In another shocking (but not altogether surprising) example of the Left's selective protection of our nation's First Amendment, a number of Democrats have been campaigning for the return of the FCC's "Fairness" Doctrine. This is not necessarily breaking news. However, Republican Trent Lott's recent verbal assault on conservative talk radio is as frightening as it may be instrumental in reigniting pro-"Fairness" Doctrine activism.
This law, which would require radio stations to provide equal time for both sides of political issues, is nothing more than an assault on freedom of speech and the free market system.
As much as the NPR crowd would like the government to add active administration to its already questionable regulation of the airwaves, radio is a business before it is a public service. Certainly, radio stations should be required to air public safety alerts. However, the government should not and must not determine what views are and are not expressed over the airwaves - that is fascism plain and simple (Hitler, Mussolini, and Chavez all co-opted the media in the early stages of their respective regimes).
This is nothing more than a left-wing effort to even the playing field artificially because their main mouthpieces (Air America, etc.) are spectacular failures. The government does not force Kroger to shut down close to half of its stores because it is more successful than other chains.
A notice to the Left: if you want "fairness" on the airwaves, start producing better programming and securing more lucrative ad revenue. Until then, go listen to NPR.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
i think you're missing the point.
this fairness doctrine was in place in the 60s and 70s and was incredibly unpopular because it was extended to contestants on the local, state and county ballots. even some issues demanded equal time. can you imagine how much equal time would have been devoted to the recent table games referendum?
why pick on radio? newspapers, t.v. and magazines garner more market presence.
radio stations need to retaliate on 2 counts.
first, they are unregulated which should be enough to counter any fairness doctrine.
second, forcing radio stations to offer ait time for free is a classic example of a "takings" infraction. (you can't take something from someone, including airtime) without compensating them for its market value.
if this doctrine is adopted, it must apply to radio stations large and small. as designed, this doctrine would unequally punish large, popular stations where politicians prefer to advertise. these stations have to offer free time and the less popular stations do not. this is clearly unfair.
my suggestion is that politicians who wish to counter ads of its opponent must maintain a level playing field and pay for such advertisement.
Post a Comment