Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine

[Newsjock]

Source: Broadcasting & Cable

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.

The Illinois senator’s top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Read more: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html

[stillcool]

1. I'd like to see some legislation...

that would bust up these media conglomerates. Imagine having options?
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html

The Global Media Giants
The nine firms that dominate the world
by Robert McChesney
from Extra the magazine of FAIR, Nov/Dec 1997

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaGiants_FAIR.html

[Joe Bacon]

9. This is what we need to do

1) Repeal the Communications Act of 1996
2) Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine
3) Force divestiture
4) No entity may own more than 5 media properties in the US. Period (Media properties include newspapers, TV stations, Radio stations, Broadcasting companies, motion picture studios, talent agencies, software companies, entertainment production companies, cable systems, web pages, advertising agencies, publishing companies, broad and narrowband companies, web hosting sites and webpages)
5) Media companies may not have interlocking directorates
6) No media company may own more than one media property in a market
7) Advertisers are held responsible for the content of media they purchase advertising for
8) Newspapers, and broadcasting companies are responsible for their content
9) All Media companies are taxed at 25% of their gross income, the funds derived will finance real public broadcasting with no corporate ties.
10) The airwaves belong to the American people, not to Murdoch, GE, Redstone or any other billionaire.
11) Enact a Three Strikes Rule in the media. Three lies and you're out. Freedom of Speech does NOT include the freedom to lie!

This is a start to take back the country.

[here_is_to_hope]

10. Thats it in a nutshell...n/t

[grahamhgreen]

11. spot on!

[annabanana]

32. I like that list. I think we would actually

get our Country back if these were instituted.

[JeanGrey]

46. If you enacted a three strikes you are out in the media; there would

be NO media left anywhere.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

54. Kudos on a great list

Could it be that Obama is not endorsing restoring the Fairness Doctrine now because he feels he must go slow? After all, the media giants have become rather powerful, and maybe he's using this statement to disarm them for the moment while he puts all the other things in place, restoring the FD last. At least I hope this is the case, and that it isn't that he truly doesn't think the FD is necessary.

[timtom]

62. I can't speak for Joe Bacon

But, 3 strikes wouldn't count if you presented your disinformation programming as entertainment, or, more honestly, as disinformation.

3 strikes would seem, to me, to apply to that which is presented as journalism.

[Joe Bacon]

120. Nathan, I should have been more clear

I would propose the 3 strikes apply to journalism, I just got so ticked off at CNN's insatiable lying while I wrote the post

[timtom]

123. Joseph, my good fellow,

I appreciate the clarification. And I totally share with you the rage and shame of America's Fourth Estate.

And, by the way, your 11-point plan is nothing short of brilliant!

Cheers

nathan hale

[Doctor_J]

89. No, he believes (as do Thom hartmann and I, among others)

that if the other points in reply #9 were enacted, there would be no need for mandated broadcasting. I don't think FD is the problem. I think than media monopolies are the problem.

[paulstylos]

100. i heartily agree

media monopolies are a problem

but the fairness doctrine is not the solution. the others mentioned (such as laws against monopolies which are a de facto reality in the media) are the problem

the problem with the fairness doctrine is it makes government the arbiter of what is fair.

that's chilling, to put it mildly.

[Gman]

73. This is being nice

when a revolution happens in a country, the first thing they do is seize the radio and TV stations.

[davekriss]

80. Joe Bacon for President!

Out with all Republicrats that would steal our trust and subvert our interests...

[onenote]

83. No thanks. I'd rather have a realistic proposal that was consistent with the First Amendment.

1. I suspect you don't really mean repeal the entire Telcommunications Act of 1996. I suspect you don't actually know everything that was in all 110 pages of the Act. For example, I am guessing you aren't advocating repeal of the provisions of the 1996 Act that required closed captioning of television programming.

2. At this point, the odds that the Fairness Doctrine would survive constitutional scrutiny are de minimis.

3. Divestiture of what, by whom and to whom? See 4 below.

4. The restrictions on "media" ownership listed (a) go well beyond anything that ever existed and if they had existed, we wouldn't have much of the media that we have today (b) would be unsustainable? Who would be buying up all these excess properties? Who would run them? Where would the capital come from? What you have is a prescription for a lot of businesses going under and a lot of people being out of work. That's not to say that there shouldn't be more stringent ownership limitations, but lumping everything under the sun under the heading media companies and barring common ownership is absurd. Every business has a webpage these days, sometimes more than one. Counting it as a separate media outlet is silly.

5. Since the media ownership attribution rules already count interlocking directorates as common ownership, this actually already is the law.

6.How does this work? If you have a newspaper, you can't have a webpage (a "media property" under your definition. And the market for some of these businesses is national or global -- film studios for example. Phone companies couldn't provide video service in competition with cable and satellite; cable couldn't provide phone service in competition with Verizon, ATT etc. And who runs these broken up companies. Instead of having one bill for phone, internet, and video, everyone would have to have three bills and monopolies would reemerge, prices would skyrocket. No thanks.

7. How? What does it mean for them to be held responsible? Would the advertisers on a show that the FCC finds to contain indecent content be held responsible for that content? Would people who buy classified ads in the newpaper be responsible for the newspaper content?

8. They are. Laws of libel and slander apply. Beyond that, however, I'll go with the wisdom of a unanimous Supreme Court in Miami Herald v. Tornillo: "A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and, like many other virtues, it cannot be legislated."

9. Not sure of the number, but this is one proposal that I do support -- taxing commercial broadcasters to finance public broadcasting.

10. No issue. The public airwaves are a public resource.

11. The world isn't black and white. I'd rather stick with libel and slander laws than turn the government into some "truth" police for the media. No thanks.

Let me be clear -- I think that the pendulum has swung too far in terms of media consolidation, particularly with respect to newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership and multiple ownership of local broadcast (radio and television) outlets in a single market. But I'm old enough to remember that the media was never as unconcentrated and diverse as some seem to fantasize that it was. I grew up with a choice of three network affiliates, at least one of which was owned by the local paper. The networks offered 15 minutes of nightly national news, only getting up to 1/2 hour by the time I was in junior high. There were two other newspapers in town, not terribly good ones. There were a number of AM radio stations, but basically no one had an FM radio. The radio stations offered top 40 playlists for music and in terms of their local news, they were basically "rip and read" operations -- they read the news off the wire -- they did no reporting or investigative journalism. Headlines and weather, basically. There were no cable networks and the Internet, obviously, didn't exist. Today, I have a choice of more than twice as many broadcast affiliates, including four major network affiliates that offer a couple of local news a day (as well as national news). I also have a choice of well over 100 satellite delivered cable networks, some co-owned by the broadcast networks, others owned by companies that have no other local presence in my particular market. I can choose to get these networks from four different sources: my local cable operator, two satellite distributors, or Verizon. I also have access to a virtually unlimited array of content over the Internet (and a choice of several Internet service providers to give me that access). And I still have two local newspapers.

