist or are just trolls, then I would advise you to look at Europe where strong views on subjects such as Islam can get you put on criminal trial. Many American liberals would like to see the same laws here. Yes, the 1st Amendment generally stops them, but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to do it.

  18. I don’t think DailyKos would be down with the fairness doctrine (especially to the internet), given that they are a partisan blog and wouldn’t exist under it.

    I think those nostalgic for the fairness doctrine tend to be older libs. Younger ones like their blogs and MSNBC too much.

  19. Who here still gets their news mainly from the big three nightly news or PBS? Anyone?

  20. Fox News, BTW, wouldn’t be shut down even if the fairness doctrine were re-instated. It’s on cable, cable channels are private, not public airwaves. Ditto the internet.

    Who said the new Not-The-Fairness-Doctrine would be confined to the public airwaves?

    The other way (used throughout much of the world) involves improvised explosive devices packed with nails strategically placed in proximity to one’s opponent. The latter way is horrible

    And very effective, as a certain Dutch parliamentarian is discovering.

  21. “Never could figure out why Republicans were screaming about this.”

    because being a victim is the highest priority in most of the sports bar style dickslappery that passes for political discourse these days.

    that and what taktix said.

  22. “because being a victim is the highest priority in most of the sports bar style dickslappery that passes for political discourse these days.”

    Yeah they are just a bunch of victims D-hex. That is it. Certainly, there nothing objectionable about the government mandating broadcast speech content. I mean really why would anyone have a problem with that? Are fucking insane?

  23. Good for Obama.
    Fair’sUnfair’s fair.

    Fixed.

  24. So he was against it when campaigning, and now ones again acknowledges he is against it.

    But it’s just some dasterdly trick to fool you into submission and the POUNCE WITH SOME FAIRNESS!

    That’s one sneaky dude eh?

  25. Davebo channeling joe while he is MIA?

  26. “Yeah they are just a bunch of victims D-hex. That is it. Certainly, there nothing objectionable about the government mandating broadcast speech content.”

    sports bar diplomacy strikes again.

    it’s insane because the fairness doctrine is fucking dead, and the people crowing about how it was going to come on down the pipe are doing so because they love being the fucking victim. maybe it’s a jesus thing, maybe it’s an american culture thing at this point.

    the fairness doctrine is a red herring. a stand-in. an engine of frothy madness for people so inclined to get wound up. twaddleknockery, if you will, or perhaps fuckfacery if you prefer such vulgarity.

  27. Hail Caesar! Hail Caesar and his glorious magnanimity for his decision to not do away with one of our freedoms. From every roof top, let us sing his praise for what he has given to us this day.

  28. But it’s just some dasterdly trick to fool you into submission and the POUNCE WITH SOME FAIRNESS!

    That’s one sneaky dude eh?

    Seriously! This is obviously a trick. Just another underhanded Chicago scandal. Can we start impeachment hearings yet?

  29. it’s insane because the fairness doctrine is fucking dead,

    Somebody needs to tell Nancy Pelosi.

  30. I try parody, but it always falls short of reality.

    Hail Caesar! Hail Caesar and his glorious magnanimity for his decision to not do away with one of our freedoms. From every roof top, let us sing his praise for what he has given to us this day.

    The Fairness Doctrine was never coming back. Obama confirms he does not intend to bring it back. This means he is like an emperor, or something. What exactly is the guy supposed to do? What would make you happy here?

  31. the fairness doctrine is a red herring. a stand-in. an engine of frothy madness for people so inclined to get wound up. twaddleknockery, if you will, or perhaps fuckfacery if you prefer such vulgarity.

    When the Democratic leadership expresses interest in restoring it why am I suppose to believe that they are not capable of doing so?

  32. When the Democratic leadership expresses interest in restoring it why am I suppose to believe that they are not capable of doing so?

    Help me out here. I can’t find any evidence of this outside of the wingnut blogs, and they overwhelmingly seem to rely on anonymous sources or poorly sourced assertions.

  33. max hats | February 18, 2009, 5:09pm | #
    I try parody, but it always falls short of reality.

    Hail Caesar! Hail Caesar and his glorious magnanimity for his decision to not do away with one of our freedoms. From every roof top, let us sing his praise for what he has given to us this day.

    The Fairness Doctrine was never coming back. Obama confirms he does not intend to bring it back. This means he is like an emperor, or something. What exactly is the guy supposed to do? What would make you happy here?

