Only Crybabies need a Fairness Doctrine

Caught this one on RWN before it got here Alfonzo… spot on… (although it got sidetracked from the crybaby theme )..

I was dying in laughter at the punk rock part (and loved the arm -for-the-finger trade off)

I'm going crazy ova' here – a new video from Zo and my speakers aren't working! I can't hear your message and it's going to distract me all day now. Damn speakers…

Brilliant as always

Love it – keep up the good work Alfonzo, we need you!

Another great commentary.

Thanks, Zo.

Masterpiece Zo! Tell it like it is, no matter what California thinks. You ARE addressing Californians, right?

Great piece!

And — may I say — as a white woman, I find you strangely irresistible.

Daily. Please.

Alonzo, you are so very good at what you do.

You're right, Alonzo: Liberals are too easy to melt down.

I work at a newspaper, so I'm surrounded by leftists. And every once in a while, after getting a severe beatdown in a debate, one of them will run to management and tell them how coarse I am.

But the most fun I get in a day is putting Hannity on TV, and watch them all go ballistic. In their rage, they still don't find the courage to even ask to change the channel.

I'm going to have fun with the little Bolsheviks tonight.

Dude, God bless ya, you're really funny, and accurate.

(Technical comment: I can't see the article/editorial. From all the other comments, I think I would like it. I'll look back in a few days, and see if the link has been fixed.)

LOL. Very nice.

Okay, so there's Harkin — I admit I forgot him, but, though he's a senator he's hardly on the leading edge of liberal thought. Clinton and Schumer haven't been vocal about it lately, and btw, they aren't exactly liberals at all either — I've also never heard them say anything about this subject, so it's not like they're shouting it from the rooftops. Stabenow…the name's familiar but I can't place her.

My point is that there is no great hue and cry for this and the people you mention if, in fact, they really do want the doctrine back (just because you say so doesn't make it true) are outliers on this topic…

In fact, almost all the best known progressive bloggers (Kos, Drum, Yglesias, Atrios, Jane Hamsher etc.) have come out specifically against it. The Obama administration have said they have no interest in pursuing it. This issue is dead, dead, dead. I might have forgot some past statements but this is still another typical ginned up, imaginary controversy created for the sole purpose of riling the dittohead base.

Yea, the "Fairness Doctrine" is dead. It has been sufficiently hashed out and criticized.

Instead, it will be "emphasis on local content," "communications responsibility," or something like that.

What are these "new rules on media ownership" and why wouldn't they be a threat? Democrats are big on "code words;" the code words I see you using are "increase the number of voices that could be heard." At the expense of who? Clear channel and all media owners are market driven. They're selling what people are buying. "New rules on media ownership" is just the sort of back door approach that we're talking about here. If an administration that is top-down Democrat and liberal is setting these new rules, who do you think it will benefit and who will be hurt? If Barack Obama has singled out Rush Limbaugh as public enemy number one to his cause, then why shouldn't those of us on the right not be hearing the alarms?

"Well, you haven't made the case one bit why having more diverse ownership is a bad thing"

Forgive me. I didn't see where you asked me to make that case. Oh yeah, because you didn't.

Adieu.

Uh, he just made the case. IT'S ABOUT RATINGS! Why should radio conglomerates be FORCED to LOSE LISTENERS and RATINGS which equal $$$$$? If Air America was commercially viable this WOULDN'T be an issue. They aren't. Period. So, like a kids soccer coach, we're gonna "level" the playing field, at the expense of the victors. Perhaps good for the psyche of little kids, but bad for competitive business. All of this is painfully obvious, which leads me to think that, yes, it IS ABOUT CENSORING CONSERVATIVES! What bothers me is liberals like that nutjob Harkin won't just admit it.

On a serious note, and in honor of Zo's monkey shirt (see video, he brings it up himself) the U.S. House has voted to "stop interstate chimp trade". And you people thought that they could only BLOW a TRILLION TAX $$$$$$$$. See, they can multi-task.

His shirt reminded me of "Super Troopers" and then, there you go!