So, again,reforms are needed, but the fantasy that once upon a time people had a more diverse array of programming choices is just that -- a fantasy.

[Nye Bevan]

95. Would these rules apply to DU?

I never watch TV news- my main source is LBN on DU.

So would Skinner pay an extra tax of 25% on DU contributions?

And DU would be shut down by the government after 3 factually incorrect posts?

[LiberalFighter]

104. Does that mean the likes of Limbaugh would be banned from media?

I hope!

[LiberalFighter]

103. If print and electronic media could be broken up I would support

that over the Fairness Doctrine. At least the likes of Murdoch would not be owning most of the media. And ownership should be by American citizens only.

[Wednesdays]

2. He's cutting his own throat

You can betcha he'll be skewered by Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, etc., etc. 24/7/365 when he gets in office, if nothing is done about the wingnut monopoly of the media. Look at the drumbeat against Clinton all those years...it'll be twice as bad this time around.

[bluestateguy]

3. Oh, that's a relief. I'm sure all the conservative talk show hosts will go easier on him now

But seriously, if he can get the 1996 Telecommunications Act repealed, that might do more good in the long run.

[grasswire]

4. has he said he will? (eom)

[gristy]

5. That is disappointing

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine :

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in an atmosphere of anti-Communist sentiment in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 <1949>). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.
<snip>

In 1986, Appeals Court Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia concluded that the Fairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.

In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.
<snip>

In June 1987, Congress had attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)), but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.

[Xenotime]

94. Agreed. If this is any indication of where he will lead this campaign..

I don't want any part of it. The pugs have way too many talking heads.

[Triana]

6. media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, ...

.. all of which the Repigs have removed/gutted or plan to - bu$hit wants to gut $56 million from PBS (I think it's million). If ya like Bill Moyers, too bad 'cause he's prolly going away to be replaced with a Repig jockstrap.

[raystorm7]

7. Is the Dem party seriously trying to loose my vote on purpose? The hits keep coming =/

[saracat]

14. Honest to God with FISA, Campaign Finance reform , the death penalty and now

the Fairness Doctrine? What the heck is the Democratic Party doing? Besides reaching out to evangelicals?

[Zachstar]

19. Sinking

[Pastiche423]

108. You forgot to include NAFTA

[Dr.Phool]

45. They've already lost me.

I send money to Kucinich only.

The outrages just keep coming. For the past 6 years, I've had a lot of dealings with the corrupt Florida Democratic Party. You have no idea how bad they are. I resigned my DEC position as a protest, when they voted to keep funding the war. I changed party affiliation to "No Party Affiliation" a few months back when it looked inevitable that they were going to ram FISA through.

It looks like my choices in the congressional race will be a human slug Repuke incumbent and a Blue Dog. I see an undervote coming.

I planned on voting for Obama. I'm still gonna hold my nose and do it. But, he's making it harder and harder.

[cascadiance]

8. We couldn't have it like it was, but we DO need something like it!

The Fairness Doctrine would have to be completely revamped to work within today's media landscape that has changed so much. And perhaps its sort of "mandates" could be replaced with other teeth, like making sure that all media companies that run cable over PUBLICly owned street and other land, know that there's a HEAVY tax to pay for such usage and rules they have to live by so that they are serving the communities that own those thoroughfares, not just themselves and their investors. And of course preserve net neutrality, which wasn't even on the radar at the time of the original Fairness Doctrine.

It will have to be rethought out, but I'm sure that John Adelstein and Michael Copps along with whoever Obama appoints to be the newer majority of the FCC will prioritize making this happen instead of finding ways to consolidate the media even more like the current leadership is doing. We need to make sure Obama does prioritize that to happen!

[readmoreoften]

12. More diversity of news outlets? How the fuck is that going to happen?

I do agree though that the fairness doctrine will be difficult without oversight. For example how do you get the RW owned media and their bought congress to admit that Hannity and Colmes is not a fucking example of the fairness doctrine. They'll rename it the strawman doctrine.

[melody]

13. And the alternative candidate is?

The man who supports the party that didn't hire people if they were Democrats?

[Zachstar]

18. If you don't want to hold feet to fire fine but your comment is not helping.

Obama is getting plenty of support from this site. It is what is outside DU that will determine this race.

He is sinking netroots, grassroots, and his future FAST!

[melody]

110. Bull

I am active with netroots and grassroots and I've heard NO "sinking". I hear the usual bunch of bitching idealistic
emotional 12 year olds. Tell them to vote for McCain if they REALLY think anything is going to be better ... and if
they don't vote for Obama, they may as well vote for McCain.

When our rights are gone and my grandson is forced to go to Iraq, will you pouting children in the corner FINALLY get it?

[Mike Daniels]

74. In all honesty, would you hire someone who's principles are different from yours?

[atreides1]

78. Yes I Would

I'm hiring someone who is capable of doing a job, not for their political or religious beliefs, and if those beliefs prevent them from accomplishing the job at hand then they should go somewhere else!

[melody]

109. Yes, because I have liberal principles which means I don't assume I know everything

In all honestly, anyone who doesn't help elect Obama may as well vote for McCain because we'll have the same
result. If 2000 has shown us nothing, surely it has shown us that.

[superconnected]

15. HOW CONSISTENT... and HOW long will it take to sink in.

He's doing exactly what Hillary did to lose me.

He's already got the appologist on this site trying to clean up after him constantly.

What really sucks is I LIKE THE MAN, I WANT TO BELIEVE IN THE MAN, BUT LOOOOOK!!! He keeps selling us out!

How utterly Hillary of him. And how long will it take for the rest of you to catch on?

[superconnected]

16. And the worst part is there is nothing we can do about this.

We have no one else to vote. I really believe Kucinage would have been real.

[TheWatcher]

29. I think you meant Kucinich.

Other than that, you are sadly on the mark, I'm afraid.

