Unfortunate that so many don't want to broadcast "the truth" but rather "doctored" truth and get away with it simply because of a near 300 year old document that gave free speech to individuals whose comprehension of anything close to wide spread news was limited to a newspaper! Manipulation of the original documents has been the cutting edge of turnng democracy on its ear simply to benefit the interests of the wealthy and powerful (because of their weath and ability to manipulate politicians much easier than the voters) . So now, faced with one of the most gross manipulators our country has ever seen, we stand on the edge of democracy looking over the side into the abyss of fascism. Our court system twisted up with so many lawyers standing in line to tear holes in the fabric that governs us for no good end, and a man with over 90 felony charges against him likely to be President for life! That is what they have done for their own best interests! Am I supposed to be greatful for this opportunity to be crushed under the foot of so many whose ethics are so shallow?
I would agree, Democrats and the Party walked away from their base, without a doubt! Choices for candidates for leadership roles continue to come straight away from Des Moines. The thinking appears to be if the Metro area there got behind the candidate they could easily carry the state. You can easily see how well that worked over how many election cycles! Running on name recognition might get you into the governors office, but if you can't shine at the job, there ends the "dynasty!" If you want smart democratic voters, then you improve the public schools, quite obvious what the Republican Party wants and that certainly is not people who can think clearly about which side their bread is buttered on and go with the best option. Democrats have always run on hope. Hope for better tommorrow; a plan for a "chicken in every pot". Not fear someone was going to steal your chicken and your pot! Don't make Republicans look like the safer bet by doing things badly, like the last presidential caucus. This coming one is bound for failure simply because the Party thinks it knows what is best, they are wrong again!
I’m not sure it is correct that Dems “walked away from their base.” Dems favored workers. But when Reagan destroyed PATCO, the whole relationship of labor and Dems seemed to shift. Reagan demonized unions and organizers and I’m afraid our party failed to put up an adequate defense. His telegenic mendacity drove right over the rational pragmatic nominees the Dems were offering up. Cable news was on the rise and televangelists were coming on hard. We had no answer for the Falwells or Gingriches. That set up forty years of media driven misinformation and demagoguery like we’d never seen before. No one was prepared for the injection of such falsehoods into mainstream consciousness, culminating with the election of 45. Times changed, but Dems didn’t. Being honest, fact driven, and rational wasn’t sufficient to keep the GOP from overbearing the masses with disinformation. The 24 hour news cycle has destroyed people’s attention spans. Everyone is vying for a headline rather than a substantive debate.
If you truly believe what you say, then from the beginning there had to be a reason why the relationship between labor and the Democratic Party "seemed to slip", and maybe because labor and the working man or women couldn't trust the Democrats to do right by them! Worse, many that had always supported Democratic candidates got so frustrated with that lack of support, they went to the other side and some even went so far they supported Trump! "I'm afraid our party didn't put up an adequate defense" is a piss poor excuse for dropping the ball!
Let's talk about the "Fairness Doctrine" that was done away with by Reagan. If you want to counter all that negativity that spews forth on television and radio, then when you look at the support for it from Democrats they are either against it or waffling! When Obama was still talking about running for President, this is what was said: Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters ... [and] 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. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets." Wonderful, but that doesn't do what the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to do, and make people tell the truth when they are getting paid handsomely for distorting the news every freaking day!
When Obama was president in 2009: " The Associated Press reported that the vote on the fairness doctrine rider was "in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time." The AP report went on to say that President Obama had no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans (led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC) wanted more in the way of a guarantee that the doctrine would not be reimposed."
So complaining about what has happened when you don't even show support to stop it, also says something about a party that is about as lame duck as it can be when it comes to supporting "truth" in the news and fairness for both sides of the political perspective.
So, when all is said and done, the real Democrats try and speak for the people, while the white collar millionaires who supposedly represent us that call themselves democrats run for cover, this is what happens:
On September 19, 2019, Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) introduced H.R. 4401 Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act of 2019 in the House of Representatives, 116th Congress. Rep. Gabbard was the only sponsor. H.R. 4401 was immediately referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the same day. It was then referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on September 20, 2019.
