PARANOIA has gripped those crackpots over at the Christian Coalition of America who are screaming themselves hoarse over the possible return of the “Fairness Doctrine” in broadcasting.
As we understand it, FD means that everything broadcast on America’s public airwaves should be balanced with opposing viewpoints.
Seems reasonable enough to us here in the UK, where balanced broadcasting is a given, even though the BBC periodically flouts the principle, but is usually brought to book when it does so.
Roberta Combs
No, no NO! says the Christian Coalition, and points out that this “undemocratic” move would put a sock in the mouths of hate-spouting, reactionary Christian fundies – er, sorry, “conservative” talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.
The CCA complains:
Liberals know that this ‘Fairness Doctrine’ law would intimidate radio station owners not to carry hours of conservative talk (because they would have to offer hours of liberal talk) – meaning shows like Rush Limbaugh’s would be a thing of the past. They know that conservative talk radio is one of the biggest obstacles standing between them and being able to implement the rest of their radical liberal agenda.
The CCA’s fear arises out of the fact that when Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, was asked late last year whether FD should be returned, she answered “Yes.”
The CCA added:
This is the policy – overturned by President Ronald Reagan – which required opposing views for basically everything said on radio’s public airwaves. After this anti-democratic policy was eliminated, talk show hosts thrived, especially those with a conservative persuasion. Apparently Pelosi’s party of freedom does not want freedom on the airwaves.
CCA President Roberta Combs added:
Congress should resist the urge to shut down radio talk show hosts around the country which is what the “Fairness Doctrine” would effectively do if brought back.
When will these nutters get it through their Bible-fogged brains that their days of religious privilege – mercifully – are fast-dwindling, and that they have absolutely no right to continue demanding special treatment purely on the basis of their stupid delusions?
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
January 12th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
If by “undemocratic” we mean that the majority wouldn’t be allowed to dominate the conversation, then yes.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Are you sure that isn’t a photo of Paul Gadd? ;>)
January 12th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Wait, what? Only Fundies think that the “Fairness Doctrine” is garbage? I think you fell off your rocker with this one. What the would-be law does is force radio stations to carry unpopular shows. Trust me, if Air America was the standard for radio, do you think the Dems would be pushing for this garbage bill? Not on your life.
Granted the CCA is against it for all the wrong reasons. They are afraid that the would lose control over their stations. Of course, I’d love to see an Atheist’s corner on a religious channel, but I don’t want to force it in using the threat of gov’t intervention.
I cannot believe that this would be an acceptable solution for anyone involved.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
A return of the FD would definitely shut down many conservative talk radio shows because then they would not be able to push their lies and propaganda unopposed. The internet and its’ volume of readily available information is why conservative talk radio lies and propaganda did not work so well in the last presidential lection.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Unfortunately, the way the political wind is blowing here, it probably won’t happen. For one thing, Pelosi has made herself somewhat infamous for backing down from any fight that liberal voters want her to take on. For another, the word around the water cooler seems to be that the issue is way down Obama’s list. So look for just as much unchecked right-wing gobbledygook as always.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
This really shouldn’t have anything to do with fundamentalists or talk radio which certain individuals find to be offensive. It is simply about more government intrusion into what should be left to the stations themselves to decide on. Programming is funded by advertising and if the market share isn’t sufficient, the adverts are pulled by the companies who buy them.
Free market concepts, such as privately owned radio stations airing the programs that generate the most income, should not be meddled with by certain parties within the government who don’t agree with the content.
People who cheer on the government to intervene and stop something that they dislike will, at some point, be on the wrong side of the intervention.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:29 am
Hahahaha – there goes the myth of the ‘liberal media’ – look, they’ve come right out and admitted that if programming were ‘balanced’ then the Limbaughs would no longer be viable. And yet I thought the media were all supposed to be latte-drinking volvo-driving elitist commOnists feminazi baby-eaters? No? Really not?
January 13th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
A lot of ignorance on display on this topic.
Liberal thoughts dominate the education system and the mainstream media be it printed or televised. Every study by universities shows a 90%+ left wing bias in the media.
The only area that the left does not dominate is talk radio.
In order to eradicate the possibility that people hear an alternative viewpoint the Democrats are looking at reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine in order to provide ‘balance’.
Should the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Guardian, Melbourne Age, PBS, ABC, BBC, CNN etc etc also be forced to be balanced?
Should arts faculties be forced to provide balance? (There’s a clear argument that they should, BTW).
A point that is missed is that the left has tried to emulate the right’s success in talk radio and have been hammered with Air America being a classic example.
Why shouldn’t people be allowed to choose what they listen to?
It’s not a religious argument (and there’s not a religious bone in my body).
In order to provide clarity to your thinking, would it be the same if the positions were reversed?
If the Republicans had have tried to force the taxpayer funded PBS to be balanced then would you have agreed?
The argument is the same (use of a public property – the airwaves) and the logic is the same.
I sense that many of you would hop up and down about silencing dissent etc etc.
The Fairness Doctrine should frighten all proponents of free speech.
What can be used by the left against the right can also be used by the right against the left when the boot is on the other foot.
Freedom is the loser.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Another argument is “Who is to decide what is balanced?” Do we start counting the number of words or seconds that each side has used? What if there is a third or nth argument, who would decide if they should be considered in the balancing act. Although English, I have heard rational speakers of all hues say that the Fairness Doctrine is very bad. (Thought up by very, very naughty people)
January 13th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Jack… exactly. Imagine if the Fairness Doctrine was forced upon this blog? For every article calling a religious nutjobber a religious nutjobber, you’d see a post from someone(s) representing a church telling us all how we’re going to go to hell, and that man is man, because that’s what their god decided man would be.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
The fairness doctrine sounds like a good thing at first – until you realise that religious people already seek to use it (or something similar) to indoctrinate others. “You’ve taught the evidence for Evolution in our schools”, they cry, “so teach the evidence for Creation! Teach the controversy!”
Of course, the two sides don’t merit equal airtime here, for the simple reason that Evolution is supported by lots of evidence and Creationism has been blown out of the water. Going by an evidence-based approach, it’s not fair to teach Creationism. Going by an “equal airtime” principle it would be, though….