    I’ll help you out here. People have given Obama credit here for doing nothing more than not opposing a matter concerning free speech and continuing things along a course settled two hundred plus years ago, hence the overwrought fawning.

  34. RCD+John:Fairness Doctrine::joe:Card Check

    What exactly is the guy supposed to do? What would make you happy here?

    I’m pretty sure every frothy-mouthed conservative won’t be satisfied until and unless he pulls a William Henry Harrison.

    Much like they want to shoot Bernie Sanders the civil libertarian because [gasp!] [shock!] [horror!] he differs with them on economics.

    Some people…are just never happy. It’s constitutional, it’s written into their genes.

  35. I’ll help you out here. People have given Obama credit here for doing nothing more than not opposing a matter concerning free speech and continuing things along a course settled two hundred plus years ago, hence the overwrought fawning.

    This story isn’t notable as an occasion to praise Obama. It is notable because it directly contradicts the frequently asserted but poorly sourced meme that Obama wants to restore the Fairness Doctrine.

  36. Help me out here. I can’t find any evidence of this outside of the wingnut blogs, and they overwhelmingly seem to rely on anonymous sources or poorly sourced assertions

    Well, then you should write to the White House and tell them to stop feeding the fires.

    Good God man, are you even paying attention? Google is your friend. I found several mainstream media outlets quoting Democratic lawmakers supporting the return of the Fairness Doctrine with a cursory search in many cases they were the original sources I had already read months ago. So no magic wands wishing this away for you.

  37. I am amazed that anyone would take Obama’s “word” on anything.Pretty much all his campaign promises were lies.He will only tell the truth if it is politically expedient to do so.

  38. I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there, and I also think the equal time doctrine ought to come back. ? [O]ne of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements, and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views, and I think its been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public eye.

  39. I think the more appropriate question is, if Nancy Pelosi (whose support of the FD is about as well-sourced as it gets) gets it in a bill – will the bill bass and will Obama sign it. Or more precisely – do you trust Obama to veto some bill (which contains who knows what other porkulus that he wants/needs to stay afloat) just to sink the FD. He might not support it, but does anyone think he has the chops to go up against his own party to torpedo it?

  40. People have given Obama credit here for doing nothing more than not …

    Shame we couldn’t do that for GWB, the retarded special son.

  41. Good God man, are you even paying attention? Google is your friend. I found several mainstream media outlets quoting Democratic lawmakers supporting the return of the Fairness Doctrine with a cursory search in many cases they were the original sources I had already read months ago. So no magic wands wishing this away for you.

    How about a link? I skimmed half the articles on the front page of fairness+doctrine+pelosi. Which are the “mainstream outlets?” Human events, or Townhall?

    All I’m asking is a link for a well-sourced article that shows Pelosi stating an intent to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. The best I can find is a poorly sourced quote from some dinner where she thought the Fairness Doctrine was a good idea. There are miles between thinking something is a good idea in an informal context, and proposing legislation. I could have a field day posting quotes made by prominent republicans to church groups and think tanks.

    All I’m asking for is a link to a good article. If something is so obviously true, it should be pretty easy to prove, right?

  42. So Max hats and his opponents: what are you willing to put up to bet that Obama does or doesn’t push through some version of the so-called Fairness Doctrine?

  43. This story isn’t notable as an occasion to praise Obama.

    I was talking about a few of my libertarian buddies above, not Welch’s post.

  44. I see the wingnut racist libertards are out in full force. The day after an animal freedom fighter was murdered ib cold blood in Connecticut they are calling President Obama Ceasar,No doubt trying to associate him with the chimpanzee from Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.

  45. So Max hats and his opponents: what are you willing to put up to bet that Obama does or doesn’t push through some version of the so-called Fairness Doctrine?

    I’ve thought about offering a bet a few times, but I couldn’t figure out how to make things accountable, considering this would neccessarily take years to resolve. And this isn’t even a message board, where there is some contant link to our “profiles”

  46. http://www.multichannel.com/article/162933-Citing_Obama_Opposition_McDowell_Warns_Against_Fairness_Doctrine.php

    Great stuff from the FCC Chairman

    “As I watched his inaugural address last week,” he said, “I was struck by the relevance of the debate over the Doctrine to a section of his speech where he said, ‘To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history ….’ ‘I am encouraged that President Obama can, once and for all, end the speculation of whether something akin to the Doctrine will come back to life during his term.”

  47. It where more american’s get their news

    Yeah, it’s Fox, and doesn’t quote Pelosi Herself – but so what? Democrats support it!

