[HT: Patterico.] Check out the headline from the November 14, 2008, column by Los Angeles Times "media critic" James Rainey:
Right-wing radio sounds false alarm on 'Fairness Doctrine': Impose a mandate on broadcasters to balance their political views? That would be onerous indeed. But memo to Rush: Nobody's asking for that.
"Nobody's asking for that"? Not quite. As Patterico and Hot Air's Ed Morrissey have pointed out with video testimony, Sen. Chuck Schumer, for one, is quite hip to the idea.
Interestingly, in his article Rainey cites Schumer as "another lawmaker who has expressed an interest in bringing back the rules." So what gives with the bogus headline about conservatives' concern being a "false alarm"? Why does Rainey say this concern is, "as Archie Bunker liked to say, a pigment of [conservatives'] imagination"?
Well, Rainey seeks to calm conservatives' fears by asserting that Obama "as a candidate last summer, said unequivocally that he did not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine." Apparently, we're all supposed to feel better by this. Patterico adds an excellent point:
I’m plenty amused by Rainey’s contention that we need not worry about this because Obama says he’s not going to pursue it. Obama said he wasn’t going to run for the Presidency — and then did. Obama said he wasn’t going to reject public financing — and then did.
So you’ll have to pardon me if I’m not particularly reassured by Barack Obama’s claim that he’s not going to try to impose the Fairness Doctrine. Based on his history, that’s a pretty strong indication that he will.
Look ... out.
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Chuck and Jeff
November 16, 2008 - 19:21 ET by allanfI guess Rainey has not heard Chuck Schumer, Jeff Bingaman or Diane Feinstein.
Rainey might also be stunned to discover that the United States is Representative Republic and President Obama is not omnipotent on all legislative matters.
And Pelosi
November 16, 2008 - 20:13 ET by ThisnThatSee Newbuster's discussion of Pelosi's support of the unfairness doctrine -- 25 June 2008.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
And the rest....
November 16, 2008 - 20:13 ET by klokskapHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Diane Feinstein, John Kerry, and Dick Durbin.
In reality, the FCC could do this without Congressional approval. Which is why Sen. Coleman's and Rep. Pence's attempts to ban the "Fairness Doctrine" legislatively are necessary (although they got stuck in committee).
I sent him an email, this is what I got...
November 17, 2008 - 23:34 ET by SgtCheeseNOLSMy email to him and his staff:
Mr. Rainey,
You wrote an article which was completely false ("Right-wing radio
sounds false alarm on 'Fairness Doctrine'"). I don't even need to
explain how it is false, as hopefully you know it is...but decided to
lie to the public and your readers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htD_-A7pDhw&eurl=http://hotair.com/archiv
es/2008/11/14/no-ones-talking-about-the-fairness-doctrine/
Sen. Shumer calls for the Fairness Doctrine, and believes it is a good
idea.
I would recommend you start:
A) Preaching the Truth
B) Do some research outside of watching something, disagreeing with it,
and coming up with an opinion before looking into the matter.
C) Start giving your paper some credibility.
You can do this by retracting your article, and posting that some
members of the Democratic party have been calling for a Fairness
Doctrine. As that is the TRUTH!
______________________
His response:
Mr Gardner,
Please write me back when the Fairness Doctrine is signed into law or,
alternatively, approved by a new FCC. Sen. Shumer has one vote. So do the other lawmakers who like the Fairness Doctrine.
Discussion of a topic and its approval are two far different things.
That was my opinion and it still is.
Thanks,
Jim
USCG
It all depends on what the
November 16, 2008 - 19:33 ET by motherbeltIt all depends on what the definition of the word "ask" is. ;-)
They are merely "suggesting" it or "proposing" it or "expressing an interest in" it......
»→ Suggesting
November 16, 2008 - 19:38 ET by Cool ArrowAnd the MSM has already identified two ways in which the fairness gag can be implemented. Presidential appointments and Congressional legislation.
My money is on Congress so it can look like "the will of the people"
They are planning a sneak
November 16, 2008 - 20:19 ET by TN MomThey are planning a sneak attack. On Free Speech.
They're not going to ask
November 16, 2008 - 20:26 ET by HockeyKidThey're not going to ask for anything--they're just going to impose it. Wake up, o ye "journalists", for your turn may come, too.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Take it easy on this guy folks,
November 16, 2008 - 20:44 ET by FastEdwhat, with all the declines in circulation, he might actually think he's right! AND, you'll have admit, using their logic, fairness is not having the truth mentioned often, or at all. Fairness to them is - listen to what WE say, not what you want to do. Fairness is watching freedoms getting stepped on, (and stop complaining) and we gots the power, what'r you gonna do about it??
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
We'll have to remember this - Rainey is on record
November 16, 2008 - 20:56 ET by Dee Bunksaying that it would be onerous so he should be a loud voice against it if it's brought up
Onerous Regulations
November 16, 2008 - 22:35 ET by allanfSince the last "Fairness Doctrine", the US Supreme Court has ruled on regulations that do not directly impinge on free speech, but have the effect of limiting speech.
Renton v Playtime Theaters Inc, 475 U.S. 41 (1986) dealt with government restrictions on adult businesses. The Court held that if the restrictions on the time, place and manner of speech have the effect of preventing the speech, the regulation fails intermmediate scrutiny and is unconstitutional. (The Court upheld the City of Renton's restrictions on adult movie theaters).
Conservative lawyers fighting the new "Censorship Doctrine" should bone up on this case. It changes the legal playing field since the last Fairness Doctine.
allanf- we can only hope
November 18, 2008 - 09:06 ET by Dee Bunkthat they do bone up on it and that if the Dems try and enact it they do it soon before Obama has a couple of SCOTUS picks. The court is already too liberal leaning but after a few Obama picks the Constitution and precedent will be pretty much meaningless.
just another distraction
November 16, 2008 - 21:03 ET by katainkentMichael Ortiz says "He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communication to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,"
well if its just another distraction then well.... ooo shiney....*wanders off*
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
Yeah, right
November 16, 2008 - 21:14 ET by needleLet’s see, the LA Times has been suppressing information injurious to Obama for most of this year.
All we need to know is that it is this same newspaper that is soft pedaling alarm over the “Fairness Doctrine.”
OK, now we know that there is an increasing likelihood for a concerted push for the “Fairness Doctrine.”
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
The wizard is at it again.
November 16, 2008 - 23:51 ET by mizflame98Pay no attention to those bureaucrats behind the curtain.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html