Now THIS Is A Surprise

Take a look at this from the Tribune-Review. It's from today's Tuesday Takes:

The voice of Luke: We see nothing wrong with KDKA radio giving Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and his spokeswoman, Joanna Doven, three hours of free air time Friday last. That is, if the station gives all of Mr. Ravenstahl's challengers in next year's mayoral election equal time. If not, it should send the mayor a bill for a three-hour campaign commercial.

This is not about the Mayor as I am not a supporter.  Beyond that, it's simply surprising to read such a subtle defense of the Fairness Doctrine coming from the pages of the city's conservative paper.

What is the Fairness Doctrine, you ask?  The Huffingtonpost describes it as:

Imposed in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that the scarcity of media resources made it necessary that FCC license holders allow competing points of view to have equal time and access.

Hmmm...demanding that KDKA give equal time to the mayor's political challengers.  Sounds like the fairness doctrine to me.

That is surprising, isn't it?

Why Don't Facts Matter To The Wingnut Right?

Case in point. Liz Cheney, Reality and Dover Air Force Base:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Crooks and Liars has a transcript.

Here's the gist of the latest GOP lie-fest. Liz Cheney (Dick's daughter) complained about President Obama's appearance at Dover Air Force Base:

I don't know why he went to Dover. I mean, I think that clearly it is very important for a commander-in-chief, whenever he can in whatever way it possible, to pay tribute to our fallen soldiers, our fallen military folks. But, I think, you know, what President Bush used to do was to it without the cameras, and I don't understand sort of showing up with the White House Press Pool with photographers and asking the family if you can take pictures.

The problem? O'Donnell points out:

President Bush never went to Dover Air Force Base to honor dead American soldiers on their final journey. And Vice President Cheney... never did either.

Why doesn't simple reality ever matter with these folks?

Oh, that's right. The President was born in Kenya. He's a socialist, a Muslim and the Anti-Christ. His administration is manipulating a government take-over of the Health Care System, a government take-over of economy, and will be manipulating a government take-over of the Internet. Then there's the fairness doctrine, the death panels, and the global warming hoax.

Have I left out anything else from the so-called "party of ideas"?

The Fairness Doctrine. Again

From Broadcasting and Cable:

Julius Genachowski, President Obama's nominee for chairman of the FCC, said Tuesday that he did not support reimposing the fairness doctrine.

He was asked at his nomination hearing by ranking Senate Commerce Committee Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) to publicly state the opinion he had expressed to her in a meeting--that he did not support the doctrine, even if it were arrived at by ancillary routes like localism mandates.

Genachowski said he strongly believes in the First Amendment and doesn't think the FCC should be involved in censorship based on political speech and opinion.

It doesn't get much more simple than that.

Huffingtonpost has more:

What is the "Fairness Doctrine?" Imposed in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that the scarcity of media resources made it necessary that FCC license holders allow competing points of view to have equal time and access. In practice, the Fairness Doctrine was always tricky to enforce, and so in 1987 is was done away with. In the immediate offing, right wing radio flourished. Of course, since then, the media has expanded to include satellite radio and cable television and the internet, eliminating the original "scarcity of resources" argument that underpinned the Fairness Doctrine in the first place, while greatly complicating a media sphere that the law couldn't handle well when it was implemented nearly sixty years ago.

So I guess Brent Bozell has an answer to his question:

The Federal Communications Commission rescinded in 1987 the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine, deeming it an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech.

But in just the last couple of years, at least seventeen members of Congress have expressed their desire to see this form of government censorship reimposed.

Last June, a spokesman for then-candidate Barack Obama stated publicly that President Obama views the mis-named “Fairness” Doctrine as a “distraction” and does not want to see it reinstated. But on February 15, President Obama’s advisor David Axelrod was asked by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday “Will you rule out reimposing the Fairness Doctrine?”

To which Mr. Axelrod responded “I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, to, and the President, to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now.”

Do you, Mr. Genachowski, have an answer for us now? Have you discussed the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine with the President? Will you reimpose it? Where do you stand on this form of outright regulatory censorship?

Anyone want to take bets on how long it takes Bozell to reinstate his feverish Fairness Doctrine jeremiad?

Tom Ridge And The Fairness Doctrine

The GOP circular firing squad is aiming at Tom Ridge. As usual the GOP gets its history wrong and their media mouthpieces (in this case the Tribune-Review) omits some important data.

From Washington Monthly:

Arlen Specter left the Republican Party when Pennsylvania Republicans rejected his relative moderation. Pessimistic about Pat Toomey's chances, GOP leaders have been scrambling, looking for a credible Republican alternative.

It appears the party has rallied behind former Gov. Tom Ridge (R) as their new go-to guy. Ridge, a two-term chief executive and the first DHS Secretary, is probably the only Republican with a realistic shot at winning the statewide race.

Couple problems here:

There are, however, a couple of problems. First, Ridge lives in Maryland, not Pennsylvania, and as Rick Santorum can attest, Keystone State voters tend to care about whether their candidates live in the same state as they do.

