Are the Dems Plotting to Hush Rush?
Right wingers are claiming Democrats intend to knock Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity off the airwaves by reviving the Fairness Doctrine. Here's why that's hot air.
Will the Obama administration force Rush Limbaugh off the air? Some conservative activists are claiming such a tragedy is nearly at hand, and they've been trying to whip up a frenzy. Limbaugh and his brethren believe Democrats are plotting a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, a controversial policy once enforced by the Federal Communications Commission to ensure broadcasters presented balanced views in their coverage of controversial subjects. While perhaps well intended, the Truman-era rule ultimately encouraged broadcasters to avoid touchy topics altogether, rather than seek out contrasting viewpoints. Many broadcast journalists saw the rule as a major violation of their free-speech rights. The FCC voted to abolish it in 1987. Democrats attempted to revive the rule, but President George H.W. Bush threatened to veto the legislation (as Ronald Reagan had in 1987), and those efforts failed. Since then, the Fairness Doctrine has largely been relegated to textbooks on media law—that is, until it was resurrected as the latest conservative bugaboo.
For the past year or so, some conservatives have been trying to convince their followers that congressional Democrats are dead set on bringing back the regulation as a way of silencing Limbaugh and other right-wing talking heads by requiring broadcasters to provide equal time to liberal shows. Conservatives assume that broadcasters would balk at any requirement to air liberal (and probably less profitable) content and would instead simply boot Limbaugh and find other ways to fill the time.
It’s true that some Democrats long for a return to the Fairness Doctrine—and they have played a part in fueling the conservative hysteria. In 2005, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation to bring back the doctrine. Conservatives dubbed the measure the "Hush Rush" bill. Then last year, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said publicly that he thought the Fairness Doctrine should be revived, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), after noting that talk radio was overwhelmingly conservative, suggested that Congress hold hearings on the political imbalance. Such comments prompted the National Review to put a photo of Limbaugh gagged with duct tape on its cover. But Hinchey's bill went nowhere, Feinstein never held hearings, and the issue died down after President Bush in March threatened to veto any attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine. But the election of Barack Obama has reignited conservative paranoia on the issue.
Writing on the National Review's website last week, Peter Kirsanow declared that "imposition of some form of the Fairness Doctrine likely will be one of the Democrats' agenda items for the first 100 days of the new administration...Waiting until Inauguration Day to get geared up is too late. By that time the Fairness Doctrine Express will be at full steam, wavering Democrats will be pressed to support the new Democratic president, weak-kneed Republicans will want to display comity, the mainstream media will not be saddened to see talk radio annihilated and much of the public will be too enraptured by Obama's Camelot inauguration to notice or care." The Center for Individual Freedom has been circulating a fund-raising alert headlined "Hannity and Limbaugh to be kicked off the air." And on Monday, the conservative website WorldNetDaily posted a story calling the presumed head of Obama's FCC transition team, former FCC commissioner Henry Rivera, "talk radio's executioner." (The story offers no evidence that Rivera supports a return to the Fairness Doctrine.)
Conservative talk-radio hosts love to position themselves as the victims of liberal media conspiracies, and the Fairness Doctrine gambit certainly fits the bill. But there is little substance behind the overheated rhetoric. Most Democrats have little interest in a big legislative fight over government regulation of the ever-shrinking sphere of broadcast media. And Obama has explicitly said he's not in favor of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. This summer his campaign issued an unequivocal statement on the subject: "Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. 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. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
According to the Center for Individual Freedom, however, those are just "code words"—for what, it doesn't say. What the conservatives don't seem to get is that Obama is a new-media guy. The Fairness Doctrine was first created in 1949, at a time when very few people even had a TV. The rationale behind it, which made sense at one time, was that broadcast opportunities were minimal, and that the government had an obligation to ensure that the public was able to express and hear multiple viewpoints in those scarce venues. (A fundamental premise underlying the law was that broadcasters were using a public resource: the public airwaves.)
