With his see-through skin, presumably: the dog that wouldn't bark is once again shot dead. Which dog? The Fairness Doctrine, killed (again) by the FCC, per this poorly-headlined Politico story ("FCC finally kills off fairness doctrine"). Of course, the Fairness Doctrine has been totally and completely dead, certainly way beyond the capabilities of Billy Crystal and Carol Kane, or even Willow Rosenberg, to resuscitate it. Mostly because, conservative nuttiness aside, no one has been particularly interested in doing so for a couple decades.
Anyway, since I mention it every time I do a "dogs, not barking" post, I figured I should do a post about this. The real question is: having now succeeding in killing it once again, will conservatives allow the Doctrine to finally rest in peace? Or will they continue raising money off of the specter of government censorship through its revival?
I know where I'll be placing my money on that one. But I'll be on the lookout for evidence -- and I'd certainly appreciate any tips from those of you who pay closer attention to this stuff than I do.
(Via David).
Showing posts with label Fairness Doctrine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fairness Doctrine. Show all posts
Monday, August 22, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Crazy Much? The Scalise Amendment
Both sides of the partisan side have their cranks and crazies. It's hard not to believe, however, that tolerance for loonies is significantly higher on the Republican side than on the Democratic side these days. Need an example?
The Fairness Doctrine was a government policy mandating that broadcast media present both sides of controversial issues; it existed from the 1940s until it was eliminated by Ronald Reagan in 1987. To be sure, in those days Democrats strongly supported reinstating the Doctrine, and they tried over the next few years. But interest faded, and when the Democrats had a chance during the first two years of the Clinton presidency, nothing happened. According to wikipedia, the last time a bill was even introduced in Congress was in 2005. Democrats don't campaign on the issue (although every once in a while the occasional Dem mentions it), and of course not only was it not reinstated during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency, but there wasn't even so much as a hint that any Democrat cared about the issue any more. It's as close to a 100% dead idea as there is.
But not to movement conservatives. For many of them, Barack Obama and the Democrats are mirror Scott Walkers, out to destroy conservative institutions as soon as they get a chance -- beginning with conservative talk radio. One would think that the failure of the 110th Congress to attempt such a thing in 2007 might change their minds, and if not that the failure of the 111th Congress and Barack Obama to follow through in 2009 would convince them. Nope.
So, how is the new Fairness Doctrine going to happen (presumably any second now)? Apparently through Mark Lloyd, Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC, whose job (as the FCC's web site says) is to "help ensure that the communications field is competitive." Lloyd does in fact hold positions on the media that many conservatives legitimately oppose, but he neither supports nor has the power to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. No matter; Lloyd is, to conservative conspiracy theorists, a "Fairness Doctrine Czar."
Fine. Some wacko types believe that an obscure presidential mid-level appointee is really an all-powerful Rush-slayer. As I said, there are cranks and kooks on all sides.
But that's where we get to the Scalise Amdendment to the CR last week -- which prohibited funding for nine "czars" including the "Fairness Doctrine Czar." Putting aside how silly the whole "czar" thing is, and that an Associate General Counsel at the FCC hardly fits Scalise's definition of "czars with cabinet-level powers," what we have here is a Member of the House, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, trafficking in wacko-bait. There is no plot to reinstate the Fairness Docrtrine!
I'm sorry; did I say "a" Member of the House? Because Scalise's amendment wasn't just offered in the House; it received the unanimous-but-one support of the GOP conference (dissenting would be Reid Ribble of Wisconsin) and, 13 foolish Democrats. Granted, since there were nine "czars" included in the measure, it's possible that enthusiasm for eliminating the "Obama Care Czar" was the key thing here, but still: that's 236 Republicans voting for something that is, basically, pure hokum.
(And, yes, the underlying idea that White House staffers designated to coordinate policy across various agencies involved in a single policy area are some sort of conspiracy to subvert the constitution is equally nutters, but at least those WH staffers are in fact coordinating policy in those areas. I mean, the president really is implementing ACA, even if it's bizarre to claim that he and those working for him shouldn't coordinate that implementation).
Really, Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.
