FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell (R-Obviously) recently warned conservative bloggers that the Commission’s decision to repudiate Comcast for crippling Bit Torrent could lead the government to start “dictating content policy” by requiring blogs to give equal time to opposing views. Ha! Of course, this can be avoided if we vote for the *ahem* “right” candidate in November.
The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.
“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”
“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”
McDowell’s scare tactics aren’t new. Conservative bloggers have tried to sabotage the net neutrality debate by making a false connection to the long-dead fairness doctrine, which required regulated media outlets to give equal time to opposing views. If the government penalizes Comcast for crippling the internet, the argument goes, well then that friends is regulation; and if the government can regulate Comcast, it must, obviously, regulate the rest of the internet immediately. This kindles the fear of god in conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, who would rather stay silent than let Al Franken take up his airtime calling him a big fat idiot.
In the spirit of fairness, Commissioner McDowell is more than welcome to respond, provided he respects our own regulations.
McDowell: Fairness Doctrine, Net Neutrality Linked [Broadcasting & Cable]
FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content [Business & Media Institute]
(Photo: Getty)
More From Consumerist
-
FCC Tells Comcast It Had Better Get To Marketing That Standalone Broadband Service
-
Boston Mayor To FCC: Please Don't Listen To Comcast
-
FCC Taking Another Look At Mobile Phone Radiation
-
Comcast Uglying Up Historic Georgetown With Big Metal Boxes
-
Ad Watchdog Asks Comcast To Stop Bragging That Xfinity Is “Fastest In The Nation”
tinybug: “Just more fear mongering – same as Rush or Hannity squealing about how “the Dems are gonna bring back the fairness doctrine!!1!!1ONE!” They know it’s a load of crap, it’s just booga booga talk designed to scare the mindlesss followers into action.”
battra92: The “Fairness” Doctrine is a ploy by people who can’t succeed in a free market where consumers have choice to be forced to try to pull down the achievers because others didn’t have a voice?
forgottenpassword: Isnt this what the dems were trying to do to am talk radio?
skipjack: So…would the “right” candidate be mccain…since he won’t propose the “fairness doctrine”? It’s always interesting to confront liberals with their horrible track record of supporting freedom of speech.
I rest my case
Carey, you just earned +10 street cred points.
Both candidates are against the Fairness Doctrine. So, who is the right candidate Carey?
@TinyBug:
So anyone who listens to opinion radio/tv is mindless? Or just the people who listen to commentary you dont like are mindless?
The fairness doctrine is a liberal idea. But it wont be a problem for a while because:
1) Bush doesn’t support it
2) Next president wont support it (Obama/McCain)
3) It’s unconstitutional.
@Inglix_the_Mad:
Actually the fairness doctrine wouldn’t help anyone it would hurt everyone. You see there are more viewpoints in america than just lib/con. The fairness docrine stated (paraphrasing here) that you could get fined for not giving equal time to ANY opposing view point. So you have the green party, libertarians, independants, the whips, the nazi’s , the facists, the communists, etc etc..
So then what you get is all media begins to start having viewpoint neutral programming (i.e. car talk, law advice, stock market advice ) and no political talk whatsoever (which itself may not be that bad).
Just paint half the tubes blue and half the tubes red. Equal time has been achieved. Addition of additional tubes will have to be done in pairs (which is technically necessary anyway for duplexing purposes), one of each color.
It’s so easy to manage the internet!
So McDowell’s line of reasoning is:
If the government tells Comcast that it should not regulate content, it clearly follows that the government will start regulating content.
uh, no. utter logic fail.
Holy crap, folks. It’s like some of you are volunteers blandly repeating the talking points.
1. Nobody wants the Fairness Doctrine. Nobody. Not Obama, McCain, or the
2. Net Neutrality has absolutely zero to do with the Fairness doctrine.
It’s an imaginary connection. That’s the point.
So please stop talking about how ridiculous the fairness doctrine is, because (1) we agree, and (2) there’s no connection to the real topic at hand.
I just wrote my senators and congressman asking them to denouce this douche. I suggest everyone else here do the same.
There’s no fairness doctrine on TV or radio or any other media, that was eliminated during Reagan and it wasn’t really in much effect by that point anyway.
Also: liberal blogs vastly outnumber conservative blogs because conservatives tend to prefer TV (Fox News) and radio (conservative talk) as do their target audience. So “fair-and-balancing” the internet would really favor the conservatives.
Lastly, does he know anything about the internet other than that it is a series of tubes?
@Bladefist:
Neither, actually. Are those the only two options you could think of? here, let me help you out with this handy Venn diagram:
What the?!?!
I don’t come to the consumerist to be told how to vote, PLEASE STOP THAT, that’s twice now in the last week. If I wanted political commentary I’d go somewhere else…
Ugh!