Today, though, technology has created an explosion of forums that have made broadcast media—the only media to which this arcane regulation would apply—less dominant in the face of cable, FiOS, satellite, and Internet platforms. Even if somehow Democrats succeeded in resurrecting the doctrine, it's unclear whether the courts would continue to uphold its application. In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC had the power to enforce the doctrine, but that ruling specifically referenced the limited public broadcast spectrum. The court recognized the free-speech issues at stake, but expressed its desire to prevent a radio or TV station from monopolizing the public airwaves. The dramatic changes in the information landscape would give the current court many First Amendment grounds to reverse that decision.
Really, though, the conservative drumbeat over the Fairness Doctrine is much ado about nothing. It's fearmongering—which may be good for fund-raising. Conservatives claiming that the Obama administration will mean the death of right-wing radio seem to forget this fact: Limbaugh and other conservative talkers thrived during the Clinton years.
Page 1 of 1 
Wow, should I believe that Stephanie Mencimer (the author of a liberal right hating book) is going to cry one tear if conservative radio dies? I think not.
We have the next 4 years to listen to media like the ones below, with little to no challenges.
Jim Moran on Oct 31, 2008
D Rep Virginia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJyS1WJNisM
Obama Supporter – No worries about mortgage or gas. Nov 4, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
As a frequent listener of right wing radio (to check what hogwash they're feeding their listeners), it seemed this whole Fairness Doctrine line of talk started with a study that concluded that the re-regulation of media ownership rules would lead to voices from different point of view on the airwaves. While referring to this study, Hannity, seeming not to understand it or wanting to make it something his listeners could understand as possibly not being fair, turned it into the return of the Fairness Doctrine. I suspect that if the media ownership rules are changed, he would merely say it's a "backdoor" way of instituting the Fairness Doctrine. At any rate, in my little town, Fairbanks, Alaska, we have 3 AM stations: One ESPN and the other two spouting right wing talk all day long. Thankfully, we have the Internet.
Look, I say we keep the fames flamed that Democrats are going to legislate the Fairness Doctrine into law now that we have a majority. I have spent the better part of 6 or 7 months seeing the right wing send all kinds of lte's to our paper whining about violation of free speech and to get some bill released from committe to legislate NO fairness doctrine before the end of this Congress.
It's funny that they are so worried about it. Please don't allay their fears. We need a little more reward for what we have been through the last 20 years. Let them stew in their own swill for a while longer.
mb, if you read the article or remember Obama's statements on this topic you would know that you can continue to listen to any broadcast drivel you like for the next 4 years and beyond. Limbaugh or Stern ... whatever your fancy. The Fairness Doctrine will NOT be revived, so you can put away that particular piece of irrational nonsense behind you and go to work on your next one.
I'm with Obama. No point today to the Fairness Doctrine. What is important is that the msm get off its false equivalency kick and begin to report and question, rather than mediate pro and con pundits. That means when self oriented bloviacs attempt to spread lies, the msm does its research and separates fact from fiction. That's what journalism is supposed to be about. When journalists become journalists again, instead of entertainment minded, ratings obsessed talking heads, right wing radio will see its impact greatly diminished.
The "Fairness Doctrine doesn't shut up conservative talkers like Elmer "Rush" Fudd, it just demands that their outlets also hire liberal talkers to present "life's other side", not at the same time or together. Just take the near monoploy of wealth over broadcasting and "regulate" the air waves rather than allow them to be freeways for the upper classes.
Rush Limbaugh reminds me of the ol' 30's KKK inspired radio programs in the south.
Also, Rush is inpart responsible for convincing America to elect and re-elect GW Bush, and to support the illegal Iraq War. Rush's constant fear and hate mongering is raising an entire breed of mis-informed and mis-guided angry Americans.
Be Afraid, very afraid Hot Dog We are coming to get ya
The Fairness Doctrine controversy sounds like the "modem tax" that conservatives were claiming that the Clintons were about to implement all through the 90s. Funny thing is that we have to watch for this kind of regulation and censorship more during eras of Republican dominion.
Rush's little radio show is nothing compared to the brain-washing done in our schools and universities by the far far left.
Who cares what Rush and/or the GOP think? They lost in a landslide and it's Obama who will be calling the shots! He will be fair as fair as possible with all news organizations. In other words, FOX News, expect to be called on last and very infrequently at daily news briefings! Karma is a mother....