[Windy]

59. And I'm sorry, but Kucinich wouldn't have a shot in hell of winning. I like him, but he would get

clobbered in the general. The majority of the dems didn't even want him in the primary.

[greenvpi]

22. That is a very insightful comment.

He is repeating Hillary's exact mistakes. We want a Democrat candidate, not a Republican-lite one.

[Dr.Phool]

49. Exactly.

Hillary started dissing the party's base before the nomination was decided. Obama waited until he won the nomination.

[Runcible Spoon]

82. I resemble this remark...

this is going to be an ugly season followed by an even uglier look on my face as I drag myself into the booth and hold myself at gunpoint and vote for someone who hasn't done nearly enough to deserve it.

[Lorien]

136. I'm sad to report that I've already caught on

and now he just seems to be piling on one huge disappointment after another. I knew he was one of the two corporate candidates (Hillary being the other), but I never thought that he would side with the RW AND continue to run as the candidate of "change". He knows that we have no other choice, so he can sell out every last Democratic principle and we'll still do all we can to avoid having the worst of two bad options in office.

[fascisthunter]

146. That's What I Am Thinking Too

:argh:

[Zachstar]

17. If Obama were a ship he is starting to sink.

Yes his numbers may look good now but his selling out is going to harm him as the netroots moves on and activism starts to care less.

So keep at it Obama but don't think for one second you will get a second shot at this. You sink yourself you sink your political future.

[justaregularperson]

25. Relax, he will not rock the boat this close to the election

I am also waiting to see him prove his progressive tendancies. But really, to come out hard now with serious progressive retoric would just scare the corporate government and solidify them against him. It might be smarter to tone down the rhetoric and start off in office much more subtly.

At least that would be how I could see a progressive pres approaching it. Wait until we have strenthened our dominance in congress, Unite the new congress, then start releasing progressive change when the corps sleeping ;).

[crickets]

30. They're already scared and "solidified" against him.

Yet he was winning with his message, and will/would keep winning if he BACKED IT UP WITH ACTION. It's all fine and good to talk about change, but rolling that back by being all talk and no walk is a losing strategy.

I won't wait to see him 'prove' his tendencies. He's in the middle of NOT proving them right now. Lied to, again. Ho hum. There is no "strengthened dominance in congress," unless you want to count the same old rollover and die votes.

Oh, and enjoy your stay.

[pt22]

96. Yeah, let's just wait.

Some more.
:shrug:

[tidy_bowl]

132. Wait for what?

To reverse himself ....again on critical legislation like FISA and immunity for telecoms? If you go with the ends justifying the means (win the White House at all cost) then you are no better than those you rail against. Where are the principles, or are there any?

[MisterP]

112. that's exactly what the Hillbots said in 2002 when she voted for the IWR

(besides the storms of accusations saying that if you actually thought the Iraq War Resolution was for a war in Iraq, you had to be a disloyal Rovian plant)

[orleans]

20. thought he wasn't gonna bring a feather to a knife fight. or a rubber chicken.

or a blindfold. or earplugs. or the potato salad.

thought he was gonna kick some ass at the knife fight.

[FrenchieCat]

21. If one reads the entire article, it would be a good thing......

Here is what Obama has said about the media.....I believe some might call it firt things first. Without media ownership rules address, the Fairness Doctrine reinstated will not have the desired effect. He can't run on a platform asking for everything all at once, because the media would beat him to a pulp. But I do believe that OBama perfectly understands the flaws with how the media is set up currently for the purpose of elections. I mean, he saw Rev. Wright on the TV for three week straight, just like we did. He doesn't watch Cable News because he is very well aware of what goes on there. I believe that he is for media reform, but not for putting everything on the table till he gets to the table.

Obama, Bush at Odds Over Media-Ownership Vote

Democratic Presidential Candidate Urges House of Representatives to Follow Senate's Lead,
Scrap FCC's Media-Ownership-Rule Change

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) Thursday urged the House to follow the Senate's lead and pass a resolution of disapproval, an unusual legislative maneuver that would invalidate the FCC's decision to allow TV and radio stations and newspapers to be co-owned in the top 20 markets, subject to some conditions.

After the Senate approved the measure, Obama, a co-sponsor of the bill, released a statement saying, "I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to expeditiously pass the legislation."

He framed the vote, as he has before, as standing up to "Washington special interests," a campaign theme. "Our nation’s media market must reflect the diverse voices of our population, and it is essential that the FCC promotes the public interest and diversity in ownership," he said.

More.....

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6561535.html

Posted by Matt Stoller, Open Left at 9:58 AM on May 16, 2008.

Sen. Obama locks horns with the FCC and speaks up for diversity in media.

The FCC decision to consolidate yet more media was opposed by 99% of public comments. As Paul Rosenberg noted in this comments, this might be the single least popular decision by the Bush administration ever. But Obama, as he did with his media and tech plan, took this further, and called for diversity and representation for the public interest in media ownership.

With ownership levels for minorities and women in media in the low single digits, Obama is really saying that it's time to reshape our media system.

With the Pentagon Pundit scandal coming on the wave of a number of serious breakdowns of the public legitimacy of the press, the public desire for a new media system is strong. The technological capacity to create such a system exists, in fact, media has been dramatically reshaped already through the internet. Broadcast media, though, is still somewhat untouched, but this kind of serious structural argument about the media from the likely President is something that cable and broadcast executives, as well as progressives, should take very seriously.

I've heard quite frequently from political operatives that this race is not Obama versus McCain, but Obama versus the media. And it's clear that without breaking down the structure of the media conglomerates, public discourse will remain as polluted and dishonest as it is now. And so President Obama is telegraphing his intentions to be a media reformer. Now it's up to us to help him get there.

More.....
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/85608/#more

[justaregularperson]

23. Folks are not thinking this through. He will purposely appear "center" until after the election.

I get a little concerned about this stuff too... but then I think on it and have come to the conclusion that this is all just about staying center through the vote.

I mean, really, if he comes out too strong and forceful against media the will simply have more trouble with them through the campaign. Why risk that right now?

It should be the democratic party that comes out harder on progressive issues, not Obama.

[cyclezealot]

28. Right. . Of course they'll come back to their roots.

And then we get a master of triangulation appointed to a top communication job such as Dick Morris. Time and time, must we again and again be bull shitted and not know the difference.

[Doug.Goodall]

37. It is okay for Obama to play politics

He simply is not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine right now. That will pull in some of the voters that are riding the fence and need a push one way or the other.