Second, there's the inconvenient fact that Ridge isn't that much more conservative than Specter. If the party's far-right base found Specter intolerable, Ridge, whose pro-choice views were rumored to have kept him off the McCain ticket, may find himself vulnerable to attacks from the right.

First attack from the National Review Online:

We keep hearing again and again that Tom Ridge is a supporter of abortion rights and that he's less conservative than Pat Toomey. Both statements are correct. But just what kind of Congressman was he?

Fact is, it really depends on what year you're looking at. He moved from left to right over time. Near the end of his congressional career, as he prepared his gubernatorial run, Ridge was a 60-70 percent voter on the American Conservative Union's issues. Earlier on, he voted like a moderate Democrat, with ratings as low as the 30s.

A few key votes that Ridge took: He voted to expand welfare eligibility (1984), to fund abortions with public money, and in favor of the fairness doctrine (in 1987). Ridge voted against an early school choice program in 1992. He also voted for a number of union priorities — in 1988, he voted to re-hire the air traffic controllers who had gone toe-to-toe with President Reagan seven years earlier and lost. Ridge voted against SDI repeatedly, and against some tax cuts.

The bottom line is that as a member of Congress, Tom Ridge had a liberal streak that goes far beyond abortion. But his record still puts him to the right of Arlen Specter.

Note Ridge's shift towards the right over time - that Ridge began in Congress farther to the left than when he left it, according the writer of the piece, David Freddoso. But such subtlety is lost, obviously, on our friends on The Tribune-Review's editorial board. Take a look:

Writing at National Review Online, David Freddoso reminds that Tom Ridge, now talked up as a Republican challenger to Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter next year, might not be everybody's idea of a "conservative" but that his record is to the right of Mr. Specter. It will, however, be difficult for Republicans to forget Mr. Ridge's votes for the liberal-coddling Fairness Doctrine and repeated votes against missile defense. And that would make it tough sledding against the real conservative in the race — Republican Pat Toomey.

That pesky Fairness Doctrine. Note that Freddoso at least has the decency to point out when the votes were made. In this instance, The Trib's Editorial Board chose to omit the fact that the vote they so abhor occurred 22 years ago.

Here's something else they won't tell you. The Bill they're probably referring to was HR 1934, the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987." Here's the CRS Summary from thomas.loc.gov:

Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987 - Expresses the findings of the Congress that the Fairness Doctrine: (1) fairly reflects the statutory obligations of broadcasters; (2) received statutory approval from the Congress in 1959; and (3) reasonably balances first amendment rights.

Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require broadcast licensees to provide a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. Requires enforcement and application of such requirement to be consistent with the rules and policies of the Federal Communications Commission in effect on January 1, 1987.

The bill had 71 cosponsors (though Ridge was not one of them). Among those cosponsors were:

• Robert Dornan (aka "B-1 Bob")
• Newt Gingrich
• Henry Hyde
  
• Trent Lott

I wonder why they didn't point that part out?

Adrian McCoy Writes About Quinn, Rose, and MediaMatters

This past Sunday. The article begins with:

Media Matters thinks Jim Quinn's hot-button speeches can be hazardous to listeners, so he gets a "radioactive" rating from the watchdog group.

Here's the "Radioactive" page at Mediamatters.org. It links to the many many embarrassing things Quinn (and Rose - we can't forget Rose, can we?) has said on the public airwaves.

McCoy touches on one:

Media Matters called Quinn to task for several comments made on his program. In one show excerpt posted on Radioactive, he said: "You know, if you were a slave in the old South, what did you get as a slave? You got free room and board, you got free money, and you got rewarded for having children because that was just, you know, tomorrow's slave. ... Can I ask a question? How's that different from welfare? You get a free house, you get free food, and you get rewarded for having children. Oh, wait a minute, hold on a second. There is a difference: The slave had to work for it."

Here's Mediamatters page on that particularly idiotic rhetorical flourish. The part that McCoy didn't quote is what Tennant said immediately after Quinn favorably compared Welfare to slavery. She said:

Ah, the truth stings, does it not?

Tennant, a self-professed Christian had no trouble agreeing. The meek might not, I guess, inherit the Earth. But what do I know, I'm just an agnostic. [SEE THE CORRECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS BLOG POST]

Hey, but did you know that the three days later he defended his point with:

Now, naturally, the point that I was making was that there are two forms of servitude: There's the servitude that you can be forced into, and there's the servitude you can be coerced into, I mean, the horrors of slavery notwithstanding -- naturally, that was my point.

And then:

[W]hen you think about it, the slave had more personal nobility than the welfare recipient, because he or she had no say in their station in life. The welfare recipient actually volunteers for it. It is the liberal plantation.

The world according to Jim Quinn. After a profoundly illogical charge by Quinn himself:

"Media Matters is not just a bunch of liberal bloggers exercising their First Amendment rights," Quinn warns, citing the nonprofit organization's financial support from wealthy liberal donors. "Any critique of media speech by Media Matters for America carries with it the implied threat of government censorship."

