4207

The Hush Rush Senators and the Fairness Doctrine

You'll find an interesting history of the Fairness Doctrine over at The Volokh Conspiracy. It's fascinating that Democrats in the 1960s were so fearful of free speech (I was a passionate Democrat then, but didn't know about this), even the snippets of outrageous speech that few bothered to listen to (like some fundamentalist radio preachers squawking in the middle of the night--there was no talk radio or news analysis at the time). Silencing Rush Limbaugh by threatening Clear Channel or censoring him on the floor of the Senate for calling a phony soldier a phony soldier is just a tiny part in the plan to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine." I think I would call it "kill the media doctrine" because high tech communication has made the doctrine obsolete. Now we have so many other ways to get news. Many of these talk shows are wealthy enough to just use other methods and by-pass radio or TV altogether.

Who are the smug beltway buffoons who say there are only two sides (Republicans and/or Democrats, liberals and/or conservatives)? What about the Libertarians, the Socialists, the Communists, the anarchists, the academics, the ethnics, the retirees, the labor unions, the Muslims, the Jews, the Dispensationalists, the polygamists, the reparationists, the radical environmentalists, the man-boy love association and vegans for chicken rights? What if the news story had to present EVERY viewpoint of what to do with unwanted or disabled horses--even the Japanese who eat them and the children who hug them?

I get e-mail news stories daily from groups that hate both Bush and Rush, but some are right wing. . . way right of both men. They doubt Bush's religious faith, they think he's giving the country to the Mexican government, buying up land to make another hi-way to Canada to sell us out, and that his family is in one big business cabal with the Clintons. They think Rush is a traitor because he used the ACLU in fighting charges of prescription drug abuse and leaking his medical records and are horrified by his marriage track record.

I also get e-mail from that bald, skinny elfish-looking guy married to Mary Matalin, whose name escapes me at the moment explaining how the DNC is going to take advantage of every misstep the RNC makes. And during a run-up to an election, any election, will our local school board candidates be able to discuss issues without including the views of every homeschooling parent who pulled her children out of public school 5 years ago, and will the Obama people have to side-step Clinton's ties with Hsu because she would be required to come back with his time spent in a Muslim village? Does a Chinese money source trump an Indonesian terrorist connection in the Fairness Doctrine, or are they equal, fair and balanced?

I really think the broadcast media--ABC, NBC, CBS--better stomp on George Soros and Hilliary Clinton before this goes any further, or they might find themselves having to parse every syllable and minute and go back to having Katie interview Britney for safe news. Oops. Maybe not. She'd have to give K-Fed equal time, and then the babies. . . and on and on. Meanwhile, advertisers will look elsewhere, and the entire media industry would collapse. Which would make George Soros the only winner in this contest.

Pay attention to the man behind the curtain pulling the strings