More On The Fairness Doctrine

CQ has a text snippet from the Senate floor today. The liberals are not going to let this issue go. They see Alt Media as a threat and they are out to regulate it until the only political media remaining would be NPR. Current talk networks would get out of the business as it would become marginally profitable at best due to the requirement to carry liberal tripe. It's a losing issue for them for a host of reasons. But it's also too important for them to abandon. And if they gain seats next year and God forbid the Presidency, you will see a clamp down on conservative media that would have Stalin cheering. Don't forget to sign the NRSC petition.

Mr. Durbin: I'm sorry to interrupt you but I really wish that through the commerce committee or the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, we can really get into this question. But the senator is arguing that the marketplace can provide. What is the senator's response if the marketplace fails to provide? What is the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view? Since the people who are seeking the licenses are using America's airwaves, does the government, speaking for the people of this country, have any interest at that point to step in and make sure there is a despair balanced approach to the --a fair and balanced approach to the information given to the American people?

Utter nonsense. I assume he meant fair when he said despair - typical liberal pessimism, but warranted, as they will lose on this issue.

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

Why should we let the Left control the names of issues, especially when the issues are grossly misrepresented by the names? For example, the right to unionize legislation vs no right to secret ballot legislation, the fairness doctrine vs anti-free speech doctrine, and the surge vs new tactics and troop increase.