Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: It's Not Too Early.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10652
5 Comments
Jim Harris wrote:
I mostly agree. There are so many other media options now that the original rationale for the Fairness Doctrine is buried with the dinosaurs. Bringing it back now would be anything but fair. So sure, if Limbaugh or whoever wants to keep a fire brigade in case a Fairness Doctrine comes back, why not, he's correct on the policy question.
The only downside would be the inference that where there are fire hoses, there must be a fire. If the plan is to flood the house with accusations when there is no Fairness Doctrine bill or regulation, or worse to fight a nonexistent fire with real fire, then that would be bad. But there hasn't yet been much of that.
Rand Simberg wrote:
Pelosi and others have been making plenty of noise about it. The only reason they haven't done it is that they know it's a guaranteed veto by Bush, and not overrideable. Chuck Schumer just this week was comparing talk radio to porn, as a justification for regulating it.
Raoul Ortega wrote:
Make sure that NPR stations are subject to the same so-called Fairness Doctrine rules and you will get it killed in committee.
Ric Locke wrote:
There won't be a "Fairness Doctrine."
There will be what I am tentatively styling "The Fair and Responsible Media Act" (of 2010?). It will establish Media Analysis Boards, composed of Responsible and Disinterested Persons (ACORN will be well-represented), charged with investigating allegations of bias, irresponsibility, and Hate Speech. For how that will work, consult your Canadian Human Right Commission. It will also introduce "accredition" or perhaps "certification" of media figures, who are cleared in advance of such charges on the ground of Free Speech. There will be an ID card, with a picture and a number on it.
Rand won't get one.
In parallel, there will be Media Divestiture as part and parcel of a "bailout" act designed to keep Pinch in arugula despite disappearing revenues. For how that will work, see "Mugabe and the White Farmers."
Great days ahead.
Regards,
Ric
Carl Pham wrote:
Weirdly appropriate, inasmuch as I tend to think of Chuck Schumer as ethically and temperamentally equivalent to a porn star.
Did he go into more detail, you know, kind of like the Team America : World Police extended analogy about the three-cornered struggle between antisocial brownpants elements, soft (not to mention moist) power enthusiasts, and the rigid rods of righteous authority? I mean, I'm wondering if the Senator sees himself as a pussy or a dick. Personally, I think he has the chops to be either convincingly.
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on November 6, 2008 7:39 AM.
I mostly agree. There are so many other media options now that the original rationale for the Fairness Doctrine is buried with the dinosaurs. Bringing it back now would be anything but fair. So sure, if Limbaugh or whoever wants to keep a fire brigade in case a Fairness Doctrine comes back, why not, he's correct on the policy question.
The only downside would be the inference that where there are fire hoses, there must be a fire. If the plan is to flood the house with accusations when there is no Fairness Doctrine bill or regulation, or worse to fight a nonexistent fire with real fire, then that would be bad. But there hasn't yet been much of that.
Pelosi and others have been making plenty of noise about it. The only reason they haven't done it is that they know it's a guaranteed veto by Bush, and not overrideable. Chuck Schumer just this week was comparing talk radio to porn, as a justification for regulating it.
Make sure that NPR stations are subject to the same so-called Fairness Doctrine rules and you will get it killed in committee.
There won't be a "Fairness Doctrine."
There will be what I am tentatively styling "The Fair and Responsible Media Act" (of 2010?). It will establish Media Analysis Boards, composed of Responsible and Disinterested Persons (ACORN will be well-represented), charged with investigating allegations of bias, irresponsibility, and Hate Speech. For how that will work, consult your Canadian Human Right Commission. It will also introduce "accredition" or perhaps "certification" of media figures, who are cleared in advance of such charges on the ground of Free Speech. There will be an ID card, with a picture and a number on it.
Rand won't get one.
In parallel, there will be Media Divestiture as part and parcel of a "bailout" act designed to keep Pinch in arugula despite disappearing revenues. For how that will work, see "Mugabe and the White Farmers."
Great days ahead.
Regards,
Ric
Weirdly appropriate, inasmuch as I tend to think of Chuck Schumer as ethically and temperamentally equivalent to a porn star.
Did he go into more detail, you know, kind of like the Team America : World Police extended analogy about the three-cornered struggle between antisocial brownpants elements, soft (not to mention moist) power enthusiasts, and the rigid rods of righteous authority? I mean, I'm wondering if the Senator sees himself as a pussy or a dick. Personally, I think he has the chops to be either convincingly.