H.R. 4401 would mandate equal media discussion of key political and social topics, requiring television and radio broadcasters to give airtime to opposing sides of issues of civic interest. The summary reads: "Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act of 2019. This bill requires a broadcast radio or television licensee to provide reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance. The Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act would once again mandate television and radio broadcasters present both sides when discussing political or social issues, reinstituting the rule in place from 1949 to 1987 ... . Supporters argue that the doctrine allowed for a more robust public debate and affected positive political change as a result, rather than allowing only the loudest voices or deepest pockets to win."
So, put the blame where it squarely belongs! You want Democrats to follow a lead that simply mouths what we expect to hear, but fails to perform? Can't figure out how come so few democratic candidates get elected? It just happens to be an issue of faith and truthfulness, neither of which are issues people in politics believe are relevant, but money talks where bull shit walks! Steve Hanken
Sorry I did not see this earlier. I would just point out that the Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast television, not cable. The only basis for the regulation of speech that allowed the Fairness Doctrine in the first place was “scarcity,” the technical fact that only so many broadcasting licenses could be issued before none of them could be heard. With the advent of cable television and broadband systems fostering the internet, a new multichannel universe emerged that allowed a nearly unlimited multiplicity of speakers meaning the rationale for the Fairness Doctrine no longer pertained. Any attempt to reimplement such a curb on free speech would have been quickly struck down, especially by this Supreme Court. See Red Lion v. FCC (1969) and Turner Broadcasting Systems v. FCC (1994, 1997).
So good to read common sense from Tom Harkin. Nurses for Harkin was a group that I have always been proud to have been a part of. Stick to the knitting is the phrase I think applies to Tom Harkin's challenge for 2024. The cultural wars have become foolish, mean spirited, and not worth a rat's tail. Thanks Doug, again your interview gets always impress.
Thank you, Doug. Thank you, Tom.
👍As Dave Busiek said, “makes sense.” Now all we have to do is DO IT!
Unfortunate that so many don't want to broadcast "the truth" but rather "doctored" truth and get away with it simply because of a near 300 year old document that gave free speech to individuals whose comprehension of anything close to wide spread news was limited to a newspaper! Manipulation of the original documents has been the cutting edge of turnng democracy on its ear simply to benefit the interests of the wealthy and powerful (because of their weath and ability to manipulate politicians much easier than the voters) . So now, faced with one of the most gross manipulators our country has ever seen, we stand on the edge of democracy looking over the side into the abyss of fascism. Our court system twisted up with so many lawyers standing in line to tear holes in the fabric that governs us for no good end, and a man with over 90 felony charges against him likely to be President for life! That is what they have done for their own best interests! Am I supposed to be greatful for this opportunity to be crushed under the foot of so many whose ethics are so shallow?
He makes a lot of sense.
I would agree, Democrats and the Party walked away from their base, without a doubt! Choices for candidates for leadership roles continue to come straight away from Des Moines. The thinking appears to be if the Metro area there got behind the candidate they could easily carry the state. You can easily see how well that worked over how many election cycles! Running on name recognition might get you into the governors office, but if you can't shine at the job, there ends the "dynasty!" If you want smart democratic voters, then you improve the public schools, quite obvious what the Republican Party wants and that certainly is not people who can think clearly about which side their bread is buttered on and go with the best option. Democrats have always run on hope. Hope for better tommorrow; a plan for a "chicken in every pot". Not fear someone was going to steal your chicken and your pot! Don't make Republicans look like the safer bet by doing things badly, like the last presidential caucus. This coming one is bound for failure simply because the Party thinks it knows what is best, they are wrong again!
