Did Pres Obama just show and prove the need to re-authorize the 'Fairness Doctrine'?

[Union Yes]

Think Rush, Beck, Hannity, and Fox 'news'.

Now, think of the above operating under the 'Fairness Doctrine', a federal regulation that states that an opposing view or dissenting view be given equal time when any political debate or talk takes place on federally regulated airwaves and cable. TV and Radio.

The FCC regulates interstate/nationally syndicated/nationwide media, partially under interstate commerce laws.

Glen Beck is famous for inviting 'liberals' on his show and shutting off/killing their microphones when they try to respond to his right wing talking points.

Practices like that would be banned.

Now, think of Rush as having to give equal air time to a 'liberal' on his daily talk radio show to dispute and/or debate ole Rush face-to-face, toe-to-toe, head-to-head, you get the point!

Think of Beck not being able to turn off that mike.

Think of Beck as having to debate a 'liberal' on his daily show.

...........................................................................

President Obama the statesman, showed masterful restraint as he EVISCERATED the GOP in front of the American people.

He was that 'liberal' vs Beck, vs Rush, vs the GOP. Obama slapped them down hard!

The result..
The people got behind their President once more. That's powerful stuff.

1 head-to-head televised townhall debate did that.

The GOP admits they got their asses handed to them and they are all licking their wounds as we speak.. err read.

When's the last time the GOP admitted they lost a confrontation with a Dem? Never in my 39 year old lifetime.

Again, that's the power of 1 televised face to face smackdown.

That's why Rush and Beck need a 'liberal' sitting across the table from them on their daily shows debating and providing dissenting views to their twisted right wing talking points.

That's why we need to re-authorize the 'Fairness Doctrine'.

1 sided right wing propaganda. Look at the disservice that it has done to our nation. We need to have both sides told with equal time given to each. (or near equal time)

Politics needs to be debated from both sides.

If you wonder why Right Wingers fear the 'Fairness Doctrine', think Obama's townhall slapdown of the GOP.

Because they get slapped down when they debate face-to-face with an informed 'liberal'.

I'm not saying that Jon Q Liberal vs Beck on Glen's daily show will have the same effect that the President's townhall GOP beatdown had.

But imagine Thom Hartmann vs Rush on his daily radio show. Or Stephanie Miller vs Beck.

Ed vs Rush would be epic!
You get the point.

Add to that..

The chance to confront the relentless right wing propaganda machine.
That machine has done such a disservice and so much damage to our nation.

I wrote a similar op that goes deeper into just how the President slapped down the GOP and how any informed progressive can do the same vs. a right winger simply by sticking to the truth. By calling out the fact that 30 years of GOP/Reagan/supply-side/trickle-down policy failure have got us into the mess we're in.

Right Wing 'media' needs to be confronted and debated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7612936

[sharesunited]

1. You don't even need equal time. You just need uninterrupted time to refute the bastards.

[AndyA]

2. Of course, a new and revised Fairness Doctrine would require shows like

Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show to also provide equal time. However, I believe Keith and Rachel would both LOVE to do this. Smack down the lies right at the source. Keith and Rachel both don't hold back when Dems do something they don't like, so I'm sure they would have no issue with smacking down either party.

Yes, the Fairness Doctrine needs to be revised, updated, and reinstated as law. The fact that millions trust Faux News as trustworthy is proof enough. An uneducated and dumb constituency allows corruption to run rampant in Washington.

[whathehell]

3. +10

[Union Yes]

6. Agree 100% KO and Rachel would relish the chance to smackdown right wingers. nt

[FreakinDJ]

4. If we had a "Fairness Doctrine" we would have Healthcare Reform by now

[LWolf]

5. We need an updated, modern fairness doctrine.

I don't know that Obama showed us anything, though. I know DU is buzzing about the supposed "smack down," "evisceration," etc., but I didn't really get that. I heard some rhetoric, but rhetoric without action doesn't mean much. It's just an argument.

He scolded them on a few things, but what backs up that scolding? What effect will it have on republicans?

If that's what Obama was showing them, I should hear him calling for a new, modern fairness doctrine to appear on his desk for a signature.

Has he done so?

[Lorien]

9. The original Fairness Doctrine did a great job of allowing more balanced

information and opinion on television. One of the most important features; when a pundit was arguing in a partisan manner, the word "opinion" was left in the corner of the screen. These days the lines between news reporting and opinion are completely blurred, which is why a huge number of Americans no longer "trusts" science and established facts.

[LWolf]

10. That's true.

Today, opinion counts as "truth," and inconvenient facts? People don't "believe" them.

[Lorien]

7. Yes. Now let's hope that younger DUers can cease parroting Rush Limbaugh

on the topic and demand that we reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. It's time to force the corporations to unmuzzle the Left.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

8. I'm with you brother.

[Union Yes]

11. ..

:fistbump:

[elocs]

12. Here's the problem: "Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine":

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/114322-Obama_Does_Not_Support_Return_of_Fairness_Doctrine.php

Even though this is from the 2008 campaign there is no reason to believe Obama has changed his mind about it.

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.
Barack Obama

The Illinois senator’s top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

The Fairness Doctrine issue flared up in recent days after reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was talking about a Democratic push to reinstate it, although it was unclear at press time whether that was a new pledge or the restating of a long-held position.

[Union Yes]

13. Yup I remember that. That was then of course. I think Obama would support it...

if the House and Senate passed it. I don't see why he wouldn't. He knows the damage caused by right wing media like Oxy and BeKKK.

I'm betting Obama would support it if a bill were put on his desk.

[robcon]

14. The Fairness doctrine is a violation of the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...

[Union Yes]

15. Be specific please. Show me exactly how the FD violates the 1st in any way.

Please be specific.

[depakid]

17. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about

[FLDCVADem]

18. The Fairness Doctrine was upheld as Constitutional years ago n/t

[JoeyT]

19. I wasn't aware the first amendment

guaranteed a person's right to say whatever the hell they wanted on national television.
I must have overlooked that part.

It also won't stop them from saying whatever in the hell it is they want to spew. They'll just have to allow someone a shot at refuting it. And unless they can prove it as fact, they'll have to label it opinion.

[FLDCVADem]

16. Keep in mind

that the Fairness Doctrine would not have forced Rush Limbaugh or others like him to do ANYTHING. He wouldn't have had to change his show one whit. It wouldn't even have required equal time to for opposing views - it just could have dictated that stations that carry his show to allow opposing views to be heard.

[Spike89]

20. Exactly! But not even that strong

Lots of people talking about the fairness doctrine don't understand a thing about it. The fairness doctrine did not have a thing to do with news and would have had no effect on Fox News. It also had no jurisdiction over talk radio. Additionally, it only applied to broadcasters, not cable stations.

In effect, the fairness doctrine only dealt with paid advertisements and explicit ballot advocacy. In other words, it guaranteed that if a station sold Republicans ads, Democrats could buy ads also. If the station broadcast someone saying "Vote no on ..." then they had to allow a "Vote yes ..." rebuttal. Non-explicit comments were not part of the deal, so a comment like "socialist policies are what is killing America" did NOT require a station to provide time to pro socialists.

The very weakness of the fairness doctrine was exactly why it passed constitutional scrutiny and why it really isn't the answer to mega-media bias.