Glad to see you back in business. And sorry about your misfortune.

Wow, oppressed angry white people! Wow, we're taking away their privilege of yelling fire in a crowded theater!

Each time a middle-aged white (Euro-American) person ponders his/her victim status under such oppression the Obama administration is surely ushering in, s/he is exposing his/her long-standing historical position of privilege in our society - what buffoons!

I was recently (10 minutes ago) reading the twitter ridicule aimed at a recent Republican congressman who had the naive audacity of comparing the streets of Iran with the minority status the Republicans found themselves in at the beginning of this year - what an idiot!

Finally, my dear loved ones on the far-right would do well for themselves if they would simply realize their whining is beginning to grate on our nerves.

And, by the way, if these people are against the "fairness" doctrine, they must surely believe in being unfair - and there rests the craw in that people of privilege have no problem being unfair if it helps them wield power! -Kevo

For the record, Republicans are currently freaking out because ABC is going to have the President on TV and are not allowing Republicans equal time. Or to put it another way, they are whining that ABC is not adhering to the Fairness Doctrine.

Actually, it's c. We have figured out another way. It's a daring strategy called "give them enough rope..."

The real issue surrounding the "fairness doctrine" is not "adding" political thought/editorial balance to the airwaves -- nothing wrong with a myriad of views -- even views that may 'grate on our nerves'.

It has the potential to destroy the commercial viability of a network. Imagine if a broadcast network was forced to televise a woman's college softball game (no offense meant -- my son is an avid fan) for every pro football game on a Sunday afternoon. Would the drop-off in viewership for the latter eliminate the profit motive in the former?

The key difference between a conspiracy theory and evidence of an actual conspiracy is that a conspiracy theory continually adapts to any evidence against it. The reaction to contrary evidence is not to change any conclusions, but to figure out how it can be interpreted to leave the conclusions unchanged.

I think the idea behind the "fairness doctrine" is silly, but I what find interesting is just why conservatives go ape-shit on the subject. Would time for these "other perspectives" simply cut into their advertising revenue or... are they more worried about having their carefully orchestrated alternate reality burst, thus confusing their base? questions, questions....hmmm

"And, by the way, if these people are against the "fairness" doctrine, they must surely believe in being unfair"

No, that's simple-minded. I'm against the fairness doctrine, because I believe the field of open communication is now so easy and wide that there's no justification for government officials monitoring your communications with stopwatches and dictating your content. In a world with 2 tv channels and one radio station and no internet, maybe there was. But not now. Whether you're communist, socialist, liberal, moderate, libertarian, conservative, bircher, birther, whatever, there's now simply an ocean of media for you, and no reason for the government to intervene. I don't want Fox News to be forced to air Rachel Maddow any more than I want Air America to be forced to air Sean Hannitard.

Just to be clear, I don't think there's much importance in being against the fairness doctrine, because the idea that it's going to be reimposed exists entirely in the minds of dumb demagogues trying to frighten their audience.

In fairness, would we take a Bush administration statement like this at face value?

For that matter, given the "weaving down both sides of the road" character of the Obama administration, shouldn't we still have our grain of salt ready?

The fact that there's nobody in a position of legislative or executive or judicial authority at the moment pushing for the Fairness Doctrine's revival should help....

Let's recall this is on a site called "Hot Air (get your fill)"

The thirty percent or so true believers seem to only function by mainlining perpetual outrage about something. The reasons are as elusive as what lies beyond the Universe.

Here's someone who grew up with the Fairness Doctrine who thinks it's a good idea. It seems like everyone wants to go on record saying how bad it is, just to make out the Right to be paranoid loonies. You couldn't have Fox News with the Fairness Doctrine; I don't know of any better recommendation.

We liberals have figured out a way to destroy Talk Radio -- we're letting you continue to broadcast.

How much more blatant can the GOP be? They are actually demonizing the word "fairness."

It seems to me that they are admitting, in no uncertain terms, their insistence that the media is some "liberal-run machine" is a lie they've used to line their pockets and whip up soft-skulled voters.

"On the most charitable interpretation, he is completely ignorant..." of so many things. The grotesque irresponsibility of the Republican party in foisting this fool off as a serious candidate should be frequently pointed out. Sarah Palin wasn't a lapse in McCain's judgement; it was a typical move for this dim-witted son of privilege.

I love the Right's tacit admission that merely being forced to present an opposing viewpoint -- the mere possibility of being called on their bullshit -- will destroy talk radio.

Of course, the only people talking about actually reinstating the fairness doctrine are movement conservatives, but note how their excessive whining influenced the agenda of this nominee, to the point of taking it off the table (not unlike impeachment back in Bush's term). For the conservative media that makes a lot of money pushing right-wing claptrap, this statement is a win.

