Fairness Doctrine Ghosts Revived In George Will Column

Matt Yglesias points out that George Will has penned a piece in this past Sunday's Washington Post about the Fairness Doctrine, of all things. Will is apparently among the paranoid-schizophrenics who have come to believe that the Fairness Doctrine, which sought to balance the political viewpoints found on terrestrial radio back when that was a scarce commodity and which never really worked to anyone's liking, is poised to make some sort of comeback. You'll note in Will's piece that there is not one single name of anyone of any import who could play even an ancillary role in making the revival of a shopworn, unwanted policy possible. That is because the only people who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine are the hobgoblins and banshees that are conjured up in the ether-sleeps of conservative op-ed writers.

Let's review, shall we?

Does President-Elect Barack Obama favor reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine?

That's a big, fat, NO.

Does anyone else?

Marin Cogan, from The New Republic writes:

Today, the doctrine has almost no support from media-reform advocates. According to Mark Lloyd, co-author of the CAP report, "I don't think there's any movement [to restore the fairness doctrine] at all. ... We don't support it. " Craig Aaron of the media-reform group FreePress says, "[I]n reality, the fairness doctrine as it existed is never ever coming back."

Responses from the offices of most of the Democrats who have been pegged as fairness-doctrine proponents -- Schumer, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, and others -- have ranged from a firm denial that the issue is a priority at all to disbelief at finding themselves at the center of a manufactured controversy. "Somebody plucked this out of the clear blue sky," says the press secretary for New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat who was questioned about the issue by a conservative radio-show host a few weeks ago. "This is a completely made- up issue." Senator Durbin's press secretary says that Durbin has "no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view"--that the American people were served well under the doctrine--"and it's all been blown out of proportion." In fact, as recently as last year, the House voted by an overwhelming three-to-one margin to temporarily prohibit the FCC from imposing the dead policy; 113 Democrats voted to support the move.

And I believe that I summed this whole matter up, perfectly back on November 20, 2008:

So: reformers don't support the Doctrine, and lawmakers -- when they aren't being weirded out by inquiries over an issue that's the furthest thought from their minds -- are choosing to vote against it in droves. I'm sorry, paranoid conservatives, but this dumbassed dog of yours simply won't hunt.

So, look, editors, the next time George Will pitches you an editorial on the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, please, please do the right thing: pin him to the wall and wave smelling salts under his nose until he returns to consciousness.

Comments

[omahkohkiaayo]

There is very little about George Will's history (how he came to celebrity--see Carter briefing books and Carter-Reagan 1980 debate prep) or his ideology that I like or agree with. But calling him a "paranoid schizophrenic" is, in my opinion reckless and just plain wrong even if said by a psychiatrist qualified to know what the clinical term and diagnosis means and how it assessed. This is the kind of vitriol that we expect on Faux Noise but not on a venue like Huffpo and not from any thinking person.

There are plenty of facts on the so-called Fairness Doctrine and on Will that this kind of language is not needed and is even diversionary and self-impeaching.

[kidflash]

And will is supposed to be an "intellectual conservative" not prone to hyperbole and unsubstantiated, non-fact based chatter? If this is the best of the conservatives thinkers then they are in trouble.

[motoGpifupleez]

George Will, like the rest of his Right Winger, closed minded, die-hard 20%er ilk need their straw man to rage against or their whole reason for existing crashes. I am fine with it, after all, it sooths them and allows them to think they still matter in the "New Age of Liberalism" .....aka the 21st century.

[Clavis]

Right-wingers do this all the time: they synthesize and cultivate lunatic conspiracy theories and whisper campaigns about their "enemies". Why do you think the secret Muslim / non-citizen crap is so popular to this day about Obama? Why do you think they declare that there's a "War on Christmas" or a "homosexual agenda"? It's because claiming to be acting in self-defense against a massing foe is a great way to allow people to simultaneously be on the offense *and* self-righteous.

Joe McCarthy would be a lot more popular among the right-wing if they generally weren't so abysmally under-educated.

[lmab]

if everyone just followed Fox News, and practiced a "fair and balanced" approach, there would be no need....Right Sean?

[billydog]

Geesus, one would think that the paranoid conservatives would be begging to have the Fairness Doctrine BROUGHT BACK to shut up the voices that got them a porobably permanent Democratic majority in the Congress and Presidency for the next generation.

I'm a liberal and I pray that the Fairness Doctrine never comes back so the likes of Rush, Sean, Laura and Bill-o can continue their excellent demonstrations of why the conservatives and Republicans deserve to be powerless in America.

Thank God the Fairness Doctrine is dead!

[bowlegs339]

Billydog, I agree. I just love it when Sean, Rush, Laura, and Bill'O bloviate and continue to spew their lies and deciet. They just can't seem to comprehend that what Obama said about "Not this time" rings true. The right wing radio/tv nuts seem to believe that people will continue to fall for their tricks. But, no matter how much the right wing lied about Obama, the smart people of america didn't fall for the okee doke this time. So, I say to Sean, Rush, Laura and Bill'O, just keep on lying on tv and radio. People are learning to see through their idiocracy.

[BostonCentrist14]

Hey Matt Yglesias, why don't you do a little research before you write your next column. It took me about 5seconds to find that Nancy Pelosi, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, supports and wants to bring back the fairness doctrine. I am pretty sure that she ranks up there pretty high on the Democratic food chain. Come on Matt your better then this and we deserve better then this lazy journalistic effort.

Look up the comments made by Nancy Pelosi on 24 June 2008 at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast.

I think we should have a "competent doctrine" for all journalist.

Cheers!