  48. The ACLU supports the Fairness Doctrine – so It must be consistent with civil liberties – just like their stance on the 2nd Amendment!

  49. Some liberals support the FD because our public airwaves are so obviously completely infested by right-wing demagoguery that has driven a certain percentage of the American public into a completely delusional reality, and which has become the propaganda arm of one of the two major political parties.

    But most of us think of it as an outdated policy given the plethora of outlets for opinion in modern society.

    But if you get all your “news” from FOX or talk radio, you’d think the coming of the evil FD was a more pressing calamity than the financial crisis. It’s a big distracting sideshow, which right-wing media outlets are famous for.

    I for one am perfectly happy letting conservatives obsess over the right’s latest bogeyman. Leaves them paying attention to things that don’t matter and won’t ever be policy while the grownups are actually governing.

  50. I will say, Max Hats, you have alerted me to the curious fact that the New York Times has underreported what its home state senator has said on this matter. I did a lengthy site search there, and came up empty.

    However, here is Schumer speaking:
    not a rickroll

    Also, search under the Christian Science Monitor domain that is where Pelosi’s comments were originally reported.

  51. cough cough I for one am perfectly happy letting conservatives obsess over the right’s latest bogeyman. Leaves them paying attention to things that don’t matter and won’t ever be policy while the grownups are actually governing. hack cough.

  52. Tony, there is nothing grown up about the people governing today. They still believe most of the stupid things the rest of us realized by 8th grade to be unworkable.

    BTW, is HR 45 more or less of a boogeyman than a re-badged Fairness Doctrine?

  53. So Max hats and his opponents: what are you willing to put up to bet that Obama does or doesn’t push through some version of the so-called Fairness Doctrine?

    I don’t think he intends on doing anything in regard to the Fairness Act, perhaps it reflects his beliefs, and perhaps it is mere political pragmatism as it would empower a righteous fervor in rightwingers if it was reenacted. Most likely, true believers like Pelosi will threaten to bring the matter up and the Administration be forced to make a very public split with the Democratic congress unless they make some concessions like rattling a few licensee cages.

  54. J sub D | February 18, 2009, 5:34pm | #
    People have given Obama credit here for doing nothing more than not …

    Shame we couldn’t do that for GWB, the retarded special son.

    Hey, they hate us for our freedoms what better way to keep us safe than to deprive us of our freedoms?

    Back to
    I for one am perfectly happy letting conservatives obsess over the right’s latest bogeyman. Leaves them paying attention to things that don’t matter and won’t ever be policy while the grownups are actually governing.

    That is just sooo precious I want to put it up on the refrigerator door and stick a big shiny gold star on it.

  55. NEVER trust these bastards. ‘Tards like Henry Waxman want to sink government claws into Internet content, not just “right-wing talk radio”.

    Works great in North Korea, Cuba, and China, by the way. And we can create American jobs by having Google develop freedom-filtering software.

  56. It’s the Required Programming Doctrine. Stop abusing language on this site. The proposed law has nothing to do with fairness.

  57. From the FOX News link

    “I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told liberal radio host Bill Press last week. She said she expects hearings soon on reviving the policy, which was introduced in 1949 and abolished in 1987.

    Stabenow’s husband, Tom Athans, is and has been an executive at several liberal radio talk groups. [italics added]

    And that’s not all Tom has been doing.

    But wait!

  58. There is a world of difference a couple Senators making statements and Pelosi saying something should happen in a private dinner, and a full on movement to make things happen. Again, by these standards, do you know what I could pull up republican elected officials saying?

    Is there a movement to restore the Fairness Doctrine by the democratic leadership? It sure doesn’t sound like it.

  59. I screwed up second link.

    But wait! There’s more.

    Test your links in preview, folks. It will prevent you committing an embarassing faux pas like this.

  60. “Who said the new Not-The-Fairness-Doctrine would be confined to the public airwaves?

    Uh, because they’re private and not public?
    .

  61. The Courts (and Congress for that matter) ruled long, long, long ago that the Feds only have the power to regulate the public airwaves.

    Cable channels and the internet won’t be affected for the same reasons newspapers weren’t affected under the old FD. They’re not public, they’re private.

    “BUT BDB! WHAT IF TEH KONGRESS SEZ THEY R PUBLIK?”

    Hey, go look at that black helicopter, over there!

  62. Do you know how much fun you could have if you owned a black Blackhawk and flew it low over a conspiracy theorist’s house? Checking their blog to see that they’ve locked themselves in their homemade bomb shelter after telling their sycophants to continue to fight on after he gets taken away would be just about the best thing ever.