But I, too, vote for C. I could care less about the Fairness Doctrine, but rolling back Reagan-era media concentration rules would do nothing whatever to affect the content of right-wing propaganda but would hit those conservative media corporations in the shorts, and promote diversity of programming to boot.

Allahpundit has his panties in a wad? Surprise, surprise.

Obama, who's said repeatedly he has no interest in reinstituting the fairness doctrine, has put forth an FCC nominee who's said repeatedly that he too has no interest in reinstituting the fairness doctrine -- and it's not seen by this crowd as confirmation of his stance, but as a dark conspiracy to do the opposite.

Whatever. Keep wasting your energy on absolute non-issues like this -- and others like the birth certificate, or the Trilateral Commission, or the space aliens from Zeltar-Five who are sending brainwave transmissions to farmers -- and meanwhile we'll be running the country and cleaning up yet another Republican shitstorm.

What flounder said:

For the record, Republicans are currently freaking out because ABC is going to have the President on TV and are not allowing Republicans equal time. Or to put it another way, they are whining that ABC is not adhering to the Fairness Doctrine

Pretty much.

No, Republicans are "freaking out" about ABC because ABC News is supposedly a news program. Currently, ABC News is slated to run its health care infomerical from the White House, with no ads that would oppose the president's view and no stage on which any opposing viewpoints could be heard.

Ladies and gents, that is not a news show anymore. If that is not clear, then you are being deliberately obtuse. If a media organization wants to give Obama such a forum, then do it on a commentary program, not a news show. There is a big difference between a political commentator and a (supposed) journalist.

The Republicans, however, have no right to argue since NBC News gave the President that one-hour program devoted to the benefits of his tax cuts. Remember that one? I do. Or CBS extolling the virtues of his prescription drug plan. And ABC's special on the NCLB? Partisan to the hilt.

It's not like Dan Rather ran with a fake document to make Bush look bad.

Glad to see you weathered the hacker storm - Didn't this happen more than once during KD's time, as well, although, perhaps to the same extent? However, there were times during the KD period, when, it seemed as though rather strange trolls would try to follow one back to one's home. If one happened to ruffle the feathers of certain trolls, one could be jammed with spam.

I too am old enough to remember the Fairness Doctrine. It may not have been perfect, but it did have the beneficial effect of marginalizing crazies. Republican politicians, at least at the national level, usually said things that were relatively sensible. In those days, unless you lived in a small town with a reactionary newspaper, the only way most people got exposed to wingnut views was from cranks handing out pamphlets on street corners. After one glance at the thing, you'd discard it in the first garbage can. Also it's obvious that a lot of rightwing types (who were programmed by Saint Reagan's Hollywood-emotional delivery) are unduly impressed by the "passion" with which radio or TV talkers present their views.

I think bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is a great idea.

Projection. They believe it because it is exactly what the right would be doing were there to be a largely successful left talk radio.

As some have come close to saying, the problem with this outrage is twofold: not only is no one in a position to do so considering a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine (which I would support, FWIW), but no one who rails against this seems to have any clue as to what the Fairness Doctrine actually is (was). Its a completely made up controversy about a made up threat.

I want to second "a" and Patrick Henry above. I would like to see the Fairness doctrine restored, and I am disappointed that it isn't on the table. Instead of just falling all over ourselves trying to placate the crazies, why shouldn't the people of the USA insist that the public airwaves--we're talking Fox news here--be truly neutral, fair and balanced?

We know that unchallenged lies are almost impossible to refute; we know fear sells; we know that a significant proportion of Americans are ill-informed; we know that unscrupulous billionaires are motivated to attack the government. These are all reasons to regulate the public airwaves and constrain the power of the corporate media.

Plus we know that it would drive Republicans mad. It might distract them from their campaigns to gut healthcare reform, persecute gays, block meaningful action on the environment, and prevent economic recovery and reform. So why would progressives not embrace the goal of reinstating of the Fairness Doctrine?

Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, and other top Dems have all come out in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, albeit sometimes in disguised form like minority control of content to fool useful idiots, .

Some flunky FCC candidate who can be thrown under the bus is hardly proof.

If Dems keep repeating a lie, maybe someone will believe them.

I mostly read the comments for expansion of the post, but I love comments like Luther's above @ 11:49 AM.
I chuckle to see someone adept enough at a computer to post a comment, while having the political intelligence of a bag of hammers. I will rescind the previous comment if Luther can provide some proof of his Right-Wing Talk-Radio Bizarro-World claims.
Luther, they lie to you in that medium. Period.

Who is it who's complaining about fairness in the media? Specifically ABC? The next thing you know the republicans will introduce a fairness doctrine of their own and complain that the Dems aren't in favor of MSM balance.