I've watched a fair amount of discussion of this over the last few months, and what is scary is that it is spreading from just the tinfoil hat crowd where it started. From what I can see, you have 2-3 congress members a year say things like "I'd consider hearings on the matter" and the right just blows a gasket.

Even more troubling is that none of them know WTF they are even railing against (although, to be fair, since it is a fiction, they can project whatever they want onto it). Look at the old version. Only applies on broadcast media. Would not cover cable, would not cover the internet, etc.

I for one don't think it is worth bringing back in any form (there really is no longer a scarcity of outlets for ideas) but given that nobody is bringing it back, it is a total non-issue

I have always found this gop-conservative fear of the Fairness Doctrine funny. It's like admitting shout radio has been near pure propaganda and that they would be no where without it.

I am glad you are writing about this because you realize how embarrassing the "Fairness (ahem "silence") Doctrine" is.

But I am not so sure it's not going to be tried...some are talking about it.

Everyone should be against this because it is against free speech. It's about thought control. Anyone who is for this is not being mature and just wants to shut up anyone who disagrees with them instead of competing with them in the marketplace of ideas.

It's not about "fairness" it's about shutting them up, the idea people who put the spotlight on our leaders and point out what is really happening. If it comes back, it will be a blow to a free society and free flowing ideas.

If the Rightwingers are so sure the Mainstream Media is liberal, they should welcome the fairness doctrine, since it would mean the MSM would have to move further to the right.

Unfortunately, the latest news is unlikely to put an end to all this manufactured outrage. At Red State, Moe Lane has already written about his doubts regarding the statement. Separately, Dan Riehl titled a post on the subject "Sorry, I'm Not Buying Obama's Fairness Doctrine Stance." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey was similarly skeptical.

Of course they don't believe it. They lie as a matter of course. Their "president" lied constantly as do all their politicians. They can't imagine anyone would do differntly, so they assume he's lying.

More of a monopoly. Seems that if one company owns most of the stations and keeps its programming aimed a only a few

doesnt this leave out large portions of the population without over the air representation? At one time we as the public owned the airwaves. Guess thats gone by the capitalistic wayside. How to ruin a counry? Let Rupert buy it.

You're pretty funny. The idea that a law stating that both sides of a poltical argument must be presented amounts to "shutting people up" is just absurd.

Unless you're assuming those that are currently speaking would be embarassed into shutting up becuase people would see what liars and how stupid they are. That's a bad assumption.

Well I hope we can put this to rest. Somebody might want to tell Camille Paglia about it too. She never bothered to say that it was a red herring when some bonehead asked her about it in a previous article. She just said she disagreed with the Fairness Doctrine. Way to keep up on things Camille. You might want to read Salon from time to time to know what is actually going on.

I see why there would be concern for it. Durbin, Stabenow, and Bill Clinton himself have called for its return, rather recently. (Oh, and JELLO BIAFRA did too a while back. Sellout.) If the right didn't make a stink about it, this could very easily get slipped in there.

But its nice to see Obama oppose it. I'm just amazed at how many so-called supporters of free speech actually think this bill is a good idea.

Somebody might want to tell Camille Paglia

Why would a right-wing hack like Paglia bother to actually read anything? She makes a living off of pissing on and pissing off liberals and trying to pretend she isn't a conservative by bleating "I'm a liberal, no really!" every so often despite having precisely no liberal ideas, opinions or attitudes.

I'm fairly certain she has something on Joan Walsh 'cause I can't figure out why Salon prints Paglia's trash.

Ironically, nothing provides a purer, more crystal clear, reason for yanking their FCC licenses than their naked inability to accurately report the administration's simple, one word, "No!" answer to the question of whether or not the Fairness Doctrine is coming back.

How incompetent and/or disingenuous and/or dishonest can an FCC license holder be before they lose their license?! Apparently, an FCC license is now a license to lie to the public - as long as the lies promote a right-wing authoritarian political agenda.

Calling Jello Biafra a "sellout" may be the dumbest thing you've ever written, and that's saying something.

We don't have to really want the Fairness Doctrine. We just have to make the talk radio right think we do. They'll spend enormous amounts of time on it. It helps if there are a few people to say they want it back, but even if, once in a while, we say, "we don't really need the Fairness Doctrine," they'll spend a bunch of time discussing if we mean it. Meanwhile, we can be really concerned about media consolidation.

I don't really think we need the Fairness Doctrine. Really.

They want to go after talk radio....not their beloved mainstream TV, or universities or any other place where liberal ideas reign.

They want to go after talk radio because talk radio actually tells the populace what our politicians are doing...and they don't like that.

I think talk radio is a blessing and the reason liberal talk radio has not succeeded is because the ideas were weak. In the marketplace of ideas on talk radio, liberals have failed.

I am sorry it's the truth. But instead of admitting this, they want to exert thought control to shut them up.

Big reason I cannot vote Democrat anymore. Bunch of whining babies.