[Knowitall]

Nice try. I checked. There is no "energy" behind Pelosi's statement which was ambigous at best. (I read the convoluted, paranoid statement on AIM's website--which nobody here would have read in the first place.) The bill referred to on the site should be called the "Save Rush Limbaugh Bill". No one here wants to get rid of Rush, Hannity, Oreally, Coulter or even Will. They only prove how nutty you folks are. So stop worrying.

[BostonCentrist14]

Hey Knowitall,
Maybe you should have taken more then 3seconds doing your research and tried to find another site besides AIM.com.

Do you find this convoluted:
John Gizzi [Human Events], "Do you personally support revival of the "Fairness Doctrine?""
Nancy Pelosi [Speker of the House] "Yes."

Seems pretty clear to me, not that I think Pelosi will waste any time on this bill, we have more important/pressing issues at hand.

[truthmachine]

"lazy" indeed, "centrist". Competence demands that one provide citations and quotations, not tell people to look things up. The latter almost guarantees that you're misrepresenting Pelosi.

[BostonCentrist14]

hey truthmachine,
I neither have the time nor the inclination to do research for Matt that he should have done himself. I did however point Matt and you in the right direction.

In addition to Pelosi, Sen Dick Durbin has also voiced his approval of the FD (in 2007) but has since stated he has no plans to do anything about it (look up Alexander Bolton; thehill.com). Furthermore, Sen Teddy K (MA) and Rep Jeff Bingaman (NM) have voiced their approval of the FD in 2007 and Oct 2008 respectively.

FYI:
John Gizzi [Human Events], “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”
Nancy Pelosi [Speker of the House] "Yes."

[Bilboo]

It's a terrible shame the Democrats aren't going to restore the Fairness Doctrine.

Anything that terrifies Rethugs should be a priority. Anything that damages, unnerves or demoralizes them should be a priority.

[jake106]

Listen, I get it that you hate Republicans. I don't think that its healthy to hate someone who thinks different than you, but fine, I get it. However, do you REALLY think the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea? Haven't we had enough curtailment of our freedom of speech? Isn't it about time that we ALL, conservative and liberal and everyone in between, tell the government to get the hell out of our lives and stop dictating what can or cannot be said? Just like the poorly written campaign finance laws, I think that this idea is repugnant.

[instagladiator]

Hate? Why do you have to imply that word to these comments? There is nothing that I read that suggests hate?
Not accept, disagree with, be against, think differently about, where is the hate in that?

[totalliberal]

Does anyone else feel that it's odd how the right wing-nuts are so afraid of fairness.

[IgIzBliss]

Be vwery vwery Afwaid! George the bad comb over says so.

Will isn't anything more than a pompous bombast, period. I don't know what Darthmaul's been smokin'.

You mean like the time when Paul Krugman put will on b.las.t for completely getting the Great Depression wrong on str8 economics? Or the time the week before when another prize winning economist got in his grill yet again on the same misunderstood set of facts?

Will is knowledgeable, but what is he using his knowledge for? I mean, unless the deficit is exactly ZERO, then he won't be happy. His whole party is going the way of the Dodo, and for me, THAT'S fair.

[pbfishtaco]

Oh, Please Bre'r Will,

Please don't throw me in that briar patch!!

[darthmaul]

George Will, despite his conservative credentials, seems to be actually thoughtful on many issues. He's out in left field on this one, a saying he should appreciate since he's a baseball fan. Even if there was a shred of evidence of this Fairness conspiracy, I'm actually wondering if he's not thinking about a news-opinion cycle that's in the past. With the blogosphere and huffpo, who really cares about the "Fairness" doctrine?. It's probably as irrelevant as most newspapers are today. Until Rupert Murdoch takes over the internet, I think were safe.

[mec57]

With the blogosphere and huffpo, who really cares about the "Fairness" doctrine?.

Right...with biased, preaching to the choir bloggers, who needs Fairness?

[Bruupo]

Who can enforce "Fairness"?

Would you trust the FCC under Bush to enforce a "Fairness Doctrine"?

It cannot be applied with any effectiveness to the internet.

It was almost impossible to enforce it in broadcast media when they were still the only game in town, and they no longer are. It never applied to cable, or any medium not on the public airwaves. It never, ever applied to print media, and newspapers have been partisan since day one.

Now that media market ownership rules have been trashed so thoroughly, what relevance could it possibly have? How bout you make a case instead of simply responding with derision?

[darthmaul]

I think you miss the point. George Will doesn't want the fairness doctrine. He and other conservatives are against it. The original fairness doctrine ensured that liberal ideas were heard. After the fairness doctrine was "laid to rest," AM talk radio-Rush Limbaugh etc took over the airwaves. That and corporate media. So I guess I'm not sure what you mean by preaching to the choir. Is it the fact that there are now outlets for people other then Right Wing Fanatics, like Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity bugging you? If so turn on FOX news.

[rollingdivision]

Who knew liberals were closet totalitarians? But it's true.

[Kram]

Conervatives have created an Orwellean propaganda state through their ownership of the media. If not for that, they wouldn't have been able to destroy the country over the last 25 years with their 48% "majority." Now that's totalitarian fascism!

[mec57]

It seems obvious, when people write they care less about Fairness doctrine because of Huffpo...I mean, that says it all.

[Bruupo]

Says what all?

What do the comments from the wingnuts at Freep or Red State or any of the others say?

The sites of the right ban users for any hint of dissent, does this site?

Asinine comment moderation aside, no, they don't.

[combatveteran]

Does he wear a wig?

[dhertzfe]

OOOOh The Booggieman cometh! Beware, Beware! Do we have a color alert system for this issue?

[pthesmith]

Yeah, but it has only one color... Black.