Rush is just an annoying fly that gets mindlessly swatted away now and then in the big picture.
I was unaware of efforts to resurrect the fairness doctrine, but I support the idea.
Cognitive dissonance being what it is, it isn't enough to provide an opposing view elsewhere on the schedule or on the airwaves: there is ample evidence that a large percentage of the viewing/listening population gravitates to one-sided broadcasts that reinforce their already-held beliefs.
As it stands there is little opportunity for a meaningful on-air argument with these demagogues who rarely speak with their idealogical opposites and tend to engage in histrionics when they do. Heck, even Limbaugh's website (at least the non-fee-based side) has no facility for comments --it's as if he's so terrified that someone might actually point out the folly of his positions that he can't risk even the slightest chance of a discordant voice.
Let Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Olbermann, et al keep their shows, but insist on standards: no shouting over guests or turning off microphones, significant inclusion of opposing viewpoints, keeping stats on the number of minutes of opposing caller viewpoint aired per show.
Aren't these the same conservatives that are trying to pass laws to have "Intellgent Design" be taught as an alternative to Evolution in schools? "Intelligent Design" has been rejected as nonsense by the scientific community, and this distinction has kept it out of the classroom.
Rush Limbaugh was happy to see the local government in Dover, PA try to force this rubbish on children as a counter to evolution. I'm sure he would be the first to throw a temper tantrum if the government tried to counter his views.
Rush Limbaugh's time in the sun has run out and he will find that he presides over a dwindling, aging and increasingly marginalized block of "Dittoheads" who will never change either theirs or the minds of others.
Maintain and defend our First Amendment rights; let all voices be heard.
Limbaugh is an pompass ass that preaches to the chior,never & takes a call from someone who does not walk in lockstep with him. I tried but I can only tolerate him for about five minutes before the bitter taste of bile starts rising in my throat.
As time goes on, and America becomes aware that Obama is not just another phony politician, Brash Brainless will become a moot exclamation in life...
Fine, if they're so worried about it, why don't Dems graciously retract their Fairness Doctrine conspiracy to eliminate Rush, and in return the minority party can let them have universal health care, an end to the war, and global warming action.
we dont need the fairness doctrine. we just need these cowards like limbaugh to be challenged to come from behind that microphone and debate thats all . when limbaugh does appear he goes on fox only . if his views are so real and right challenge him. i would love to see him against bob bekel. i would love to see olberman against orielly. LIMBAUGH IS A COWARD !!!!!!!!!!!
The so-called Fairness Doctrine is really a rule about critical thinking, something that should be taught in schools--but isn't. At any rate, enforcing critical thinking on the airwaves is the wrong way to go. We need to hear the authentic voices of extremism, if only to keep ourselves informed. As for Rush, why would one want to silence the greatest comedian alive? He mixes a bit of sincerity, a bit of jargon, a bit of jingoism, a bit of nonsense--and we have authentic right-wing thinking. No, what we need is not a fairness doctrine, but a truth doctrine--that whatever is said in the air should be true, not imagined, not distorted; we need an ethics of the airwaves, with people held accountable for telling lies or distorting the truth for partisan effect. A truth doctrine would shut Rush up in five seconds.
The Fairness Doctrine was instituted as a protection of the public airways. It was undone in the Reagan administration because the neo-cons saw the value in a one sided presentation of their propaganda. The Republicans do not want it and seem outraged by the possibility of its return. Well, if the Republicans don't want it to return, it has to be a good thing for the public, right?
Sounds good to me. Our area's conservative radio station here in the Twin Cities (100.3), which airs Rush and Hannity, was nothing more than an around the clock ad for McCain from September right up until election day. This after being a huge McCain critic for much of the first six months of the year.
i agree with stellaray . if the msm calls out the lies on these right wing nuts with proof all this lying will stop. see it is hard to get through to rush because he preaches his hate and lies for 2 hours and 5 0 minutes and then he says he puts liberals up front on the calls which is a lie and if a liberal gets through when he shows rush is lying the music comes on and rush cuts him off and they go to a commercial. thats coward . and the msm will not report when a talk show hosts lie .
