Dems Just Can't Abide Media Fairness
Why else would they be trying to reimpose the infamous "Fairness Doctrine"?
House Republicans tried their level best to foster debate on the indecency bill aimed at broadcasters, but they kept getting sidetracked by Democrats complaining about broadcast bias.
Not the entrenched, ingrained bias that favors them, of course.
A number of Democrats, including Representatives Maurice Hinchey and Louise Slaughter of New York, Rush Holt of New Jersey and Diane Watson of California, again were pushing the GOP to re-impose the fairness doctrine, a 1949 Federal Communications Commission rule that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." In other words, present both sides when presenting information about public policy issues.
Which, of course, we already have in terms of the broadcast marketplace. Just ask Eason Jordan.
According to Broadcasting & Cable, an industry magazine, Slaughter "said that refraining from indecency (she actually said obscenity) isn't the same as fulfilling public interest obligations and said that declining standards of fairness and truth are a bigger indecency."
It would be nice to be able to assume that she was referring to CBS and Rathergate, but we know better than that, don't we?
Complaining about a Sinclair Broadcasting's pre-election news program she believes was biased against Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry, she said, "One-sided documentaries designed to impact an election without equal time ... That's indecent and dangerous."
It might interest Congresswoman Slaughter to know, since she apparently wasn't paying attention at the time, that the "one-sided documentary" to which she refers never aired. Sinclair pulled it in favor of a milquetoast substitute that buckled to the "indecent, outrageous" demands of lefties, who just cannot abide either truth or two-way streets, for "fairness."
Congresswoman Slaughter might also refresh herself on why the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned in the first place:
The fairness rule was discarded by the FCC in 1987 during the Reagan Administration because, "contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues," says an analysis by the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.
But, as always, the real Donk motivation was not long in coming to the fore:
A number of liberals believe the demise of the fairness doctrine led the way to the rise of talk radio, which is largely conservative.
Representative Lynn Woolsey, D-CA, thinks so. "It is not good enough to hold broadcasters accountable for wardrobe malfunctions," she said on the House floor, referring to the excuse used by Janet Jackson who, during a 2004 Super Bowl performance, had a portion of her costume was ripped away by singer Justin Timberlake, revealing her mostly naked breast. "They must live up to the public good ... Media monopolies are free to use their power to present only one side of the story."
The only "media monopoly" that has ever existed is what used to be known, and should never be again, as the "mainstream press" - the Big 3 networks, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, etc. Talk radio was the beginning of the end of that monopoly, and the rise of Fox News and now the blogosphere finished it off for good. The past fifteen years' introduction of actual ideological competition in the media arena have done more for broadcasting "fairness" than the "Fairness Doctrine" ever did. Something its reimposition would completely unravel.
Small wonder Dems want to bring it back. After all, not all "media monopolies" are created equal.
House Republicans tried their level best to foster debate on the indecency bill aimed at broadcasters, but they kept getting sidetracked by Democrats complaining about broadcast bias.
Not the entrenched, ingrained bias that favors them, of course.
A number of Democrats, including Representatives Maurice Hinchey and Louise Slaughter of New York, Rush Holt of New Jersey and Diane Watson of California, again were pushing the GOP to re-impose the fairness doctrine, a 1949 Federal Communications Commission rule that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." In other words, present both sides when presenting information about public policy issues.
Which, of course, we already have in terms of the broadcast marketplace. Just ask Eason Jordan.
According to Broadcasting & Cable, an industry magazine, Slaughter "said that refraining from indecency (she actually said obscenity) isn't the same as fulfilling public interest obligations and said that declining standards of fairness and truth are a bigger indecency."
It would be nice to be able to assume that she was referring to CBS and Rathergate, but we know better than that, don't we?
Complaining about a Sinclair Broadcasting's pre-election news program she believes was biased against Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry, she said, "One-sided documentaries designed to impact an election without equal time ... That's indecent and dangerous."
It might interest Congresswoman Slaughter to know, since she apparently wasn't paying attention at the time, that the "one-sided documentary" to which she refers never aired. Sinclair pulled it in favor of a milquetoast substitute that buckled to the "indecent, outrageous" demands of lefties, who just cannot abide either truth or two-way streets, for "fairness."
Congresswoman Slaughter might also refresh herself on why the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned in the first place:
The fairness rule was discarded by the FCC in 1987 during the Reagan Administration because, "contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues," says an analysis by the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.
But, as always, the real Donk motivation was not long in coming to the fore:
A number of liberals believe the demise of the fairness doctrine led the way to the rise of talk radio, which is largely conservative.
Representative Lynn Woolsey, D-CA, thinks so. "It is not good enough to hold broadcasters accountable for wardrobe malfunctions," she said on the House floor, referring to the excuse used by Janet Jackson who, during a 2004 Super Bowl performance, had a portion of her costume was ripped away by singer Justin Timberlake, revealing her mostly naked breast. "They must live up to the public good ... Media monopolies are free to use their power to present only one side of the story."
The only "media monopoly" that has ever existed is what used to be known, and should never be again, as the "mainstream press" - the Big 3 networks, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, etc. Talk radio was the beginning of the end of that monopoly, and the rise of Fox News and now the blogosphere finished it off for good. The past fifteen years' introduction of actual ideological competition in the media arena have done more for broadcasting "fairness" than the "Fairness Doctrine" ever did. Something its reimposition would completely unravel.
Small wonder Dems want to bring it back. After all, not all "media monopolies" are created equal.
posted by JASmius at 8:56 AM
<<< Home