Another senator lines up behind 'Fairness Doctrine'

[RamboLiberal]

Another Democratic U.S. senator has gone on record as supporting the reinstatement of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," adding, "I feel like that's gonna happen."

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine": "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else – I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place."

Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network.

Asked by Press if she could be counted on to push for hearings in the Senate this year "to bring these (radio station) owners in and hold them accountable," Stabenow replied: "I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88113

[robcon]

1. If you line up for the fairness doctrine, you line up against the Constitution.

The first amendment means something, and it disallows Congress from making laws to impose restraint on political speech in the press.

[Postman]

3. What if the restraint on speech is self-imposed as it is now with corporate owned media?

A Fairness Doctrine would require that the other side be heard, as opposed to being ignored or fraudulently represented....

[CANDO]

4. It never imposed "restraint"

It just made room for multiple viewpoints. Tell me why our overwhelmingly left leaning metropolitan areas have virtually no left voices on the AM dial?

[valerief]

5. How does that work out? The fairness doctrine gives time for opposing views.

It doesn't censor the Republican noise machine.

[valerief]

6. self-delete. dupe.

[dmr]

7. Far, far from it; and it isn't just about political speech. I remember quite well

back in the 'olden days' the allotment of time that was given at the end of local newscasts in Detroit. Any local citizen could voice a concern for, against or indifference to an issue. It didn't always involve politicians or politics; it could have been a community issue, zoning, health issue, the Great Lakes, infrastructure or road maintenance, to name a few.

Even Archie Bunker was able to go on the NYC TV airways to spout his concerns back in the 70's ("All In The Family"), though I forget what he was all pumped up about; but I remember laughing my ass off, and the Meathead getting all bent out of shape - truly a classic!

[Tesha]

9. It's not that clear. "The Press" is one thing, but use of "The Public Airwaves" is another.

Broadcasting stations are specifically licensed to serve the public interest.

Tesha

[Festivito]

12. Am I hearing crickets?

It is without fairness that restraint is being practiced on other opinions. It would be you standing against the Constitution.

[FreakinDJ]

13. You need to quit smoking that shit

you could not be more wrong

The lack of the Fairness doctrine will destroy democracy in this country

[Lorien]

18. It pretty much already has

the views of the corporate elite are the only views that are given any weight in the mainstream media.

[Lorien]

17. You don't understand the Fairness Doctrine at all. You must be very young

because reporting when we had the Fairness Doctrine was, well, "fair". The left and the right both had time to state their case. Now only the far right is given a podium on the MSM. That's restraint of free speech. The Fairness Doctrine protects free speech by not allowing one side to be muzzled by wealthy corporate interests.

[tom_paine]

23. Puh-LEEZE! Read a history book, robcon.

Start with the history of the FCC regulation and it's intellectual underpinnings. The observations of what Nazi and Soviet medias did to their nations, and the originators of the FCC's desperation to try and ahere to the Constitution and yet prevent the Nazification/Bushification of media.

Oh, that's right, as Colbert accurately describes in his screaming mockery of the National Insanity that your Bushie Pals have instiotutionalized here in America, Conservatives go from the gut. Not the head but the GUT. FACTS and HISTORY are for liberals. I go with my gut.

:rofl:

You know, it would be nice if people weren't so ingenious in circumventing laws to get to do what we want. From a kid skipping school to state criminal mastrminds like the Cheney Cabal, the law is constantly chasing the criminals, who are constantly finding ways around old laws to achieve their ends. Especially when the old methods are exposed.

In the case of massively successful State Criminals, such as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Marcos, Pinohcet or Cheney, they actually literally disable the "immunological systems" of whatever nation they are taking over.

They all shared one belief, that Bushification/Nazification/Sovietization, neutralization and parasitization of the media was pretty much first and foremost in disabling a nations immunology to tyranny. All were or in the case of the Bushies, are, enormously successful at utterly destroying the medas they targeted for neutralization, parasitization and assimilation.

Kindly read your history of how the Afrikaeners took over S. Africa from the "Liberal British", because many Bushie elements we are speaking of, some directly related to capture and control of media as ideological battlefield, which Afrikaeners, Bushies, Nazis, Soviets, Pinochetistas, and all the rest like you, rob, on the wrong side of history (but apparently the much more frequently WINNING SIDE of history, Obama's brief and tiny spark notwithstanding) have done very well at different times and nations.

Read up on the Afrikaeners vs. the Liberal British in the 30s and 40s, and more history, rob.

Naaah. Who the hell am I kidding? Historical ignorance is now the hallmark of the Bushified Mind, as it always is for your kind, rob...authoritarians. You "conservatives" have long ago become authoritarians, plain and simple.

The Fairness Docrtine, imperfect as it is, held off our "Bushie Afrikaeners" for decades. Can you imagine if the Civil Rights Movement had happened with TODAY'S MEDIA?