After Obama becomes President and we have majorities in both the Senate and the House, when the legislation for the Fairness Doctrine is sent to his desk, all he has to do is sign it. It is a Win - Win deal.

[saracat]

91. But not for anyone else? Hmmm?

[Doug.Goodall]

113. This is politics

Obama takes a position to get votes. Our Congress sends him legislation favorable to our position even though he did not fully support that position during the campaign, and he simply signs the legislation into law without comment.

Obama wins the Presidency, we all win on the Fairness Doctrine. That is what I mean by Win - Win.

[saracat]

115. Yeah right. It doesn't really work that way but groove on.

[Zhade]

141. Not for proven liars, no.

NT!

[PugNot]

39. No Way

One should get elected by convincing people on the your ideas, not by "fooling" the people into thinking your something else. That is cowardly, and represents the worst in politicians. Havent we had enough of that? Obama is supposed to be above that, and has the communication skills to educate the American people without being yet another Bush/Hillary snake. So do it Barack!

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

53. sure, right.

[Towlie]

56. You don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the person running with you.

I concur with "justaregularperson". Barack Obama doesn't have to campaign as far to the left as we actually want America to be in order win the election. He just has to appear closer to what the average voter wants than John McCain does.

It's like that old game show, The Price is Right, where you have to be closest with your guess about the price of an item in order to win. If it looks like the item is worth $1000, but your opponent guesses $100, then you don't guess $1000, you guess $101.

[tidy_bowl]

133. So principles mean nothing...

..and you condone his lying just to elected? So much for change and integrity.

[Lorien]

137. Thing is, then he'll have a second term to think about

I won't even pretend that he'll ever abandon the Right (which everyone is calling the "center" the "center" is the Democratic party. The Right shifted the entire scene to the HARD right). He'll have another term to think about if he gets into office, so his politics will remain to the Right until he has his second term.

We have no other choice, so we'll just have to remember that a moderate repug isn't as bad as a neo-con.

[iconicgnom]

27. ah, thank you for the enlightenment.

Criticism is nothing if it isn't informed.

[pegleg]

24. Extremely disappointing. Seriously,there is probably no single

issue which has so profoundly hampered free and fair elections as this one issue. this really leads me to wonder about Obama.

[justaregularperson]

26. removed. I see he mentioned ownership caps... there goes that theory lol

[lebkuchen]

60. I've been saying this for eight years

Whoever controls the media controls the group-think controls the elections. What's even more troubling, the vaccuum that Americans live in adversely affects other countries. This is why we have seen screaming headlines, in the UK in particular post-US election, demanding to know how so many millions of Yanks can be so stupid.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[robcon]

33. In other words Obama believes in the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[BigDaddy44]

55. Careful now....

You're using logic. Only emotion is allowed.

[ronnie624]

84. You've been befuddled by right-wing propaganda.

The Constitution addresses the rights of people, not corporations.

[robcon]

92. Silly post. Pathetic understanding of the Constitution.

All rights are to individuals. Congress cannot make laws to make an individual change his opinion, or restrict his opinion, or offer up his time or space for an opposing opinion.

It doesn't matter whether a newspaper is corporately owned, or a single proprietorship... whether a radio station is owned by a corporation or a university, or whether a TV station is corporately owned or government owned.

[Zhade]

142. You're talking *to* a rightwinger!

He's not got "con" in his name for nothing.

[ColonelTom]

34. I agree with Obama.

The "Fairness Doctrine" seems like a great idea in principle, but it raises a host of First Amendment concerns. It's less relevant today that a particular network has balance or neutrality than that the media as a whole provides that balance. Sen. Obama's point - and I think it's a good one - is that there are other means of ensuring balance and neutrality in the media, by targeting ownership issues (availability of licenses, limits on consolidation, public broadcasting, etc.).

The media landscape has changed dramatically since the Fairness Doctrine was implemented in 1949. Solutions that may have made sense then aren't necessarily good now. Yes, Faux News sucks, but I'm not sure that's a good starting point to determine our media policies.

By the way, before I get roasted here for my viewpoint, I'm hardly a blind supporter of Obama. I've been highly critical of his FISA position(s). But I believe he's absolutely right on this point.

Now I'll go don my asbestos suit and await the flamethrowers. ;)

[GOPNotForMe]

86. I completely agree! Thank you for providing this insight. nt

[Psephos]

105. self-delete - wrong subthread

[depakid]

101. "a host of First Amendment concerns." Which were addressed in a unanimous USSCT decision

Red Lion v. FCC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._Federal_Communications_Commission

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/395/367.html

I guess in some people's minds, the freedom = the ability for hate radio jockies to flood the public airwaves with falsehoods, personal attacks and propaganda about issues of public concern- and do so with impunity so that honest voices of reason (or people who had their character impugned ARE NEVER HEARD.

Listeners (who own the airwaves) have no paramount right to be informed on the issues, no right to hear truthful statements, and no right to have any other opinions (or sometimes any rational opinion and honest analysis) available to them on the spectrum.

Even when they're voting on an initiative that may dramatically change their laws- only the side with the money and who can convince a station owner not to censor them are allowed to aired.

Sounds like a prescription for disaster.

Oh wait, maybe it's already happened over the past 8+ years....

[ColonelTom]

107. It's been 39 years since then. A lot has changed.

Do you really want the FCC in the business of, on a daily basis, policing every television and radio network's content on political issues? I don't. It's a huge, expensive, and ultimately fruitless mission for a government agency, particularly given how many television stations there are nowadays. (If you're planning to apply this to cable-only channels, that is. If you're just applying it to over-the-air networks, I'm not sure there's much of a point - they do comparatively little to set the tone in today's politics compared to FOX News, CNN, and MSNBC.) And you can be damn sure that under a Republican administration, you wouldn't like what they'd do to the media. Remember, to many conservatives, reality has a liberal bias!

Obama's in favor of measures that can achieve much of the same result - reducing the chance that a viewpoint can be choked out by consolidated ownership - without unnecessarily politicizing the means of doing so.

Even if you're in favor of the fairness doctrine, aren't the other means he's suggesting a good idea? It may not be ideal to you, but is it a reason for throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

[Psephos]

106. Agreed n/t

[mikehiggins]

35. Before the drumbeats start

Let Obama run his campaign, folks. You might not like everything he says or does--God knows I don't/didn't, for what that's worth--but yes, everything else pales besides the issue of getting the current bastards out of office.

And if he gets half of what he's looking for, we'll still be much better off than we are today.

