The “Un” Fairness Doctrine

by Ryan on June 25, 2007

in Media Bias,Politics

Rush Limbaugh is back from a week of playing golf and my summer vacation just started.  Both of us converged on the first hour on his talk-radio show today when Rush took a swipe at DiFi’s (Senator Diane Feistein, socialist, CA) attempt to bring back the “Fariness Doctrine” to the media… but only to the radio.  She all but said she’d spearhead the effort on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday, when she was on with the useless Trent Lott (Senator, spinless wimp, MS). 

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

WALLACE: But the argument would be it’s the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don’t seem to be able to find much of a market.

FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.

Of course, the power of talk-radio and the unpopularity of the immigration bill are reasons why DiFi and other Dems want to silence the speech of those that oppose them.

For those of you who don’t know, the “fairness doctrine” was established in 1934, but clarified by the FCC back in 1949 to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.”  In 1987, after a few decades of Supreme Court brutalizing it for obvious reasons, the FCC dropped the “fairness doctrine” because it simply silences and/or regulates speech in a patently anti-First Amendment way and according to studies actually depresses talk about controversial issues since it may mean government dictated competition or a pressured loss of license.  It is about as anti-free speech and anti-competition as you can get. 

So, DiFi, Barbara Boxer (Senator, wacko, CA) and She Who Must Not Be Named have been mulling this over since the Republican surge after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and how talk-radio is about the only place one can hear the other side of the Iraq War.  Politically squashing the freedom of speech for political purposes is pretty twisted and I hope people are paying attention to this.  The Left tried, with “Air America”, and they lost in the arena of ideas and the free market.  Now we have to use government power to mute our speech for openly political purposes?  Of course, the renewed “fariness doctrine” is only targeted at ruining talk-radio and not the newspapers, the Internet, the three big broadcast stations, and cable news–in other words, the media dominated by like-minded Libs. 

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: