http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11423prs20030923.html

I think alarmist would be a better term for the republican’s use of the fairness doctrine issue. From what I can see, I have to agree with Ars Technica’s analysis on how this cycle works.

1) Someone loses a political fight, these days it is usually republicans.
2) Someone warns of the return of the fairness doctrine.
3) Everybody starts yelling, screaming, debating, blogging, etc…
4) Things eventually calms down until the next claim.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-fairness-doctrine-panic-hits-fcc-spreads-through-blogosphere.html

Sounds like to me that it is a smoke screen used to try to deflect attention from the real issues. Personally, I don’t see the fairness doctrine coming back for a couple reasons. First, I don’t think it is constitutional. There will be lawsuits that will make it to SCOTUS and it will be put to rest there.

Second, the return of a fairness doctrine would be detrimental to both parties. The minor parties would be able to force the media to give them more time. That would make it harder to protect the duopoly. For instance, the reasons that keep the minor parties out of the presidential debates will hold less water as the networks would then be required to give a forum to their view points.

@pinkeyes… It make as much sense as the US refusing to talk to political entities such as Cuba, Iran, and Hamas because for some reason, by acknowledging them and talking to them, it gives them some legitimacy. Similar concept.

If Obama did not aggressively go after Kurtz, he would be seen as weak. Now that he is, he’s got something to hide. Obama promised to go after any attempts to swiftboat him in an agressive manner. This is just him keeping that promise. I think this issue is the conservatives trying to make something more than what is actually there.

I was making a contrasting point. The conservatives do say the same things about Moore’s work as the liberals are saying about Kurtz’s work. In that way, they are equivalent.

As for the quality being equivalent, I’ll leave that as something that one should decide for themselves as I don’t have much, if any, respect for Moore’s work.

There is an clear agenda behind the this program so I find it hard to accept the fact this it was unbiased. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong when I find a transcript but this reeks of an attempt to swiftboat Obama.

The point I was trying to make was that if the Obama campaign was to supply statements, Kurtz could have used them to either further his agenda or could have used them to improve his credibility. Hence, why the campaign declined.

Comparing the journalistic work of Stanley Kurtz to Michael Moore does nothing but reveal your ignorance.

With a record as thin as Senator Obama has, I would think that anyone would be interested in learning what the truth is about his association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Stanley Kurtz is trying to do the work that should be done by any journalist. The Obama campaign’s response? Refute the statements? No. They send out the call to the faithful to shout him down and make threats. Not a promising start…

No, they are not wanting to give any semblance of legitimacy to his statements. I’m sure certain republicans would turn down an offer by Michael Moore to be in one of his movies.

“The smears of the Obama campaign are meant as a way to soften people up to the idea of giving up a little of their freedom of speech and the freedom of the press with the re-instituting of the fairness doctrine.”

As opposed to what? The forceful removal of those with a dissenting point of view and sequestering them in so-called free speech zones, a tactic used by a certain republican?

It seems like to me that the republicans are the ones who keep bringing up the fairness doctrine especially when it appears that they are losing a fight. I guess it is one of the bogeymen that they use to distract us from the real issues.