What that post actually said was “there’s absolutely no push to do anything about the Fairness Doctrine.”
Most would consider holding Senate hearings on it to be doing something, especially if this statement in the article I linked to is accurate:
Attempts = bills?
Who knew?
Stabenow, et al. are attempting to and you know it.
In legislative bodies? Uh, yeah. Lawmakers attempt to enact a law by introducing a bill, and getting a majority of the other lawmakers to vote for it.
How do you define “attempt” in the context of legislators reinstating a law?
Oh, I definitely think that Stabenow and a couple of others want to float some trial balloons on this issue and see if it might get traction. But I think RTFirefly is absolutely right to say that this is not something that the Democratic majority, much less “the GOVERNMENT” or “the left”, has any interest in pushing for.
If only. If the subject ever comes up again, Rush, et al., will claim that that Real Americans followed their stalwart leadership in pressuring their representatives to allow their marginalized voices to remain free. That’s how the echo chamber works.
It’s not unheard-of that there be a lead-up to the actual introduction of a bill, involving publicity, persuasion, hearings, generation of media interest, etc. - comes under the heading of politicing. Indeed, it’s often frowned on to introduce a bill without this sort of preparation.
He said it in an overly broad way that appears to be factually incorrect.
No I didn’t …
I simply gave an example of a very significant instance when he said one thing and did little to follow thru on it.
You’re right.
I amend that to “no more than a trivial amount of push.” 
Starving Artist, by the standards you’re using, you yourself are attempting to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine. After all, you’re currently engaged in a discussion as to whether it’s a good idea.
If Starving Artist is a US Senator or Congressperson, this is a cogent comment; otherwise, not so much.
I agree with this. Even if this particular bit of talk is going nowhere fast, talk in a Congressional committee is still a few orders of magnitude closer to lawmaking than talk on a message board is.
Were you alive when the Iraq war started. All the main stations were 100 % in back of the war. Only recently have we found out the retired generals giving their opinions were working for Defense Companies.
The left wingers do not have access to the radio stations. It is not about profits,. There are several left leaning radio programs that are doing well but the righties control stations and networks. They are not able to get access.
What are the tighty righties afraid of?
The owner you refer to only owns the actual station along with its equipment etc. The frequency he is utilizing is owned by the citizens of the USA. He is merely leasing a license from the citizens and as such, can only keeps that license at the pleasure of the citizens. All of them. And, he is required to operate, at least to some degree, as a community service if he wants to keep that license.
Communities are made up of a diverse group of people with diverse opinions. If that broadcaster is offering a product that serves the interests of only one part of that community then he (or she) is not fulfilling his (or her) part of the bargin. That’s where the Fairness Doctrine comes in.
It doesn’t censor or limit in any way what that broadcaster can express on his TV or radio station (other that things like limits on obscenity, decency, and some other standards which are determined by the “normal values” of the community of license which are covered by a different part of broadcast law), it merely allows for the members of the community who hold views that are not being presented by the broadcaster to have a fair opportunity to also have their views expressed–at least periodically and in a limited fashion–on their airwaves.
The fact that media options other than broadcast media are widely available does not matter one whit. This is only about regulation of the PUBLIC airwaves. They are supposed to be offering a community service that services–at least in some small degree–the community as a whole, not just one part of it. It is is no way a violation of 1st Amendment rights because the broadcast can still say whatever he/she want to (with exceptions of obscene or indecent material). The broadcaster *should ** just be required to offer a chance for opposing viewpoints to be heard as well.
*They should be required to, but the Fairness Doctrine has pretty much gone by the wayside thanks to the greed of license holders and the lobbying power they possess and use to great effectiveness on a “corporate profits at any cost” Congress and a timid FCC.
I agree, we need political balance on PBS and NPR. They have nationwide coverage at tax payer expense with no oversight.
There already is political balance on PBS and NPR. It’s only right wing mythology that they don’t.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaH
Good one.
In effect, it does, though. By saying that whenever an opinion is expressed on a matter of public policy, the station then has to find someone expressing a contrasting view, that a big incentive to stations just not to discuss public policy at all.
Care to lay out the journalists that are featured on PBS and NPR and their leanings to support your contention?
I’m not questioning your assertion, but where is the $20 billion coming from that the government is receiving from the DTV transition?
Watch it once and learn. Every single thing they cover presents the opposite side, sitting there giving their view with no pressure from the station or sponsors. You guys are so used to one sided reporting that you don’t know fair and balanced when you see it.
Open discussions feature David Brooks and Mark Shields. Equal time same table.