Mr. Limbaugh will undoubtedly receive higher ratings with Obama in the White House. He should be thanking Obama for winning. It seemed as though the poor man had a tough time scrounging up talking points for the last 8 years - couldn't talk about how popular Bush and Cheney were becoming. The Ditto Heads were probably starved for some good sleaze.
It's sad that Mr. Limbaugh doesn't realize how he divides the country with his rhetoric. On the other hand, he gets paid well enough to drink $500 bottles of wine and smoke premium cigars in his Florida mansion so I wonder if maybe he just doesn't give a damn?
As for Hannity, O'Rielly, Drudge, Coulter and rest of that gang - they're going to have to re-invent themselves - not unlike the Republican party itself. What do they stand for? Does anyone know at this point?
Restoring the Fairness Doctrine won't stop the right wing propaganda machine. The "Fair & Balanced" channel is a perfect example of why not...
What I think is a situation that needs to be corrected is the imbalance on Armed Forces Radio. You can hear Rush all the live-long day there, but not even hear a moderate like Ed Schultz.
This is tax-payer funded radio, after all. I hate that the troops are being propagandized with Rush's claptrap.
Believe in free speech but not speech that incites. He should be taken off the air. He's over opinionated, supposed recovered drug addict (HA) and in general a pain in the A**. If he's taken off air it couldn't happen to a better guy. Probably strengthen the Republican Party.
In a wider perspective Obama and Fairness Doctrine don't make any sense: I don't think he'd spend much on anything that'd js last until the next majority and president shift. What for?
Please...if Limbaugh were a non-entity or coward, or whatever other label this blog wants to affix to him and did not make money for the company he represents, he would cease to exist. Limbaugh and his ilk are the polar opposite of sites such as this one. Is MJ beyond reproach? NO! MJ sports an agenda as does Limbaugh. Don't like it? Turn him off.
Two other points; IF the mainstream media (MSM) would do its job of reporting the news in other than a sycophantic nature, again maybe, right wing radio would go away. Reference the coming of Obama as the second Camelot. the man hasn't even warmed the seat in the Oval Office yet.
Second point; Jeff Bingaman, (Dem NM) stated publicly on a local afternoon radio show that he would love to see the Fairness Doctrine re-instated. Fuel to the fire one might say. Was this not included in this article, but why?
Lastly tell me who is served by a sycophant reporter delving deep into the Obama agenda of what kind of dog they will get for their two girls? (OK, let's go, pile on the "constructive" responses.)
All this and Al Franken was never mentioned. Man!
On occasion, I have heard Rush. The callers he gets, it seems to me, are generally quite on the low end of education and intellect. Does he mainly appeal well to such an audience?
Darn . . . someone needs to silence the 2 of them. A gag and a roll of duct tape . . . please!!!!
As much as I would like to see the Hannity's and Limbaugh's rhetoric of hate and paranoia off the air and their redneck audience listening a classical music or AirAmerica, Obama is too much of a pragmatic. Economy first and let the dogs bark and caravans pass.
Why can't everyone quit buying products
advertised on right wing propganda radio???
Rush Limbaugh is paranoid. I know that's a mean thing to say, but seriously, he's either still doing drugs or he has effed up his head from doing so many drugs in the past. He's a man living in a state of paranoia with the airwaves at his fingertips. Spreading his paranoia to his listeners who are, more than likely, under educated, back woods, knuckle draggers.
I grow bored with conservatives preemptively claiming victimhood at the hands of those far more tollerant than themselves. Even many conservatives weary the whining crybabies of right wing talk radio and TV anticipating future abuse of their rights. Well, we're all waiting for evidence.....
-And we will continue to wait....
-And if it happens we will speak out against their right to spew venom and innuendo disguised as journalism. In the meantime, can y'all talk about something other than yourselves? Sorry Rush, sorry Sean, but you guys and your breathlessly anticipated stigmata are just not that interesting.
I say enact the fairness doctrine for talk radio....And then enforce FAIRNESS in all journalism, newspapers, and network news broadcasts (the network tv stations use our public airwaves.) Let's make sure Katie Couric and Brian Williams give as much conservative viewpoint as their liberal. Let's get a fair shake at BOTH sides being represented on all the left wing media. Liberals want equality and fairness for all, let's see how they would feel about our "fairness" in journalism in this country!