@TVarmy: I’m sorry this is a little off-topic, but why does everyone have this misconception that DSL is slow? It was when it first came out, but a majority of DSL companies offer higher speeds than what Comcast has in a lot of areas. I have a 10 megabit DSL connection at my house for $50 a month. In places where Comcast is the only player in town they usually only offer a 1.5 megabit connection. The only reason Comcast is faster in my area (16 megabit – very recent it was only at 10 when my ISP upgraded from 8 to 10) is because of competition; there are 4 other ISPs in my area plus satalite so they have to be competitive.
@dwarf74:
There are many, many members of the Democrat party who are ready and willing to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine as we speak.
Nancy Pelosi
[www.humanevents.com]
Dianne Feinstein
[www.foxnews.com]
Maurice Hinchey
[www.house.gov]
Senator Richard Durbin has said “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.”
[thehill.com]
Senator John Kerry has said, “Well, I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there…”
[www.broadcastingcable.com]
As well as 47% of the American people.
[rasmussenreports.com]
So while Robert McDowell is way off base in connecting the FCC/Comcast decision with the Fairness Doctrine, he is indeed correct that the Fairness Doctrine is in danger of being reinstituted for radio, and it’s really not a stretch to take it from there out onto the Internet.
@The_Gas_Man: “it’s really not a stretch to take it from there out onto the Internet.”
Yes, actually, it is.
Frankly, it’s a pretty enormous stretch.
The problem is that since the government allows Comcast to use the utility right-of-way, while not allowing everyone to do so, they are de facto allowing Comcast to exist as a monopoly by creating too high a barrier for competition. While the government always does this with utilities, eg allowing ConEd to build power lines while not allowing me to build my own power lines, such state-sponsored monopolies are usually regulated to some extent as a condition of their monopoly status. Still, the government regulating ConEd doesn’t mean they are allowed to regulate what I do with my electricity, creating a “fairness doctrine” whereby I can only use my dishwasher for the same amount of time that I use my television set. So why would FCC regulation of Comcast allow for FCC regulation of blogs? It wouldn’t.
I think that the McDowellenator’s argument doesn’t hold water.
@evslin: Yes, I was referring to the Fairness Doctrine.
Personally, I think that there needs to be some sort of law stating that news reports need to be truthful. Back in 2004, the Bush campaign released info saying they’d found WMD in Iraq, which was completely false, and proved so. Yet conservative owned radio stations continued to pump out the false rhetoric…
@Inglix_the_Mad: I’ve thought the same thing. Comcast has complained that fining them is unlawful because there is currently no law on the books. I have to admit that they might be technically correct, because some politicians seem to think that a law shouldn’t be on the books unless it’s already a problem (meaning the first offenders of a not-yet-a-crime get off scot-free). However, all the FCC has to do is threaten to reverse some of the policies that secure the industry’s relative lack of competition, and Comcast will come back begging for a fine.
Overall though, I have to wonder if politicians even understand what net neutrality even is. I think Republican’s just heard that it was a regulation, and it triggered a knee-jerk response. I could understand that some people might have an actual reason not to want it, but they just keep repeating the same argument (at least from what I’m hearing). It’s like immigration. It’s a complex issue with no perfect solution. But, if you can only repeat, “They’re takin’ our jobs!”, you might not be the best person to decide policy.
As for Mr. McDowell specifically, if he truly believes what he said, then I have no idea what’s running through his head. The slippery slope argument is a complete fallacy, but there is at times some semblance of a rational argument. Here though, there’s a leap in logic so wide I’m amazed McDowell can see the end of it. How does ensuring the delivery of all types of packets in a timely matter have anything to do with censorship (except for the fact that net neutrality protects against it, which is the opposite of what he’s saying)! That’s like saying that a law which forbids cell phone companies from dropping phone calls because they feel like it would lead to regulating what people can say on the phone.
@rellog: Neo != evil. Neo = new. Quit calling people neocons, its far from an insult.
Your account of history is inaccurate. The WMDs (at the time) was a fact. It was the current intelligence. It was disproven later (and rightfully reported so). Hindsight is 20/20
@bagelche: Slippery slope to be specific, yes?
@Inglix_the_Mad: No, you’re thinking under the deluded assumption that a “Fairness” Doctrine would be applied fairly. It is well documented that this would not be the case, and that it would likely only be applied to conservative outlets.
Case in point: When was the last time you saw a Republican candidate speaking from the pulpit of a conservative church? As opposed to the hundreds of times you see Democratic candidates speaking from the pulpits of not-so-conservative churches. Last time I checked, non-profit status was supposed to apply equally across the board when it comes to political candidates, but it’s easy to show this is not the case.
@TPK: Name one Democratic candidate who spoke from the pulpit of a church.
@TPK:
so who wants to start a revolution?
McDwll, y cn sck my bg ftty.
@TPK:
actually non-profit organizations are supposed to shy away from endorsing or favoring any one political party or person. they could get thier non profit status revoked.
@TinyBug: you forgot part of TPK’s post – “As opposed to the hundreds of times you see Democratic candidates speaking from the pulpits of not-so-conservative churches. Last time I checked, non-profit status was supposed to apply equally across the board when it comes to political candidates, but it’s easy to show this is not the case.”