I’m not sure it is correct that Dems “walked away from their base.” Dems favored workers. But when Reagan destroyed PATCO, the whole relationship of labor and Dems seemed to shift. Reagan demonized unions and organizers and I’m afraid our party failed to put up an adequate defense. His telegenic mendacity drove right over the rational pragmatic nominees the Dems were offering up. Cable news was on the rise and televangelists were coming on hard. We had no answer for the Falwells or Gingriches. That set up forty years of media driven misinformation and demagoguery like we’d never seen before. No one was prepared for the injection of such falsehoods into mainstream consciousness, culminating with the election of 45. Times changed, but Dems didn’t. Being honest, fact driven, and rational wasn’t sufficient to keep the GOP from overbearing the masses with disinformation. The 24 hour news cycle has destroyed people’s attention spans. Everyone is vying for a headline rather than a substantive debate.
If you truly believe what you say, then from the beginning there had to be a reason why the relationship between labor and the Democratic Party "seemed to slip", and maybe because labor and the working man or women couldn't trust the Democrats to do right by them! Worse, many that had always supported Democratic candidates got so frustrated with that lack of support, they went to the other side and some even went so far they supported Trump! "I'm afraid our party didn't put up an adequate defense" is a piss poor excuse for dropping the ball!
Let's talk about the "Fairness Doctrine" that was done away with by Reagan. If you want to counter all that negativity that spews forth on television and radio, then when you look at the support for it from Democrats they are either against it or waffling! When Obama was still talking about running for President, this is what was said: Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters ... [and] 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. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets." Wonderful, but that doesn't do what the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to do, and make people tell the truth when they are getting paid handsomely for distorting the news every freaking day!
When Obama was president in 2009: " The Associated Press reported that the vote on the fairness doctrine rider was "in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time." The AP report went on to say that President Obama had no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans (led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC) wanted more in the way of a guarantee that the doctrine would not be reimposed."
So complaining about what has happened when you don't even show support to stop it, also says something about a party that is about as lame duck as it can be when it comes to supporting "truth" in the news and fairness for both sides of the political perspective.
So, when all is said and done, the real Democrats try and speak for the people, while the white collar millionaires who supposedly represent us that call themselves democrats run for cover, this is what happens:
On September 19, 2019, Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) introduced H.R. 4401 Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act of 2019 in the House of Representatives, 116th Congress. Rep. Gabbard was the only sponsor. H.R. 4401 was immediately referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the same day. It was then referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on September 20, 2019.
H.R. 4401 would mandate equal media discussion of key political and social topics, requiring television and radio broadcasters to give airtime to opposing sides of issues of civic interest. The summary reads: "Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act of 2019. This bill requires a broadcast radio or television licensee to provide reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance. The Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act would once again mandate television and radio broadcasters present both sides when discussing political or social issues, reinstituting the rule in place from 1949 to 1987 ... . Supporters argue that the doctrine allowed for a more robust public debate and affected positive political change as a result, rather than allowing only the loudest voices or deepest pockets to win."
So, put the blame where it squarely belongs! You want Democrats to follow a lead that simply mouths what we expect to hear, but fails to perform? Can't figure out how come so few democratic candidates get elected? It just happens to be an issue of faith and truthfulness, neither of which are issues people in politics believe are relevant, but money talks where bull shit walks! Steve Hanken
Sorry I did not see this earlier. I would just point out that the Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast television, not cable. The only basis for the regulation of speech that allowed the Fairness Doctrine in the first place was “scarcity,” the technical fact that only so many broadcasting licenses could be issued before none of them could be heard. With the advent of cable television and broadband systems fostering the internet, a new multichannel universe emerged that allowed a nearly unlimited multiplicity of speakers meaning the rationale for the Fairness Doctrine no longer pertained. Any attempt to reimplement such a curb on free speech would have been quickly struck down, especially by this Supreme Court. See Red Lion v. FCC (1969) and Turner Broadcasting Systems v. FCC (1994, 1997).
So good to read common sense from Tom Harkin. Nurses for Harkin was a group that I have always been proud to have been a part of. Stick to the knitting is the phrase I think applies to Tom Harkin's challenge for 2024. The cultural wars have become foolish, mean spirited, and not worth a rat's tail. Thanks Doug, again your interview gets always impress.
Simon & Garfunkel's (Mrs. Robinsin) line, "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio..." came to mind as I was reading this. I miss Tom Harkin. Thanks!
Nice column, Doug. Thanks, Tom, for your wisdom.