The folks at The Hill alerted me to the fact that the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) have decided to oppose any reinstitution of the inaptly named Fairness Doctrine. I know, imagine that… as lefty a group as the SPJ actually agreeing with conservatives that the Fairness Doctrine is an abomination of our Constitutional right to free political speech! You can knock me over with a feather, and all.
The Hill is right to quip that this makes for strange bedfellows, but it would seem like a no-brainer for anyone interested in Constitutional rights and a jealous protection of free speech no matter whose it is.
The Society of Professional Journalists, celebrating 100 years of journalism and free speech advocacy, opposes reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, which would allow the government to control broadcast editorial content.
SPJ believes firmly that just as government has no business regulating words printed in a newspaper, the public good is not served by mandating how to broadcast news or opinions on radio or television.
Hear, hear. Who says that there is nothing we can agree upon with our friends in journalism?
Kudos to the SPJ for a spot on decision and a true-blue American sentiment well expressed.
Aaron Gardner
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
KnightsofMalta
Dan Spencer
Dan McLaughlin
And a rather small feather at that!...NT
USNJIMRET (Diary) Tuesday, April 21st at 10:52PM EST (link)blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while...
DONTREADONME (Diary) Tuesday, April 21st at 10:55PM EST (link)seriously, did a bright light shine down from the heavans or some OBS like that? Question remains, will some sort of media regulation come into play that actually generates the same effect as the whole Fairness Doctrine. I will watch the skies.
It's not to hard to understand
gekster (Diary) Tuesday, April 21st at 10:59PM EST (link)If the fairness doctrine gets into law, then cnn msnbc, cbs etc. will be forced to have news programs that make money.
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
No they won't
Next93 (Diary) Wednesday, April 22nd at 9:46AM EST (link)I can guarantee you that a fairness doctrine, particularly one passed by the Dems, would NOT dictate which stories get aired and which get spiked, the tactic that was employed so successfully to elect the Communist in Cheif. The “fairness doctrine” dreamt of by the Dems would shut down Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck, but wouldn’t change a thing about the way Kouric, Olberman, and Sawyer operate.
I suppose at that point, CNBC, et all WOULD start making money, because the competition would be off the air. At the very least, they’d stop
Obama was The One in 2008.
He’ll be a BIGGER one in 2012.
Kudos to the SPJ. But ...
Martin Knight (Diary) Wednesday, April 22nd at 6:37AM EST (link)… I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that their stance on the “Fairness Doctrine” has anything to do with a reverence of the 1st Amendment.
gekster’s take is more likely right than not. If the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is instituted, no comfortably liberal program on TV is going to be safe from lawsuits from pissed off Conservatives and Republicans.
Katie Couric would have to share her anchor spot with Sean Hannity, Mark Levin would be co-hosting the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The Colbert Report would become the Colbert/Gutfeld Report.
Now I know it’s a fantasy that the GOP would ever take off the gloves and fight, but luckily dittoheads tend to be a lot more pugilistic.
I Think This Is a 'Bait & Switch'
IJB Wednesday, April 22nd at 9:17AM EST (link)The SPJ will oppose the “reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine” (i.e. the old one from the 1970s), but will then turn right around and support the “localism” thing that the Dems and the Left are putting in as the new substitute for the Fairness Doctrine.
Just you wait and see…
I've come to beleive that the left has no interest in free speech
Next93 (Diary) Wednesday, April 22nd at 9:55AM EST (link)First of all, I suspect that most journalists fall into the category of “brainless”, so the fact that it’s a no-brainer doesn’t apply.
Secondly, I’ve come to beleive that the left interprets free speech as “everyone has the right to agree with us”; they’ve developed an intricate set of sophistries to classify anything they dislike as “hate speech”, and as we all know, stifling hate speech is NOT the same as government censorship.
Actually, this is part of a pattern; the left beleives in constitutoinal protections, or even democracy itself, ONLY when it suits thier needs. They justify this with the “fact” that they’re smarter than the “little people” who, as Jackie Chan so aptly stated, “need to be controlled”.
Obama was The One in 2008.
He’ll be a BIGGER one in 2012.
I disagree
seandparnell (Diary) Wednesday, April 22nd at 10:50AM EST (link)I think you paint the left with too broad of a brush.
Yes, many of them quite openly and vociferously ridicule the First Amendment and the right of citizens to disagree from them. I spend a fair amount of time on DailyKos and Huffington Post addressing First Amendment issues (primarily campaign finance but also Fairness Doctrine and lobbying) and have read far too many comments along the line of “eff the First Amendment if it means these clowns get to spread their lies” and “shut them down, all down,” etc.
But I also find a lot of people on the left that are abhorred by these type of comments, that respect the First Amendment and reject these calls to silence their critics. My organization has worked in the past with the ACLU, which has a pretty good record on so-called campaign finance “reform” (not so much on the Fairness Doctrine, oddly enough), and there’s no shortage of people on the left that are skeptical at the very least if not outright hostile to the anti-First Amendment brigades on the left.
So, while it’s fair to say many on the left are anti-First Amendment, at least for people who disagree with them, there’s also a strong contingent of pro-First Amendment folks on that side of the ideological split.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
sparnell@campaignfreedom.org
I would have agreed with that sentiment at one time
Next93 (Diary) Thursday, April 23rd at 8:57PM EST (link)Back in my liberal days, I *was* one of the people you describe; I didn’t understand why we should go to the wall to protect Maplethorpe, and then meekly allow the MOMA to take down a display of Hopi art because *that* was offensive to some group’s relgious views.
However, you’ll note that that paragraph is in the PAST tense. I stopped being a liberal when it became clear to me that “liberal” had become code for “socialist”, and the one thing socialists can’t tolerate is rights for people that have the temerity to disagree with them.
The decent, intellectually honest people you describe aren’t really liberals anymore, they’re conservatives who can’t bring themselves to admit it. After the next wave of terrorists attacks on these shores, I’m sure many of them, like me after 9/11, won’t be able to pretend any more.
Obama was The One in 2008.
He’ll be a BIGGER one in 2012.