The operative phrase is that these are supposed to be "public airwaves".
Yet these are not nor have ever been the public's. They have increasingly been leaveed (owned) by fewer and larger media corporations; which are increasingly right-wing and fundamentally conservative.
If right-wing radio was just discussing public issues with a conservative slant, then I doubt if there would be the outcry from those whose viewpoints haven't been heard on those same airwaves since the Fairness Doctrine died.
But increasingly, right-wing radio has been filled with nothing more than hate-filled invective designed to inflame and incite. In the meantime, this hate speech is ALL that is heard by millions of listeners because of the very lack of balancing views the Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent.
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and let Rush and Sean fend for themselves in the forum of truly public airwaves. And if the corporations that lease the public airwaves decide that the millions of listeners who flock to these professional hate-mongers will leave because they might actually have to listen to balancing opinions, then I guess that's what capitalism is all about, right?
This certainly couldn't be worse than the one-sided hate-strewn garbage that isfilling the airwaves right now.
i think the only thing that would keep Rush from talking is a fully loaded pizza and some oxy-contin
Rush caters to the "joe the dumber" crowd. Maybe with better education and fairer healthcare under Obama, they'll get an iq up like the hispanics did when that BO ad called out Rush on his hate-bigotry and secured the majority of their vote. Perhaps then these low-info voters will finger Rush for the bstrd he really is.
Let the idiots revel in their own hatred. It seems to me they can't even stand themselves. I can see Rush dipping back into his meds sometime soon! His boyfriend Hannity es un pendejo!
Gee, does ANYONE still care about what a drug-addled windbag like Rush Limbaugh thinks?! Yikes.
Don't kid yourself the Republicans fear the Fairness Doctrine more than anything else. That's why they're talking about it constantly now. They know that if they lose their monopoly over the media then their fascist ways will have to end.
"Really, though, the conservative drumbeat over the Fairness Doctrine is much ado about nothing. It's fearmongering"
well.. that;s all the hard right know how to approach things. look at their entire string of campaigns over the last several years.
if you don't agree with us, we say the other side will be the death of us all! that is their one and only response... and it's making a horrible atmosphere for moderate conservatives.
personally, i hope they keep it up. people are paying attention. let limbaugh and hannity keep spouting hate and intolerance. more and more people are becoming tired of it. when they lose their audience, they will fade away to obscurity, as they well deserve.
Rush Limbug is an anti-American hate monger, but I believe in the 1st Amendment and would not even in my dreams take away his right to spew his hate America [deleted]. Apparently, he doesn't have that much effect anyway - didn't he just lose this past election? The people don't want his crap anymore. Well, his fellow hate-America types do, but they're losing grip. Time for them to get on Viagra, because this is all about penis power, and theirs are flagging.
I heard some of this uproar over the Fairness Doctrine, so I decided to do some reading about it. Just as I thought, there's nothing true about Obama wanting to reinstate it. This is just an opportunity for Rush and Hannity to rail against the Liberals wanting to silence them, but they're going to fight against them til the bitter end! It's just to make them look good and look like they're being threatened. 90% of their listeners won't do any research on it, they'll just parrot what they heard. They'll cheer when the conservatives 'win' the fight, thinking they must have shown them hypocritical liberals. Pathetic, and pretty disgusting.
Some of the things said on certain channels are slanderous and should be prosecuted, lies should not be allowed, they are not fair comment and impinge on the rights of others, the fairness doctrine sounds good to me.
an article in the telegraph last week that the secret service said that the rush limbaugh type rhetorich that sarah palin was preching at her rallies were inciting white supremisist groups to rise up against obama . not a work in the main stream media . that will be the happening for the next 8 years that why rush must be countered . i dont want him silenced just called out on what he is doing. fair and balanced
sorry for my spelling it late ha ha ha ha i meant not a word from the media they are too worried about something stupid like 150 k of clothing and lipstick on a pig
Some would call Hannity and Rush entertainers. I beg to differ. There are a whole lot of people that take that BS as gospel.jp
