The WSJ calls this an FCC “good deed, but me, I wouldn’t get too excited about it. The “Fairness Doctrine” as an intellectual brand has been pretty thoroughly tarnished by those who’ve pointed out — correctly — that its primary aim, in its most recent life, was to target “right wing” radio and FOXNews. And it is for that reason — together with the Obama Administration’s upcoming attempt to appear to be pivoting to the center (just as they wish to appear to be cutting onerous regulations that are slowing the economy while keeping the “underlying goals” of “libertarian paternalism” in place) — that we’re getting this announcement now, and why the push to curtail certain speech has died in this particular incarnation.
Still, look for it to return in some other form, likely with some benign and “fair”-sounding name, most probably as an FCC move to enforce “local programming” requirements on stations that run a number of syndicated national talk programs.
Good deed? Sorry, I doubt that. Call me cynical.
For what it’s worth, though, here’s an excerpt from Chairman Julius Genachowski’s announcement:
The elimination of the obsolete Fairness Doctrine regulations will remove an unnecessary distraction. As I have said, striking this from our books ensures there can be no mistake that what has long been a dead letter remains dead. The Fairness Doctrine holds the potential to chill free speech and the free flow of ideas and was properly abandoned over two decades ago.
As I said, these regulations being killed is, I’m betting, part of the move to shore up Obama’s “regulatory reform” optics.
But I have no doubt the impulse behind attempts to resurrect the thing still abound on the left, and that soon we’ll be fending off some other “reasonable”-sounding attempt to throttle speech.
Progressive plans never die. They just get repackaged and re-polished and then re-released as the next great step toward “social justice.”
(Thanks to TerryH)
i think 1987 therefore 24 years the bureaucrats dithered. do we need fcc or epa or….
and the “right wing lunatics” should be asking why a 1970’s agency like epa is still telling us to do Do The Hustle
No doubt we’ll be hearing alot about “open dialogue” in the near future.
And by “open dialogue” I mean “closed monologue.”
Quite obviously.
let’s do carterdom right. ain’t no ’70’s without
Abba – Dancing Queen
mr. liddy approved!!11!!
I don’t trust ’em either. All of a sudden, they’ve discovered the 1st Amendment?
A feint within a feint within a feint…
bj clinton never made me want to glitter a precedent hi goons
“Still, look for it to return in some other form,…”
Or an conducting an opposite tack such as eliminating coverage of the State of the Union rebuttal.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganlibertypark.htm
fight the bastards
oops,
too many “ans” spoiled my comment
Pardon my laziness, but didn’t ol’ Julius come up with some trial balloon or another that was just the “Fairness Doctrine” called something else? I beleive it had “Diversity” in the title?
[…] “Fairness Doctrine, R.I.P.” Still, look for it to return in some other form, likely with some benign and “fair”-sounding name, most probably as an FCC move to enforce “local programming” requirements on stations that run a number of syndicated national talk programs. […]
They will never give up any control they can exert.
Tim Groseclose seems to be recommending a voluntary Unfairness Doctrine, wherein the contemptible members of the press should not only reveal what they keep hidden, but go out of their way to learn something about their political opposition by rubbing shoulders with them.
#onemantributebands
Styk
Blue Oyster Harold Camping
The Captain Dressed as Tenille
Earth, Wind or Fire
I Might Be A Giant
Local programming, or more likely, “diversity” in station ownership.
We’ll take this station here from whitey and give it to our brotha over there.
BECAUSE OF THE FAIRNESS!
“Still, look for it to return in some other form,…”
Or an conducting an opposite tack such as eliminating coverage of the State of the Union rebuttal.”
Or developing a rebuttal of the State of the Union critical rebuttal which will have to deal with an anti rebuttal with a pro rebuttalanti pro in between and … and … and … … dizzy …
Has anyone asked Mr McCain and Mr Feingold what they think of this development?