  63. The Courts (and Congress for that matter) ruled long, long, long ago that the Feds only have the power to regulate the public airwaves.

    That barrier is a statutory one, not a constitutional one in the aftermath of Wickard v Filburn and more recently Gonzalez v Raich. If the Feds have the power to regulate plants grown for consumption a few feet from where they will be consumed, they have the power to regulate anything.

  64. I’m the Emmanuel Goldstein of the modern conservative movement.

  65. Oh, and in case you haven’t read this yet, our new Atty General just called us “a nation of cowards”:

    “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards,” Holder said.

    Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, but “we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”

  66. See, I see the FD as a sort of litmus test for who’s a serious person and who just sits around getting fed the constant stream of BS from the right-wing media and their neverending quest to make themselves the victim of everything.

    Apparently I overestimated the seriousness of the Reason crowd.

  67. Tony | February 18, 2009, 10:10pm | #
    See, I see the FD as a sort of litmus test for who’s a serious person and who just sits around getting fed the constant stream of BS from the right-wing media and their neverending quest to make themselves the victim of everything.

    Apparently I overestimated the seriousness of the Reason crowd.

    And obviously you are completely full of shit. What? Did that let you down, too?

  68. “BUT BDB! WHAT IF TEH KONGRESS SEZ THEY R PUBLIK?”

    Hey, go look at that black helicopter, over there!

    Are you embarrassed embarrassed that we are even discussing the matter BDB? What seriously embarrasses me are milquetoast libertarians who are afraid they are going to be lumped in with right wing radio if a subject matter that is embarrassing to liberals comes up. How could Schumer&Co. stating support for an outmoded policy that as Jesse Walker put it would mean ‘we would be stepping back toward the days when the broadcast media were a centralized and cozy public-private partnership.’ not be embarrassing to them given the tech-savvy of many young liberals? Look at Tony’s pathetic reaction.

    No, of course, we are the ones with the hang-ups and not the opposition who are reaching for the smelling salts at the mention of FD, that is how we are always labeled right?

  69. This topic is mind-numbingly stupid for two reasons.

    One, conservatives are arguing against the very thing they’ve been whining about for decades: balance. Whenever they perceive a deficit in conservative voices in the mainstream media or in academia they fall over themselves calling for affirmative action for their ideas. But when someone proposes requiring publicly owned airwaves not to be a propaganda arm of one political party, it’s a huge scary violation of their free speech rights.

    Second, Democrats are rather busy right now trying to save the economy and clean up two wars. There is absolutely no way they are going to spend any political capital on this, even if they wanted it.

    It’s just another in an endless line of fabricated conservative bogeymen.

  70. Second, Democrats are rather busy right now trying to save the economy

    They are so cute when they’re young.

  71. Tony — an irony troll, or a hack? I think he has to be the former. There is no way that he hasn’t clued in on the fact that you can’t sell that horse shit in this barn without getting laughed out the door.

  72. You would have to be a fucking idiot, slathered in moron juice, deep fried it imbecile grease, then wrapped in a floury dipshit burrito, to have every believed for a fraction of a second that the Fairness Doctrine was going to be re-implemented.

    Some people can’t get out of bed in the morning without that satisfying feeling that they’re an oppressed group.

    Wolverines!

    Fucking morons.


  73. joe | February 19, 2009, 8:02pm | #
    You would have to be a fucking idiot, slathered in moron juice, deep fried it imbecile grease, then wrapped in a floury dipshit burrito, to have every believed for a fraction of a second that the Fairness Doctrine was going to be re-implemented.

    Some people can’t get out of bed in the morning without that satisfying feeling that they’re an oppressed group.

    Wolverines!

    Fucking morons.

    Oh, look who is back. The stupidest motherfucker to ever grace a keyboard, anyways, just for you, joe:

    Blood suckin parasitic little blood suckin parasitic little
    blood suckin parasitic little tick
    Take what you want and then go.
    Fat little parasite. Suck me dry.
    Is this what you wanted?
    Is this what you had in mind?
    Is this what you wanted?
    Cuz this this is what you’re getting.
    I hope, I hope, I hope you choke.

    Is this administration what you wanted?
    Is this administration what you had in mind?
    Cuz, this is what you’re getting.
    I hope you choke on it.

  74. Obama is a lying liar who lies.

    Anyone who believes this huckster is a fool.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.