O'Reilly, Ingraham Stoke Fairness Doctrine Paranoia

Yesterday, we talked about how conservatives were all a-leap with terror over the wholly hallucinatory notion that President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress were going to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The facts are these: Obama's against its reimplementation, Democratic lawmakers are mystified over the concern, and given the chance as recently as last year to put the Doctrine back in place, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives shot the idea down, with Democratic members voting against it in large numbers.

And yet, last night -- right on cue -- two of Fox News' media celebrities continued to waste their own airwaves talking about this entirely spectral inanity. Here's Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly discussing it. O'Reilly doesn't understand that cable news shows aren't part of the Fairness Doctrine. Laura Ingraham believes that a quip Chuck Schumer made on Fox News (see second paragraph) to mess with their heads constitutes a policy position. O'Reilly doesn't believe the Doctrine will be reinstated (which is correct) because it would be Obama's "don't ask, don't tell" (which is straight up daffydoodles).

Matt Yglesias, using his excellent summative wit, says "It's very strange. Political movements mischaracterize the other side's general goals all the time. But I've never heard of anything like the current conservative mania for blocking a particular legislative provision that nobody is trying to enact." Too right! I'd say that when it comes to phantom menaces, it's far more likely that we need to worry about that crazy Year 2012 Mayan Calendar Apocalypse thingy than we do about the Fairness Doctrine:

I mean, that's just bananas! And the only thing in place to prevent that is a damned Buddhist monk with a bell? That's crazy.

Anyway, here's a video of doctors removing a "brain worm" from some woman's head. I know! WE HAVE GOT BRAIN WORMS NOW, APPARENTLY. Anyway, maybe these brain worms are what's causing so many conservatives to freak out about the Fairness Doctrine, and also defend Sarah Palin.

Comments

[AgeofReason]

I am totally ready for the fairness doctrine, especially if it can get these jerks to shut up!

[booker52]

Fox Noise is just that, noise. Please people, these people on this so called network are in the dark and operate that way. I wonder if it's by choice or just being clueless. I opt for the later.

[BIG JOHN]

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE GET A BUCKET OF WATER AND POUR IT ON THE WICKET WITCH OF THE RIGHT INGRAM, AND HER FRIEND THE WICKET WITCH OF ALASKA .

[Pquilson]

can you really not spell anything correctly?

[kawreader]

Now that we won, I love watching this stuff. It's so satisfying to see these people freak out about things, mostly they freak out about giving people more freedoms. Awesome.

[freethinkergirl]

It's delicious watching the Repugnants implode due to their own ignorance and hatemongering. They truly reflect Palin's "high school bitchy" as Tina describes herself (Palin) on SNL. I have yet to see anything other than high school level answers or rhetoric come out of their mouths. Or am I being too easy on them, grade school level would be a more descriptive analysis.

[113]

that brain worm image was so unnecessary

[subarctic]

Briefly, what is this Fairness Doctrine that ORiley is freakin out about and what does he think is wrong with it...

[Irksome]

Fairness Doctrine essentially meant that equal time in the media had to be given to opposing points of view. It was scuttled, because it was pretty much unenforceable, even before the proliferation of new media and self-publishing.

They're not going to try to bring that back. It just wouldn't work.

[Marcospinelli]

Corporate media also had to give citiizens access to the air waves. Not a lot of time, but some. That requirement could be satisfied by letting some person with a gripe or a cause to advertise come in to the local station and tape a 30 second public service announcement which would be broadcast in the middle of the night. At the end of the broadcast, the station's announcer would say, "If you or your organization have an alternative point of view, please contact our station and we will put you on the air."

By 1987, the corporate media was complaining about what a strain it was to have to find alternative points of view to balance some of those who had used their 30 seconds of fame. They didn't have to do that, but that's the argument that moved Reagan to eliminate the Fairness Doctrine. In truth, they had no problem finding people to rebut -- There were tremendous numbers of people who wanted to rebut, and all of that meant no ad revenues.

[Marcospinelli]

No, no, that's not true. The Fairness Doctrine worked just fine for decades. Corporations schemed to get rid of the Fairness Doctrine because it was cutting into the profits they were enjoying from a resource that they were leasing for free.

When corporations were given the licenses to broadcast on the people's air waves in 1937, they were required to broadcast in the people's interest and for the public good by setting aside a certain amount of time for public service broadcasting. That could be emergency broadcasting (breaking into programming for some calamity, such as a train derailment, or tornados, etc.). That was expanded during the Truman administration (1951) to include regularly scheduled local, state and federal government affairs type programs. The corporations balked, lost revenue, but that was the only way they would get the licenses so they put the non-emergency public service broadcasting on when there were the fewest viewers -- Sunday mornings when people were in church (and that's how the Sunday morning political programs were born) and in the middle of the night, before signing off the air.

[gleannfia]

Ingraham has the most grating voice, even worse than Sarah Palin's shrillness.

[alifilee]

I agree wholeheartedly and whatever comes out of their mouths irritate me even more, if that is possible.

[Martha12]

The Republicans seriously wonder why they are so unpopular, they have a 1/3 approval rating from the country and 1/4 of their own party do not approve of them.

Of course O'Rielly and Ingram think they're just fine.

The rest of the world just thinks that 1 in 3 Americans are nuts, I agree.

[shel3364]

"This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate."
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

It all makes sense now. They should be afraid.

[11907281]

Ask a question about 911, you're crazy. Lay out an all encompassing liberal conspiracy that encompasses every facet of American life, you a top rated pundit. More vodka comrade!!

[shel3364]

They have to make us afraid of something or they become irrelevant.

[Clare53]

Oh s h i t. I was going to make a comment, but I forgot what they were talking about.

[militarymomforobama]

These people are no longer relevant--their time is up and they know it.

[9liberal]

these people are such a joke!
their so paranoid about this though..at least they realize they don't want to be fair...the first truth to ever come out of these wingnuts