Exactly, but he bailed on the debate, so there was no point in me reviewing that point. You know, I'm really beginning to get the feeling that liberals don't like capitalism one bit.

No, it's scary. There a chance of failure. It's incompatible with the nanny state mentality.

Harkin WROTE the "LIBERAL THOUGHT" book. Look it up. The guy is certifiable. He was the Obammy bus early because he's a radical lefty, like Bammy. Just because he has a strange evil smile and rubs his hands together when he talks people dis him as not being a top shelf lefty.

Give it about a year or so of the disaster formerly known as Obammy's Presidency…it'll take a search party and fifty bloodhounds to find Obammy's Hollywood friends. As for the N.Y.Times, NBC, and MSNBC, if they are still in business they'll still be shilling for Obama, that's a lock. PBS wastes OUR tax $$$ to pimp socialism, since they have perpetual funding they'll be in there proping up the "Messiah".

Bob,
Not sure where you are getting your news, but it is seeing the rounds in congress as evidenced by The Hill in this recent article in November which is quoting Sen Schumer on the fairness doctrine.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/schumer-defen...

Here is Bill Clinton commenting on it the other day as well.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/02...

Diane Fieinstein commenting on bringing it back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pi8SqA26Ss

I would say that since these powerful Democrats are seriously commenting on it that there is a move to make it happen.

Heads up Zo http://www.right.org/bailout/contest

Back again. Flattery will get you everywhere.

The problem is, sorry, no, for years a liberal couldn't start a radio show at all. The CW of talk radio pretty much dictated that a liberal, any liberal, was a ratings loser. Why? Because there weren't any on the air. It was a self-perpetuating state. When you have companies like Clear Channel, Sinclair, and Fox, which clearly have political agendas, developing hegemonies over entire markets, it's going to be impossible for liberals to get on.

Now, of course, they have a right to their agendas, just as newspapers and magazines do. The only problem is when a three or four companies own all the dominant radio stations nationwide then, yes, the public is harmed because they may well only be allowed a very limited spectrum of opinion….Mark Levin on the right…Sean Hannity on the left! Of course, this has loosened up a bit recently, but in many markets, this is still the case. And even in liberal L.A. perfectly viable non-conservatives were driven off the air. I still miss the lively, but always polite debates the liberal-leaning but ever polite Michael Jackson (not the insane singer or the beer expert, obviously) used to have with all kinds of people, rather than the agreement fests of most of today's radio, left and right.

Limiting the number of stations, newspapers, TV channels a single entity can hold is actually a way to allow free market capitalism to actually do what it's supposed to do. The problem with a completely laissez faire approach is that companies grow so big they actually become so powerful that competition becomes a myth and capitalism and competition no longer applies and you have oligarchy. I don't think its right that if I annoy Rupert Murdoch, Clear Channel on the right and let's say Mark Green and Ted Turner on the left (even though their power is not equivalent, let's pretend they do for the sake of argument), then I (or anyone else) have zero chance of getting on a radio station that anyone can actually hear.

Only when the radio monopolies that currently exist are broken up will there be anything resembling the level playing field you seem to imagine actually exists.

Oy vey. Funny, to me while it's true that mainstream media leans socially liberal, on economic and foreign policy, they often lean further right than left on economic and foreign policy mattters. (Exhibit A — Pre Iraq war aiding, abetting and cheerleading, including everyone from the NYT's Judy Miller to David Letterman, Jay Leno, and Dan Rather). Frankly, the "liberal media" meme is, in my humble view, largely a lie when it comes to the news media which has been very effective in getting reporters to bend over backwards to be "fair" to the rightwing opinions which often have zero basis in fact. (Entertainment is, I grant you, a somewhat different story, though even that is largely exaggerated.)

Of course, to a person whose far enough right, ANYTHING is going to look liberal.

And where did I say I was for the fairness doctrine returning? I actually have mixed feelings about its use even "back in the day" since I tend to be a free speech absolutist. On the other hand, as long as we have legal FCC censorship, enforcing a certain degree of diversity doesn't seem all that horrible to me either and I do think we had a better mix back then, across the board. (In the fifties, you could hear conservatives on Pacifica radio which in those days was true free speech radio, not just really left, even lefter, and ohmifreakingodamaoist! So I'm talking about a better, paradoxically freer, mix across the board.)