We reach the only I can find in McCoy's reporting. It's here:

Like many conservative talk hosts, Quinn and Rose raise the issue of a possible revival of the Fairness Doctrine. "It is a weak argument that suggests that speech may be stifled without the doctrine," Tennent says. "It's virtually impossible in today's environment to deny access to certain viewpoints -- or to find outlets that air them."

On the Quinn and Rose War Room Web site (http://warroom.com), there's an online petition opposing the Fairness Doctrine that listeners can sign. The petition encourages listeners "to urge Congress and government officials to reject any and all efforts to censor, limit or restrain the right of conservatives."

But [Media Matters senior researcher Julie] Millican maintains that Media Matters isn't out to silence or censor these talk hosts. "It's important to keep an eye on what's being said on the public airwaves. People should be aware of what's out there. They can say whatever they want to say. But people are entitled to know that's what being said on their airwaves, and they're entitled to be offended about it."

Uh, wait. The "Possible revivial" of the Fairness Doctrine? By whom? Perhaps McCoy should have checked this page at Mediamatters.org. Where it quotes Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly:

I've been fascinated of late with the far-right hysteria about the reemergence of the "fairness doctrine," because conservative activists are gearing up for a knock-down brawl against an enemy that doesn't exist. Everyone from obscure right-wing bloggers to Rush Limbaugh to Washington Post columnists are prepared for a fight that isn't going to happen.

And yet, the nonsense doesn't stop. Perusing the news this morning, there are still more conservative columnists railing against the "plan" to bring back the fairness doctrine, and unhinged propaganda about the "unprecedented government assault upon the First Amendment" that is allegedly on the way.

The New Republic's Marin Cogan asked around, trying to find Democrats who actually support bringing the fairness doctrine back, or media-reform liberals who might push for action on this. Cogan couldn't find any.

Benen adds that even Barack Obama opposes reinstating it.

Or McCoy could have checked this blog or even the Post-Gazette itself. Brian O'Neill wrote:

The Fairness Doctrine is not going to be reinstated, nor should it. Never mind that a restraint on free speech would be a betrayal of core liberal principles. It won't happen because President-elect Barack Obama has no interest in it, few Democrats in Congress care about it, and they all can read a map.

So why does Adrian McCoy write about a "possible revivial of the Fairness Doctrine"?

Fact-checking. It's all in a day's work.

AND A CORRECTION: I misread the mediamatters posting. For the record, Rose Tennant DID NOT say, "Ah, the truth stings, does it not?" after Jim Quinn (favorably) compared slavery with being on welfare. That was Jim Quinn himself.

There's no record of her agreeing with that rather grotesque statement. I would hope she disagrees with it but that's completely beside the point. The point is I should have gotten it right the first time.

My bad.

The Crazies Again (This Time It's The "Fairness Doctrine")

I've been waiting for someone to say this:

Am I the only one who’s confused by all this conservative organizing against the re-imposition of the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio? I understand why they oppose that move, but why are they putting so much energy into blocking something that nobody is trying to do. A Fairness Act bill was submitted in the House in 2005, but it only 16 cosponsors. No such bill was submitted in the last conference. Barack Obama opposes reintroducing the Fairness Act. And speaking as a paid-up member of the vast left-wing conspiracy, nobody on our side is getting any marching orders about this

There's more at Washington Monthly:

So why the wild-eyed panic? The American Spectator, a right-wing magazine, claims to who have spoken to "two members of the House Democrat [sic] Caucus" who warned the hard-right publication that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer plan to "aggressively pursue" reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine over the next six months.

And that leads back to Mother Jones:

So the Spectator, not exactly known for its deep sources with the Democratic Party, reports that "two members" of the House Democratic caucus claim that Pelosi and Hoyer are going to aggressively pursue reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, this was reported in May of 2007, and unless I missed some big news, Pelosi and Hoyer failed to make their big push.

So why are conservatives in such a tizzy about this? It's a mystery. There do appear to be a few members of Congress who think it's a shame we got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, but as near as I can tell, "few" equals four or five in the Senate and maybe a dozen in the House. There are probably more Republicans who believe in a return to the gold standard than there are Democrats who seriously want to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine.

And remember, President Elect Obama opposes reintroducing the act. Who supports it? I want names.

I can see the silent unmarked black New World Order helicopters from my house!

UPDATE ONE: I missed Brian O'Neill's great piece about the collective Republican delusions regarding the Fairness Doctrine. Take a look:

The Fairness Doctrine is not going to be reinstated, nor should it. Never mind that a restraint on free speech would be a betrayal of core liberal principles. It won't happen because President-elect Barack Obama has no interest in it, few Democrats in Congress care about it, and they all can read a map.

If last week's presidential map showed anything, it was that a medium where America's conservative white guys talk mostly to each other is just the kind of insular world that can help a party lose by 7 million votes.

UPDATE TWO: I contacted Congressman Mike Doyle and asked if there was any plan to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine his answer:

David, I know of no plans to try to reinstate the fairness doctrine.