Hey, conservatives: can you find any example of a crazy conspiracy theory winning the near-unanimous support of Democrats in the House or Senate during the last four years of Democratic majorities?
I'm pretty sure that this is one area in which both sides are not even close to equally culpable.
The Fairness Doctrine was a government policy mandating that broadcast media present both sides of controversial issues; it existed from the 1940s until it was eliminated by Ronald Reagan in 1987. To be sure, in those days Democrats strongly supported reinstating the Doctrine, and they tried over the next few years. But interest faded, and when the Democrats had a chance during the first two years of the Clinton presidency, nothing happened. According to wikipedia, the last time a bill was even introduced in Congress was in 2005. Democrats don't campaign on the issue (although every once in a while the occasional Dem mentions it), and of course not only was it not reinstated during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency, but there wasn't even so much as a hint that any Democrat cared about the issue any more. It's as close to a 100% dead idea as there is.
But not to movement conservatives. For many of them, Barack Obama and the Democrats are mirror Scott Walkers, out to destroy conservative institutions as soon as they get a chance -- beginning with conservative talk radio. One would think that the failure of the 110th Congress to attempt such a thing in 2007 might change their minds, and if not that the failure of the 111th Congress and Barack Obama to follow through in 2009 would convince them. Nope.
So, how is the new Fairness Doctrine going to happen (presumably any second now)? Apparently through Mark Lloyd, Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC, whose job (as the FCC's web site says) is to "help ensure that the communications field is competitive." Lloyd does in fact hold positions on the media that many conservatives legitimately oppose, but he neither supports nor has the power to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. No matter; Lloyd is, to conservative conspiracy theorists, a "Fairness Doctrine Czar."
Fine. Some wacko types believe that an obscure presidential mid-level appointee is really an all-powerful Rush-slayer. As I said, there are cranks and kooks on all sides.
But that's where we get to the Scalise Amdendment to the CR last week -- which prohibited funding for nine "czars" including the "Fairness Doctrine Czar." Putting aside how silly the whole "czar" thing is, and that an Associate General Counsel at the FCC hardly fits Scalise's definition of "czars with cabinet-level powers," what we have here is a Member of the House, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, trafficking in wacko-bait. There is no plot to reinstate the Fairness Docrtrine!
I'm sorry; did I say "a" Member of the House? Because Scalise's amendment wasn't just offered in the House; it received the unanimous-but-one support of the GOP conference (dissenting would be Reid Ribble of Wisconsin) and, 13 foolish Democrats. Granted, since there were nine "czars" included in the measure, it's possible that enthusiasm for eliminating the "Obama Care Czar" was the key thing here, but still: that's 236 Republicans voting for something that is, basically, pure hokum.
(And, yes, the underlying idea that White House staffers designated to coordinate policy across various agencies involved in a single policy area are some sort of conspiracy to subvert the constitution is equally nutters, but at least those WH staffers are in fact coordinating policy in those areas. I mean, the president really is implementing ACA, even if it's bizarre to claim that he and those working for him shouldn't coordinate that implementation).
Really, Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.
Hey, conservatives: can you find any example of a crazy conspiracy theory winning the near-unanimous support of Democrats in the House or Senate during the last four years of Democratic majorities?
I'm pretty sure that this is one area in which both sides are not even close to equally culpable.
Friday, September 25, 2009
30,000 Pounds of Something
I do the work so Yglesias and Marshall don't have to....
I haven't actually seen their comments, but I'm assuming that Rove, Hannity, and Steyn, not to mention Senators McCain and Bond, and especially Krauthammer, will now denounce Israel as a Banana Republic.
(Of course I'm being silly. Prosecuting people from the previous administration isn't sufficient to make a nation into a Banana Republic; you also have to intend to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine any day now. Really. We're not kidding.)
I haven't actually seen their comments, but I'm assuming that Rove, Hannity, and Steyn, not to mention Senators McCain and Bond, and especially Krauthammer, will now denounce Israel as a Banana Republic.
(Of course I'm being silly. Prosecuting people from the previous administration isn't sufficient to make a nation into a Banana Republic; you also have to intend to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine any day now. Really. We're not kidding.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