Don't let the wish for perfection occlude the main goal. The whole world--the whole future--depends on putting an end to what the Bushoids have put in place. Once we do that we can work as hard as we want to get (y)our agenda into place.

If McCain wins because WE undercut his opposition it'll be far worse than 2000 or anything else.

You don't have to be a weatherman to know the way the wind's blowing. We are not going to win this election by throwing down the gauntlets everytime we run into conflict with the candidate.

[lebkuchen]

41. As Markos had told Olbermann, we have no other choice

but I think my contributions are better spent on a stronger Senate considering all the ways to lose a presidential election--ballot invalidations, police baricades preventing Blacks from voting, Supreme Court overruling voters/State Supreme Courts, paperless ballots, et al.

Unfortunately, I gave $ yesterday to Obama that could have been better spent on Franken.

I just have to laugh myself into tears, though, at all the idiots in the U.S. that are planning to vote for Bush II, even though 1) they, their house, or their livestock are doing the dog-paddle, 2) they lack health care, 3) they live in their autos, 4) oil prices are sky-high 5) they have to worry about whether the bridge they're driving on is going to collapse under them 6) they are being laid off, 6) FEMA can't/won't/hasn't helped them nor is ANY govt. help on the way (just ask the military), etc. etc.

What pathetic putz would vote for McCain....you have to be either really fucking dumb or born to suffer.

[Epiphany4z]

51. I have to agree

If you read past the bumper sticker..'OBAMA DOES NOT SUPPORT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE"
you'll see he supports MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES ..I think that is more important.

I also do not expect to agree with my candidate on everything. He needs to go in my general direction. McSaim sure doesn't go near it.

[zanne]

36. Flamebait

If you go down just a little further in the article, you'll read...

He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

[timtom]

64. Thank you and the several others here

who are not experiencing extreme knee-jerk reactions, but advising caution and restraint in judgment.

If Obama is evil and in the pocket of corporate media, than I will have been fooled for the first time in my life in assessing a person.

[lebkuchen]

38. and he believes in the death penalty for whomever and whatever

jesus...the US electorate is SO conservative, even the democratic candidates sound reactionary. What a frightening place the U.S. has become.

Glad I hit the pendulum swing at the "right" time, and am out of the US.

[fascisthunter]

147. I Am Seriously Considering a New Environment

my future may just belong elsewhere I have roots. A place where I can share tradition and where life is not so violent anymore. This country here truly is becoming authoritarian and fascist.

[onehandle]

40. Why is this a surprise? We nominated a Centrist. He'll be Bill Clinton part 2.

But without the yoke of a right-wing Congress he'll be more left-center than right-center. Which is good.

Unless we lose Congress, of course.

[lebkuchen]

43. We need senate pick-ups in a bad way

From now on, my contributions will only go to those running for precious senate seats.

[deacon]

42. I disagree with Obama on MANY things...but at least he is sane unlike you know who...

so I'll support him strongly.

[lebkuchen]

44. Even if Hillary had won, it would have been the same jingle:

"We have no other choice"

[Vinca]

47. I agree with him. It's censorship and it works both ways.

I don't want to hear about all McCain's "positives" - assuming there are some - when I tune into Olbermann.

[lebkuchen]

50. Is that why Reagan/Bush I did everything in their power to kill it?

or is it because they wanted to control the media in order to reduce the democratic party on an electoral map into tiny little pockets of blue, educated university towns and the rest of the country "dufus-red," like it is now?

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

48. should have had Kucinich, but nooo. oh well this is what ya get

get used to it, perhaps when this country is nothing but flaming rubble, we can get some semblance of a real public servant. In the meantime, the lulz ensue.

[lebkuchen]

52. I don't think it's possible for any dem candidate to make McCain look good

except for Lieberman, who isn't running, yet, so breathe easy. Besides, "we have no other choice."

[Richardo]

63. Kucinich can't even break into double digits among Democrats

He'd be a catastrophic failure as the nominee for the General Election. Unless all you want is someone to pass a progressive purity test. But you should know - America does not want that.

[NorthCarolina]

68. Actually, I would LOVE a candidate that could pass a "Progressive Purity Test"

eom

[Richardo]

70. That would not be a candidate, that would be a cleric.

Politics is the opposite of dogma.

[NorthCarolina]

75. Kucinich or Feingold fit that bill and I don't see them as "Clerics", rather just "Forthright"

eom

[humbled_opinion]

129. Thats exactly the argument that the Conservatives use

With McCain... Does the party expect someone to pass a Conservative Purity test. Obama is a smart politician and he will be the next President now what he does with that Power is what really matters.

[Imperialism Inc.]

57. I agree with him.

I think the Fairness Doctrine is simply impractical to enforce and open to all sorts of corruption.

[davekriss]

81. That was not the case when it was in force

It helped. However, the Rule of Sevens and several other long defunct regulations were also important, and on this -- capping ownership -- Obama has come out strong. Tearing down near-monopoly ownership of the media will go a long way toward dismantling the Republicon Wurlitzer that shapes opinion in so many casual brains. That is a necessary step toward getting our democracy back.

[onenote]

85. It didn't really help very much. In fact, it probably hurt as much as it helped

THe FD deterred broadcasters from covering a lot of controversial matters so as to avoid having to deal with the FD obligation. I suppose things seemed more balanced, but only because issues weren't being covered.

[Connie_Corleone]

58. I agree with this and there are some liberal radio hosts who agree also.

Maybe some people need to read a little bit more than just the headline. Obama supports media-ownership caps. That's more important.

[Window]

66. Amen!

Peace::thumbsup:

[The Backlash Cometh]

61. It's a mistake not to have diverse opinions on the same show.

Back to back. The country will get more fragmented if people just gravitate to the news they feel more comfortable with. Take DU. As much as I love it, it is a sanctuary and it allows me to shut-off all the disagreeable people that make my life miserable. Even though this is a great survival mechanism, don't expect me to cooperate with the sons of bitches, even with the chips are down.

[KneelBeforeZod]

124. Replacing one tyranny with another?

>> Take DU. As much as I love it, it is a sanctuary and it allows me to shut-off all the disagreeable people that make my life miserable.

So do you think the Fairness Doctrine should be applied to DU?

I understand the inclination to want to destroy the big-mouthed conservatives on talk radio ... but I just don't see how this jibes with our general support for freedom of speech.

How is the Fairness Doctrine any different than the Bush Administration silencing dissent in the War on Terror? Is this not just replacing one tyranny with another?