You'd probably like that alternate universe, rob. Not that you'd ever admit it in public.

Anyway, your comment on the Fairness Doctrine is the usual Bushie drivel? Money equals speech? Bet YOU think so.

Read a history book, robcon.

Whoops, there I go again, asking you to go against one of the basic tenets of your philosophy. Well, it's not yours. You didn't participate in thinking it up, but you repeat and regurgitate it, providing a well-done simulation of one who has looked at the world and understood it on one's own, without Michael Savage and Pig Limbaugh doing it for them.

You don't read history books, rob. Michael Savage reads them for you, then tells you what they said.

:rofl:

Be happy, though, rob. Bushies still de facto rule the nation and control the debate. Even when you lose you win. Must be fun, being a member of the new and improved kinder and gentler Nazis.

'Cause it sure sucks being a member of the new and improved not-roasted-in-ovens-this-time-around New Jews...the Liberals. The believers in Tom Paine and Tom Jefferson and all those nutty liberal ideas now shutting down all over the world.

Maybe I'll join you guys. I, too, would rather be a hunter than a hunted. Wouldn't anyone?

No. Couldn't do that. Conscience, you see. A conservative would not undestand such a thing as conscience though. Outside your friends and fmily, I have no doubt conscience is as alien a thing to you as colors to a person blind from birth.

It would be neat to turn the AM dial in the morning and find the same Limbaugh show (the Maddow Show?) and find eight different stations playing it simultaneously,as they do in SE PA. That's what it must have been like turning the AM dial in 1938 Germany, except our version of kinder and gentler Nazism isn't quite so obvious as to leave Limbaugh as the ONLY radio show anywhere on the dial. Plausible Deniability, you see.

Nah, no Fairness Docrtine needed. Limbaugh on eight stations all over the dial, literally half that can be received in quality over the air in SE PA by standard car radio.

How to maintain the Constitution and guard against the tricky people your authoritarian Cheneyian leaders are in achieving Clssical Totalitarian control by Inverted Totalitarian means? Step #1: restore what the tyrants eliminated in order to achieve national insanity. Restore the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!

Say hi to Michael Savage for me. Let me know what he thinks you think, when he has finally decided what he thinks you should think.

Rant over.

[Writer]

25. Yup. Exactly. The amendment never faced a full constitutional challenge.

We are dealing with a conflict within the first amendment itself: The freedom of the press versus the freedom of speech of those who own the press.

[chill_wind]

2. This is good. I don't know if Obama will change his mind. He doesn't support it

according to his advisor quoted a few months ago. He does support other reform.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4984945&mesg_id=4992480

K & R.

[dmr]

8. Good to hear. I've been a strong advocate for it for years. n/t

[KoKo]

10. Thanks...PLEASE ...this is finally the TIME TO DO SOMETHING...about McCorporate Media...

to bring BALANCE back in!

[Cid_B]

21. McCorporateBushitlerLimpballs Co Inc

I think we should just have one big word to blame everything on. Save alot of time around here.

[Writer]

26. You are very brave. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

11. How About Some Reregulation Debbie...

That's the problem with radio...a handful of companies controlling virtually everything people hear. It's driven local radio and diversity off the dial and destroyed the industry. The Fairness Doctrine never was the problem, "Deregulation" is.

[Festivito]

14. I'm not happy with any of the players in this story, but fairness is good.

The fairness doctrine was a weak idea, but it did offer some good value.

[defendandprotect]

15. Right win money controls media --- a bad idea . . . Fairness Doctrine is necessary--!

Personally, I think we should uninvent the dollar bill ---

which too often translates to corrupt power.

However, in the meanwhile, we should put the Fairness Doctrine back in place.

And we should be calling and e-mailing on that issue.

I'm getting disconnected from NOVA where I listen to Randi Rhodes and occasionally

Thom Hartmann -- but have no experience with . . .

TalkUSA Radio Network.

I'll try to remember to check in there and see what's going on!

Can't get Air America on my car radio --

And think how many people no longer see the Senate on their TVs thanks to Comcast!

Convenient for Repugs --

NPR and PBS -- pretty well destroyed by GOP.

[anonymous171]

16. I don't really support fairness doctrine, but we seriously need to do something about the media.

This latest fiasco over the stimulus bill is a great example of why the media needs to be checked.

[Lorien]

19. Do you clearly remember news reporting pre-Reagan?

without the fairness doctrine there never would have been protests against the Vietnam war. The media would have just, well, behaved the way they did running up to the Iraq invasion!

[anonymous171]

20. True.

Although that could also be attributed to the media consolidation that took place under Reagan as well.

[Lorien]

22. No, consolidation has much less to do with it

one way or another wealthy interests will always own the media-consolidated or not. They will push the views that advance the agenda of the wealthy elite unless they are forced to allow others to take the mic from time to time.

[FLAprogressive]

24. Why is Bill Press writing for WorldNutDaily?