Key point “HUNDREDS” of times. If I wanted to spend the time, I could fill this post up with 100s of pictures of liberal Democrats speaking at liberal churches (mostly black) across the country. We don’t even know the source of those pictures. They could be in their own churches, they might not be candidates at the time, etc.
“Long-dead fairness doctrine”…? On the contrary, the desire for it is alive and well. As some have pointed out, this is bad for ALL – liberals, conservatives, and any other viewpoint you think exists out there. My current email signature is below:
According to the US Constitution, Amendment #1, Ratified 12/15/1791:
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
But the “leadership” in Congress is attempting to do that with the improperly-named “Fairness Doctrine”, and American citizens need to stop it: [tinyurl.com] [newsbusters.org]
As if it were hard to find… Go to Google:
[insert democrat name here] speaks church
In case you are “Google challenged”…
Obama
Clinton
Edwards
And although not candidates, these two certainly endorse the Democratic way of thinking well beyond what would be allowed of a conservative in a “tax exempt” venue:
Sharpton
Jackson
@captainpicard: You make my point exactly… that “supposed to” only applies to conservatives.. just as will enforcement of a “Fairness” Doctrine.
The liberal guys on the radio have failed mainly because they got guys who weren’t radio guys at all to do these shows. Hate Rush all you want, and I do, but he’s a real radio pro. Al Franken and Jeanine Garwhatshername aren’t pro radio people. Rhodes and others who were real radio people can put a show together and have an audience.
It just so happens that most of the insanely rich people in this country are also insane conservatives because the conservative point of view jives with them keeping a lot of money. What happens when the insanely rich control all of the media outlets (poor people can’t own shit)? Well, that would be pretty unfair. Hence the name the “Fairness Doctrine,” and also the reason why it’s a “liberal” idea. Anything that is not pro-insanely rich people and helping out the insanely poor = liberal. You have to have assloads of money to do anything at all and reach a wide audience. Thankfully, some media outlets in this country do give the liberals a fair shake, probably in an effort to prevent the Fairness Doctrine from becoming a reality, because that would be really, REALLY bad for conservatives.
For the record, I don’t support the Fairness Doctrine.. at this point.
The Internet needs to be declared a national resource, protected and made available to all, without limits or penalties. Unless you’re afraid of the truth, what’s the big deal? Well… yeah, I guess I see the point for *some* fearful people there…
Can you imagine such a thing? A society where for at least some part, you’re truly free and unencumbered? That reminds me of a South Park episode where America’s real definition was being able to say one thing (freedom! freedom!) while doing something different (regulation! restriction!).
1) I laughingly joked about applying the fairness doctrine. As stated in one of my posts, I don’t agree with it.
2) The right-wing has brain-washed people into the “Mainstream Media is Liberal” just as many left-wingers believe in the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” In reality, if you believe either, you’re a complete f*cking moron. The press is corporate (i.e. what f*cking sells) and most of these right-wing idiots couldn’t conspire to keep the flavor of their pudding cups secret.
3) I said remove their “common carrier” status. You don’t understand what that means?
It means the RIAA / MPAA get to see a big f*cking bulls-eye on Comcast. Oh and that’s just the start. Stripping them of their common carrier protections means they can be sued by anyone for just about anything going over their network. See what I mean about lawyers sharpening their knives?
This is a dirt simple solution we can hold over every ISP. Best of all it’s a law the Telco and ISP’s helped ram through, so they can’t even complain about it! Hoist them in their petard!
@Bladefist: Your account of history is inaccurate. The WMDs (at the time) was a fact. It was the current intelligence. It was disproven later (and rightfully reported so). Hindsight is 20/20
Your account of history is a bit shaded by your choice of news venues. If you listened to worldwide news at all (rather than just parochial American news) many people were calling that intelligence bullsh*t. One thing I learned is that after 9/11, American reporters (even the durty ebil commie librul terrorist lovers) walked on eggshells and didn’t challenge anything put out by the White House. I listened to Colin Powell talking at the UN and said “damn, if he’s right, this idiot’s got to go!” Then I had a revelation, I could use this thing called the Internets and look.
The problem was while it was all there, nobody wanted to see it. In criminal courts this is called “willful blindness.” Do I think Dubya should be criminally culpable? No. Then again I think he was an idiot to do what he did, muck up the US name, and get us involved in a pointless battle costing lives and money.
I read this on Drudge Report (the text was in red) and burst out laughing. The Bush administration thinks the internets are a series of tubes and that they can frighten bloggers into opposing net neutrality through non-sequitor scare tactics. What idiots.
You know what’s so stupid? What FCC is doing is forcing Comcast NOT to filter their internet. Government regulation to remove commercial regulation. I think we can all agree that this is a beneficial thing.
I fail to see how regulating quality of service leads to regulation of content.
well democrats are the ones that want to bring back the fairness doctrine
look, if you refuse to drink Comcast kool-aid, mccain is going is going to “not”-waterboard you.
@CyberSkull: That’s because you’re not crazy.