Fair and Balanced: It's the Law

Three days after Diane Feinstein declared she was "looking at" reviving the Fairness Doctrine, Rep. Mike Pence has introduced a bill to prevent such a resurrection.

For more on Pence, go here. For more on the Fairness Doctrine, go here.

Comments

Thought I Was Joe For A Minute | June 27, 2007, 10:36pm | #

Why does Reason consistently single out Democrats for criticism on this issue, when it is mainly a Republican issue?

Jonathan Hohensee | June 27, 2007, 10:38pm | #

How well-suported is this by democrats? Listening to Hannity, it sounds like it is an evil consparicy between Hillary Clinton, Noam Chomsky, and Ted Kenndy to whip republicans off the map

joe | June 27, 2007, 10:41pm | #

Funny, I've never written any comments on the Fairness Doctrine.

Maybe you were thinking about someone else?

The Wine Commonsewer | June 27, 2007, 10:50pm | #

Well, at least one of us got a chuckle out of it. But, then again, I'm easily amused. :-)

Come on Joe, I'll buy you a Martooni.

brucem | June 27, 2007, 11:09pm | #

A law to prevent the passage of later laws? That's not gonna work.

mediageek | June 27, 2007, 11:43pm | #

TWC-

More than one. =)

jf | June 28, 2007, 12:09am | #

Seriously, TWC, joe has never had such a knee-jerk reaction.

At least to the Fairness Doctrine.

Steven | June 28, 2007, 12:42am | #

A law to prevent the passage of later laws? That's not gonna work.

As I understand it it isn't a law to prevent another law, rather to prevent the FCC from making a rule.

Steven | June 28, 2007, 12:43am | #

"The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints in controversial issues of public importance. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine."

The Wine Commonsewer | June 28, 2007, 12:48am | #

Okay then, I'll buy Media and jf a Martooni or two. Danny! Bring these gentlemen a round and put it on Gillespie's tab. I'll have a small glass of the red, thankee.

Danny! | June 28, 2007, 1:50am | #

Yes, sir. Sorry I took so long.

[under my breath] Fuc*ing drunks! Ah, well, at least this bastard tips well!

mediageek | June 28, 2007, 1:54am | #

Danny-

Please leave the cap on the bottle of Vermouth and just wave the bottle over the martini glass a couple of times.

Thanks!

Danny- | June 28, 2007, 2:16am | #

Of course, sir, as always!

[in my head I'm thinking] I am so ready to just crack this bottle over that fu*ker's head. I really am.

Czar | June 28, 2007, 2:55am | #

So as I understand it, the Fairness Doctrine was just that--doctrine, not law, laid down by a federal regulating group. Congress may pass a law to tell that federal regulating group which doctrines they may and may not implement.

Makes perfect sense.

Chris S. | June 28, 2007, 7:51am | #

Even if it weren't a plain assault on the First Amendment -- which it clearly is -- it's more or less moot right now: who cares if you apply the fairness doctrine to the networks? Non-FCC licensed media is the name the game as far as modern partisan punditry is concerned.

Gilbert Martin | June 28, 2007, 8:28am | #

"it's more or less moot right now: who cares if you apply the fairness doctrine to the networks?"

It's not the networks the supporters of the "fairness" doctrine are aiming at - it's talk radio in general and Rush Limbaugh in particular.

Liberal talk radio like Air America has flopped out and the libs can't compete in that market so they want the government to hogtie the competition for them.

Chris S. | June 28, 2007, 9:23am | #

It's not the networks the supporters of the "fairness" doctrine are aiming at - it's talk radio in general and Rush Limbaugh in particular.

Yeah, I probably should have read the link before shooting my mouth off...

ed | June 28, 2007, 10:01am | #

"Looking at it" in politician-speak means not really doing anything but threatening to. It's also a reliable and convenient way of answering a question you don't know the answer to. Or stalling the guy who asks you what the hell happened to his dessert.

JW | June 28, 2007, 11:24am | #

This is about as close to a retroactive abortion as we are ever going to get.

Now, if we can only get an entire session of Congress devoted to passing bills that prevent the passage of other bills and regs....

I get a woody just thinking about the utter chaos that will ensue.