I am a progressive, but I do not, and cannot, support the forcible silencing of those with whom I disagree. I'm with Barack on this one.

KBZ

[The Backlash Cometh]

126. No. I don't think the fairness doctrine should be applied to DU.

I was using it as a reflection of what will happen, is probably happening, in our society because public broadcasting networks are not required to apply the Fairness Doctrine. A political blog is one thing, public broadcasting is another. One is a think tank where people of the same political bent share information and come up with responses that make sense to them, and then they can try them out in a more public setting. But, if we have the ability to tune each other out on the radio waves and t.v., as easily as we can do it on the net, that's when I spot trouble. Two Americas.

[KneelBeforeZod]

134. People ...

People have the right to freedom of speech, not the right to be listened to. If talk radio caters to conservatives, that's fine with me. To each his own. I simply don't see limiting the other side's freedom of speech as a reasonable use of power ... any more than I would see the limitation of our speech on DU as reasonable if implemented by a Republican administration. Imagine the outrage on this forum that would stem from the implementation of an Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine" that applied to DU -- we'd riot in the streets. Yet many on this forum think it would be justifiable for us to similarly attack outlets of conservatism. That's a double standard if I ever saw one.

I think conservatives would be justified in their outrage if progressives abused their power in this manner. I'd be outraged myself. Limbaugh is a wind-bag -- but he has the right to be a wind-bag, and his listeners have the right to listen to him if they please.

I simply will not follow in the footsteps of the current administration in the complete disregard of the Constitutional rights of my opponents or even enemies. Replacing conservative tyranny with progressive tyranny is entirely counterproductive, and completely undermines every argument we've made for the last 8-years.

KBZ

[The Backlash Cometh]

135. Erm...you can't see limiting the right's freedom of speech on talk radio,

but you can agree with limiting the left's freedom of speech on talk radio? Are you sure you have a handle on the details?

Let's try again:

Over 90% of the PUBLIC radio airwaves are owned by conservatives. Their speech is not limited, OUR SPEECH IS. OUR VOICES ARE NOT BEING HEARD ON THE PUBLIC RADIO WAVES IN FAIR NUMBERS. How can you defend their right to a near monopoly?

DU is an internet blog, a private club, so to speak. Just like the right-wingers have access to their internet blogs. We aren't keeping them from the internet, where anyone can go to view their opinions, just like they can view ours.

So, in other words, you would rather that the right-wingers maintain their near monopoly of the public airwaves, than fight for the right of a leftie to be heard? Sounds like you're taking sides.

[KneelBeforeZod]

139. No ... I can't see limiting the right's free speech ...

>> Are you sure you have a handle on the details?

Pretty sure.

>> Over 90% of the PUBLIC radio airwaves are owned by conservatives. Their speech is not limited, OUR SPEECH IS. OUR VOICES ARE NOT BEING HEARD ON THE PUBLIC RADIO WAVES IN FAIR NUMBERS. How can you defend their right to a near monopoly? DU is an internet blog, a private club, so to speak. Just like the right-wingers have access to their internet blogs. We aren't keeping them from the internet, where anyone can go to view their opinions, just like they can view ours.

Fair numbers? Where is it Constitutional for Congress to limit free speech for "fair numbers"? I wouldn't be any more OK for Congress to implement a "fairness doctrine" (forcing right-wing speakers in) during progressive protests on public grounds. For some reason, right-wing raido sells, and progressive radio hasn't. I don't know why. Maybe progressives are a younger demographic uninterested in talk radio. Maybe we've moved out of the 1940's and moved on to other mediums. Maybe we've chosen the wrong hosts. Maybe we listen to music in the car, like the rest of the planet. I don't know why.

Air America hasn't worked well, it isn't making money like the right-wing alternative. Democracy Now does pretty well, but it isn't even CLOSE to Limbaugh's or Hannity's numbers. I am unprepared to say that is because of a conspiracy, any more than I'd say progessive success in the blogosphere is because of a conspiracy. Ultimately, these are PRIVATE corporations that we'd be forcing to constrain right-wing talk in favor of progressive talk ... simply because we've had less success in the medium than they have. I think it disingenuous to argue that the mediums where right-wingers have been successful are somehow fundamentally different than the mediums where we've had success.

>> So, in other words, you would rather that the right-wingers maintain their near monopoly of the public airwaves, than fight for the right of a leftie to be heard? Sounds like you're taking sides.

Certainly not taking sides. I'd love it if Limbaugh's show fell off the face of the earth, and his minions with him (Hannity, Beck, Levin, Savage). Perhaps they have a monopoly -- but they have the audiences to back up that monopoly from a business perspective. If we want them beaten, we should show that progressive radio can be popular as well. So far we haven't.

However, I am unprepared to betray my own principles for a minor "victory" in talk radio, when such a victory will make me no different from the administration we're seeking to replace. For 8 years, we've accurately noted the B*sh Administration's devious and illegal curbing of civil rights for political purposes -- including the forcible silencing of dissent. And yet, some on this forum, as the first act of a progressive administration, would approve of the forcible silencing of dissent from the right.

Why should I approve of the forcible silencing of the right when I don't approve of such silencing of the left? Might makes right? Ultimately, this measure would prove to many that we're no different from the fascists that preceded us ... they silence dissenters, and so do we. They squelch protests -- we force hosts off the air.

Perhaps my progressive principles are simply getting in the way. Any means necessary, right?

KBZ

[The Backlash Cometh]

140. We will agree to disagree.

The reason why the US acts like it's constipated and slow to respond when it comes to implementing the necessary public policy we need today, is because there isn't a free flow of ideas and news in the mainstream media. As long as that continues, the whole basis of our democracy will not work. The whole reasoning behind Freedom of Speech, was to give our newspapers the freedom to criticize institutions and keep the public informed. An informed public will not be as divisive as we have today.

But, since the mainstream newspapers yielded their right to speak freely, in order to make money, by allowing conservatives in the media the ability to censor the left wing viewpoint, then it really isn't freedom of speech, any more than it was when Bush was allowed to corral protesters and keep them away from the parade grounds. That, is what you're doing. Corralling left wing opinions in places where the mainstream can't see them. Don't fool yourself. You're no progressive.

And the reason why leftie opinions aren't selling so easily on broadcast radio is because in the 90s, the right-wingers, primarily through the radio broadcasts, made "liberal" a dirty word. We have an entire generation who associates liberal or progressive ideas with something tabu that should never be listened to. It's going to take another ten years to even get people to listen. The key would be to put those opinions in the mainstream.

