Hot on the heels of President Obama reiterating his opposition to the return of the hoary old Fairness Doctrine, the Senate voted overwhelmingly 87-11 to prevent the FCC from reinstating it — not that the Commission had any plans to do so!

If you weren’t already confused, consider this: the Senate vote was on an amendment, itself amended, to an unrelated bill called the D.C. Voting Rights Act.

If that doesn’t make sense to you, don’t worry… Litttle about the ginned-up controversy over putative attempts to “Hush Rush” has made much sense, since there never was a snowball’s chance in hell that the doctrine would return from the grave, as noted months ago in this space!

Now all that needs to happen to drive a stake through the heart of the FD is for the Voting Rights Act to pass the Senate and the fairness amendment to survive a conference with the House version of the bill.

You can expect the Obama Administration and its FCC to encourage and promote greater localism and diversity in media ownership, however, as a way to deal with the uneven distribution playing field that has resulted in a 9 to 1 conservative dominance of news-and-opinion talk radio.

National Association of Broadcasters President David Rehr has thanked President Barack Obama for opposing the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine — again.

As a presidential candidate, Obama twice indicated his opposition to industry trade journal Broadcasting & Cable, but few on the right believed him.

And judging from the continued uproar on right wing talk radio, that hasn’t changed yet, despite a recent statement from the White House reiterating that the president does not support the doctrine’s return!

National Review contributing editor John Derbyshire, writing in the American Conservative, ((which bills itself as “the premier journal for thinking conservatives,”) asks — and answers — a bold question: are there downsides to conservative talk radio?

“Taking the conservative project as a whole – limited government, fiscal prudence, equality under law, personal liberty, patriotism, realism abroad – has talk radio helped or hurt? All those good things are plainly off the table for the next four years at least, a prospect that conservatives can only view with anguish. Did the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Savages, and Ingrahams lead us to this sorry state of affairs?”

Surprisingly — even for a “thinking conservative” — Derbyshire concludes the answer is “Yes.” Read more here:

WASHINGTON — Today, Free Press released The Fairness Doctrine Distraction, a policy brief that explains why Congress should ignore any attempts to revive the legislative debate over the long-defunct broadcasting regulation.

The controversy over the Fairness Doctrine heated up recently after a handful of Democratic legislators publicly entertained its return, though no legislation to bring it back has been introduced in Congress. Despite President Barack Obama’s statement last week reaffirming his longstanding opposition to the Doctrine, bills have been introduced by Republicans in both the House and Senate to prohibit the FCC from reinstating the regulation.

The Fairness Doctrine Distraction argues that the public interest is not served by revisiting an outdated policy that was taken off the books in 1987. The policy brief notes that it is untenable for the government to regulate political speech. It also points out that the Fairness Doctrine is unlikely to produce viewpoint diversity and would likely be overturned in court. Finally, the brief dispels assertions falsely equating the Fairness Doctrine with other media reform policies such as ownership limits, localism and Net Neutrality that have nothing to do with content regulation.

“There is so much that can be done with broad bipartisan support to promote free speech and diverse viewpoints in our media marketplace,” said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press. “We encourage Congress and the administration to ignore the Fairness Doctrine distraction and pursue media reform policies that matter.”

Read The Fairness Doctrine Distraction

Henry Geller, once Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information (NTIA) in the Carter Administration and FCC General Counsel, wrote an interesting commentary for industry trade journal Broadcasting & Cable, where in he took FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell to task for recent warnings against the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

As Geller points out, the doctrine never required broadcasters “to air both sides of controversial issues” but required instead that they simply “afford a reasonable opportunity for contrasting views.”

He also accurately concluded that “it is most unlikely that the fairness doctrine will return as a matter of general policy.”

Nonetheless, right-wing websites continue to push the misguided notion that the Democrats” recent return to power means the Fairness Doctrine will return in an effort to “Hush Rush” and his fellow conservative talkers on the public airwaves…

Connsumer activist Ralph Nader has challenged Rush Limbaugh to reimburse the American public for his multimillion-dollar salary, according to the Washington Times.

“It’s amazing how he gets away with it. Rush Limbaugh hammers away about big government and welfare and yet he’s the corporate welfare king,” Mr. Nader said. “He’s an unctuous megalomaniac.”

In a letter to the top-rated radio talker, Nader wrote, “You are making this money on the public property of the American people for which you pay no rent. You, Rush Limbaugh, are on welfare.”