As for bringing the doctrine back, I think the idea is completely off base and out of date for the reasons I've cited repeatedly.

Now I'm really done. If I want to see my beliefs mischaracterized, I can always watch "The Factor."

If Liberals were interested in or capable of listening to AM radio, they would have taken it over years ago. They now own television and film, correct? Unfortunately, AM talk radio requires an attention span, an imagination, and a sense of humor. Every liberal I know personally or via online networking is either lacking in at least two of those attributes and more often than not, completely devoid of all three. Most Liberals are narcissistic spoiled brats who need everything handed to them. We can't force anyone to pay attention, open their mind, and certainly we can't MAKE someone see the humor in life in general.

Thanks again Zo!!! You are always a beacon in the storming seas of politico.

And yes, I would expect that any true liberal would be against it, and it does warm my cold conservative heart that some liberals do GET that the doctrine is wrong. Also, look at this site and the comments, there are no ditto heads here, that's a cheap shot.

How generous of you. You know, our philosophy allows you to be conservative as well and thinks you, regardless of politics, are worth protecting when you need the horrible, horrible nanny state because your house is on fire, your entire city is flooded and you don't have a car, or you're having a heart attack, need expensive cancer treatments. It also thinks you should be able to vote even if you look foreign and don't know how to drive, join a union, go to school, see an NC-17 movie, read "Ulysses" and even gay marry, if that is your wish, without having to wonder what the 700 Club thinks. It thinks that if a corporation harms you, you should have the right to sue it.

And hey, sure, I'll admit liberalism is all about "pseudo-marxism and power at all cost" after you admit that modern day conservatism has devolved to being a "sociopathic and/or theocratic ideology of quasi-fascism that protects zygotes, embryos and the extremely wealthy while allowing born children to go without decent medical care or education, looting the middle class, and embracing needless war and massive civilian casualties based on pathetic and unrealistic dreams of glory." How about that?

Ha – purely a coincidence

…And here's where I disagree.
Flooded City – I'm not defending anyone's response. But there's nothing conservatives believe that would prevent that disaster from being handled well. The "know how to drive" part slays your argument since it was Nagin who failed to run the buses, and evacuation was the purview of Blanco and Nagin both Democrats. Bush didn't land in the city so as not to draw resources away from the rescue.
The 700 Club? I love religious folks but those people are idiots. It would be like me (though the two don't compare) accusing you of being Janeane Garafolo or belonging toe ANSWER. In fact I did very much the opposite. I don't think you're hateful, dumb or any of those things.
Facism? How can a philosophy that is small-government be fascist?
Medical care? We have the best in the world and whatever it lacks will not be fixed by the government. Hey, let's get our cancer care no-bid from Halliburton. (That's a joke to tweak you)
Zygotes and embryos – People who are against abortion think it's murder. Agree or disagree how could you oppose someone who is against murder.
Looting the middle class? This makes no sense. Plus the liberal argument today wants everyone to be equally poor. Something I think you or no Democrats really want but is an example of how your philosophy has gotten out of control.
And the Iraq war? Do you mean the one planned by former marxists and was the first major war not started by Democrats. The war that most Democrats voted in favor of and supported until it was politically expedient not to do so? The war that every major Democrat including Al Gore said was necessary and inevitable? The war that kept Iraq from transferring into the hands of Uday and Qusay and most likely a full blown civil war when their power was challenged?

Look, the liberal philosophy, demands a strong government which would impose on my rights and yours if it was carried out in a way you don't like.
Mine would at most, AT MOST, impose an abortion ban, a ban on gay marriage and more censorship. And since almost I conservatives I know are for the states deciding abortion, civil unions and no censorship by the government. What are you afraid of? You fear some of our positions, we fear your philosophy…and you should too.

Would you really like President Bush to have as much power as you seek for Obama?

Go Zo Go…

You must be logged in to post a comment.