Separate, but equal didn't cut it for education, it shouldn't for diverse opinions on radio either.

[KneelBeforeZod]

143. Perhaps we will ...

>> The whole reasoning behind Freedom of Speech, was to give our newspapers the freedom to criticize institutions and keep the public informed. An informed public will not be as divisive as we have today.

You seem to be conflating the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. These are two distinct Constitutional rights, and the reasoning you offered was for the freedom of the press, not the freedom of speech.

The reasoning behind the Freedom of Speech was actually to allow ordinary citizens, including conservatives, to voice their political opinions about their government without fear of censorship or retribution from an opposing party. Like it or not, this freedom applies to Rush Limbaugh just as much as it applies to you or I. If you are unwilling to defend a right-winger's free speech with the same vigor that you defend your own ... I question your commitment to the concept of free speech.

Additionally, the first amendment was established specifically so the government did not have the power to determine who is and is not "informed". If the government had this power, B*sh and his right-wing Congress would've done away with DU a LONG time ago. Luckily, he didn't have that power ... and nor will we when we win in November.

>> And the reason why leftie opinions aren't selling so easily on broadcast radio is because in the 90s, the right-wingers, primarily through the radio broadcasts, made "liberal" a dirty word. We have an entire generation who associates liberal or progressive ideas with something tabu that should never be listened to. It's going to take another ten years to even get people to listen. The key would be to put those opinions in the mainstream.

Political opinion is notoriously cyclical. Sometimes conservatism sells, sometimes liberalism sells. From the mid-50's to the 1980s, "conservative" was tantamount to a racist fascist McCarthyite Nixonian red-baiter, and "liberal" was a mark of reasonableness, and a badge worn with pride. Since then, the tides have turned ... "conservative" is a badge of honor, and even the most progressive politicians won't use the word "liberal".

This is somewhat due to talk radio, and somewhat due to other factors (including perople's inexplicable fascination with Reagan). Tides seem to be turning back -- we can only hope they do. We can only hope that progressive ideas win out. However, I can assure you that we won't win if we seek to silence our opposition ... no matter how loud-mouthed they are. We'll only prove to people that we're as bad as B*sh.

We must DEFEAT conservatism if we are to truly win -- if we merely SILENCE conservatism, it will come back and bite us in the ass VERY soon.

>> Separate, but equal didn't cut it for education, it shouldn't for diverse opinions on radio either.

Perhaps the world isn't better off with conservative opinion on the air waves. The problem is, they've got a right to those opinions, and to the airing of those opinions ... including on talk radio. We have the same right -- we simply must find a format that is justifiable from a business perspective.

>> Don't fool yourself. You're no progressive.

If "progressive" means the left implementing the same fascist policies I've decried from the right, perhaps I am not. I personally do not believe we win by compromising our core beliefs to hasten the destruction of our enemies. I do think it bodes well for my defintion of "progressive" that your "deny rights to your opponents, win at all costs" mantra is pretty much just a B*sh administration policy with a different ideology attached.

KBZ

[The Backlash Cometh]

144. Let's begin:

Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech are both covered in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

If the press did its job and reported the news, as it should, without self-censoring, then we wouldn't be in as situation to demand equal time. What doesn't seem to be getting across to you, is that it's the Left's opinion that is now in the minority, therefore, there is a public interest to insure they are given equal access to the mainstream. For some reason, you're creating a strawman argument that I want to censor Rush Limbaugh. Absolutely not. I don't want to censor him, I'm just saying that lefties should have the same rights as Rush Limbaugh to voice their opinions on the same airwaves. Why are you opposed to Lefties having those same rights?

[Blue_Tires]

65. there is too much potential for abuse anyways

for instance, Faux News would almost certainly have hardcore 'liberals' like Joementum or Dennis Miller to give the agreement, err...rebuttal to someone like Ann Coulter...

and who is to say what is liberal and what is conservative? some freeps say bush is too liberal, while I personally think Barack is not liberal enough (these views are out of the mainstream of course, but still as valid as the rest)...who gives the opposing viewpoint if there is a moderate on the air?

[NorthCarolina]

69. Isn't that what FOX already does?

eom

[Blue_Tires]

72. true.... nothing would change

[Politicub]

67. I'm sure he has bigger fish to fry

I would love to see the fairness doctrine reinstated, but there's never been a candidate where all of our views are 100 percent in common.

[Vilis Veritas]

71. For now, this may be a wise statement.

He even tells you why..."He considers the debate to be a distraction..."

Right now on hate radio AM, supporters of the Fariness Doctrine are being boiled alive. Obama is putting himself above the RW hate fray, personally I continue to be amazed at the brilliance of his campaign.

saddlesore

[high density]

76. That's probably not a bad idea from Obama

Since the meaning of "fair" is quite fucked up in a Fox News world.

[TechBear_Seattle]

77. Let's hear it for the Two Party system!

Where you can be as rotten, corrupt and evil as you want, as long as you can convince voters that you are not as rotten, as corrupt or as evil as the other guy.


So long, Democracy; it was nice knowing you. :cry:

[BklnDem75]

88. Hmmm... needs a bit more melodrama

Did you even read the whole article?

[izzybeans]

79. The Fairness Doctrine was a bandaid on a limited spectrum of communication.

He seems to be saying that we should be pushing through regulations that expand that spectrum to the point of making the fairness doctrine moot. It's constitutionality is based on there being restricted access to the airwaves. The monopolization of the 90s and onward made the fairness doctrine a necessity during a time that it was stripped from the regulatory apparatus. the fairness doctrine coming back, would not change the underlying systemic problems of media access.

I would support a temporary reinstatement until we can diversify the airwaves to the point of making it irrelevant. But it's only a bandaid, not the solution.

[pegleg]

99. The Fairness Doctrine was more than just a bandaid. It transcended

any issue of media ownership and affirmed the right of Americans to have access to their own airwaves. That right guaranteed the equal access to diverse points of view which are so necessary to a well informed electorate. It was not an equal time amendment, but merely guaranteed that if one side of an important issue was given, the other side had the opportunity to respond.

[izzybeans]

102. that's the simple version.

The complex version is that since broadcasters first began operating under licensure the right to the airwaves has been a undermined, the only way we can now regulate a fair market under these legal constraints is to expand ownership. From its inception the only legal grounds for the fairness doctrine was a "limited spectrum" of broadcasters existed which limits the viewpoints on the airwaves as a whole. The need for the fairness doctrine became more acute just as the big media monopolies began to form, ironically just as the fairness doctrine saw its demise. It was a stop-gap that did not change the rules of ownership, which the the type of institutional change that is required today and has been since the airwaves were first rationed out to privileged license holders. The Fairness Doctrine on the other hand is a micro-level procedural change that regulates low level behaviors, Obama and others before him (i.e. all the media critiques weave ever heard about monopoly industry and public right of way on the airwaves) propose a transformational change that seeks to evolve the entire system of broadcasting. Both are needed today, but I agree if we focus on just this one regulatory aspect of broadcaster behavior on air we are merely treating isolated symptoms rather than curing diseases.

[pegleg]

111. If the Fairness Doctrine had not been abrogated in 1987, Rush limbaugh,

Hannity, and all the others on RW radio would not either exist or they would not have been able to spew so much venom as they have done and continue to do. The return of the FD is their worst nightmare.

[Antinius]

117. Plus, cable

The fairness doctrine wouldn't (I assume) apply to cable, etc.

[NashVegas]

148. This Is What the Corporatists Want

With 50 gazillion channels of diverse viewpoints, the populace is hopelessly divided. I've been in radio for 25 years and have seen first hand the effect of splintering into all the different "niche" formats.

[benh57]

87. Grow up, no candidate is you

There is no candidate - who can possibly be elected - who will agree 100% with anyone here, especially the far leftists. (like myself. :P

Even kucinich, (who is a god) i'm sure has some positions which we'd disagree with. Could he possibly be elected? No.

Grow up, complainers...

[Zorra]

90. The Fairness Doctrine is weak. A constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom

of commerce from monopolies would be far more effective at preserving the freedom of the press from oligarchical control by private powers.

[fascisthunter]

145. I Agree With This!

[pt22]

93. "distraction"???????? Can't he think about more than 1 thing

:eyes:

[lark]

97. Obama isn't our savior

He's a middle of the road kind of person who is moderately liberal but who does not propose radical solutions or shake things up. Many here have "seen" what they are looking for - a liberal savior, but that's not what they get. Do you see Obama fillibustering on FISA, no way. He's letting Feingold and others carry that water - why, because it's controversial according to the msm. Until Obama is willing to step out, take a principled position on something risky, I will not support him with my money. I will vote for him because he's a million times better than McCain, but true change - I've yet to see even an inkling of this in his current behavior, votes, etc. Disappointing indeed!!

[depakid]

98. The news about Obama just keeps better and better

Capitulation on wiretapping, backpeddling on NAFTA, expansion of the death penalty and now no accountability standards for the corporate media.

Should be an interesting couple of months.

[biglake]

119. Unerving. 30 million new Dems-like me, left-not the damn right- no need to appease to the CENTER.

Talk to the LEFT that is where the country is. The right has ruined this country. Its the left coming back and now OBAMA is going to talk like a Repub? Stupid.
Much worse this news of Obama sitting to the right....very disturbing that he can't maintain true criticism of the Republican agenda- they, Bush administration have ruined this country. Radicals too. Nothing but aggression and radical agenda has put us here. You've alot of pissed off people who have been ripped off.
Get out of those corporate pockets- we don't owe them any consideration- they had disdain for this county- they raped it.

REad and Pelosi have really helped us lose-no accountability with impeachment- this will lose the election as the people are waiting for justice- if they can't find it with Dem Obama- they will go to MCCain.

[JackDragna]

114. The bottom line is that Obama's views won't cut it.

So long as there's no Fairness Doctrine, the core abuse of the airwaves will continue: namely, because of the tendency for the easily-led to listen to demagogues, and the proclivity for advertisers to avoid being labeled unpatriotic, the airwaves will continue to be filled with conservative content. Media caps, network neutrality and other measures do nothing to alleviate the problem, and I imagine Mr. Obama knows it. Why isn't he for changing it? Because it's too much of a political dragon to slay. He'd have to offend people, people who might give him money, in addition to dealing with the political backlash of dealing with incensed listeners. This, of course, would clash with his maudlin, "let's compromise" image. Sigh.

[Antinius]

116. That's rather patronizing

Sure, the easily led can be swayed by demagogues (on any side of the political spectrum), but do we want GOVERNMENT determining what is and isn't "fairness" in political speech? The idea is ridiculous. It belittles the citizenry to say they aren't smart enough to make the choices

Let's get rid of the media monopolies and the other solutions mentioned.

I don't want the government determining what is and isn't fair or (lord forbid the term) balanced.

[JackDragna]

118. Yes, we do.

..because the airwaves are supposedly a public commodity. If we don't ensure balance through government, the airwaves become propaganda mouths for political parties.

[PittPoliSci]

121. where's everyone who said he's the next kennedy now?

yeah, have to say it:

TOLD YOU HE WASN'T!

[nolabels]

122. If the Fairness Doctrine worked we would still have it

The problem was when they gutted it something even more lame took it's place

Our need for mass communication between ourselves never waned that's why we find the internet and its multifaceted modes of interaction now starting to supplant corporate media outlets.

[CANDO]

125. Smart of him to dodge this for now.

The corpo-media will destroy him if he supports fairness doctrine at this juncture. Most of us are hoping he really does reinstate it after he becomes president.

[ileus]

127. yeah let it be for now, we'll gig them when we assume power.

[humbled_opinion]

130. "WE"

Which cabinet post did you get? LOL.... There is no We in government and many here will see that when we the people realize that we have been Hoodwinked by a consumate politician...

The real fear is what the Right intends to do to rip him apart and crucify him when he is sitting in the Oval Office....

In my experience the more hopeful you are about a person, the more vested you become the more hurt you are when they disregard your opinion and take a course of action that to them is politically expedient but to us is disasterous.

I will wait until his return from visiting Iraq.... Extremely important and courageous message will follow that trip.

[Fluffdaddy]

138. You get it....... But some liberals are our own worst enemies.

Wait until we are back in power.................THEN WE WILL REVISIT THIS ISSUE

[mmonk]

128. Is it up to him under our new unitary executive system of government?

[robcon]

131. In what country do you live?

Obama is merely giving his opinion. Like his opinion on health care, he cannot enact a law one way or another, but as the head of the Democratic Party, and with his enormous lobbying leverage, he can bring about many of his favored laws in a Democratically-controlled Congress.