The Fairness Doctrine...

Perhaps we should reconsider this?

Now, before Ryan has his conniption fit, let me explain my meaning to the fullest extent.

There was never any legislative action that brought about the existence of the Fairness Doctrine while it lasted between 1949 and 1969. All that did make it "official" was the SCotUS deciding that the FCC had the right to make such regulations as they did (requiring publishers and broadcasters to provide equal time for opposing opinions on important or sensational topics)... but the Court specifically said there was no obligation for the FCC (an agency of the Federal Government) to require such regulation. So, there is no Constitutionally-mandated obligation for the Government to require equal time for two opposing opinions in broadcast or published media... per the Supreme Court.

I'm no fan of greater Governmental regulation, and removing even this FCC red-tape is undoubtedly a good thing, in the broader picture of things... but hear me out, please.

Ever since Dick Durbin said that we should bring back the Fairness Doctrine in an off-hand comment in a back hall of the Capitol Building back in 2005, it has been a hot-topic issue with talk radio hosts on both sides of the issue. Most see it as the slippery slope that it undoubtedly is... more and more government interference in our lives. A few want it reinstated in the almost forlorn hope that it might save their programing... which is failing due to lack of listeners/readers/viewers.

Allowing the FCC to reinstate the Doctrine as it existed in 1969 (the last year it was in place as a Federal Regulation) would mean the following:

"Broadcaster" would mean any corporate entity that provided content and media via "open airwaves". Broadcasters would have to allow for "equal" opportunity (not equal time) for opposing opinions to be presented. This tells me several things: 1) that companies like Sirius/XM already meet this requirement, in that the two conservative talk channels are offset by two liberal talk channels, each running 24/7 with full line ups of shows, AND 2) if the Doctrine would expand its scope to mean that shows like Hannity or Levin would have to provide opportunity for liberal view points to be presented, it would only need to be in an interview or debate sort of format. NONE of the conservative hosts that I have listened to (EVER) have refused a liberal caller or guest to appear... in fact, most would LOVE THE OPPORTUNITY to debate with a liberal one-on-one.

Furthermore, the same would HAVE to be true of liberal talk radio... such as NPR. Imagine Mark Levin having air time on NPR... Glenn Beck getting a chance to present his point of view to a radio audience during prime NPR time slots... Mike Church debating Constitutional history and precedent with the likes of Mike Malloy, or the hosts of Left Jab... it would be priceless! I'd PAY to listen to that, to be quite frank.

More importantly, though... major media outlets like MSNBC, CNN, ABC and CBS would have to change their entire spectrum of presentation. Olbermann would be required to have so many minutes of his time open to conservative debate (that doesn't mean someone from the right would HAVE to fill it, only that it be provided if needed)... as would Levin to any liberal opinion that might want to debate him.

How many times have we all said that we "missed" the old means by which debate in this nation was managed in the media? We've all seen the old re-runs of Buckley's Firing Line or Cavett's ABC program (his original talk show from the 60s, I mean... not his comedy/variety shows)... and how many wouldn't have liked to see them run into today's issues? Few newspapers still maintain the old (doctrinal) format of editorials printed on a page with the opinion of one side of an issue being on one half of a page, and the opinions of the other side right next to them? Two sides of one coin, ready and available at a glance... instant comparison of one opinion with another. Is it coincidence that these formats didn't start to disappear from the media UNTIL the Fairness Doctrine was removed from FCC regulation?

I guess my point is that we have all done a LOT of bitching about media bias and one-sided presentation of important issues. When DID this change in America? Where is the shift from what we recall as the "norm" to what we have now? If we can point to any one specific time over the last 40 years, I'd have to say it was the early 70s... which is when the full effect of the removal of those regulations probably started to take real effect.

No one ever challenged the First Amendment via the Fairness Doctrine... not successfully, anyway. It has been determined that there is NO OBLIGATION with the government to provide equal time... only equal opportunity to present. Surely none here think that Oprah could go toe-to-toe with Mark Levin in a discussion about health care and possibly win a debate? I doubt Oprah would ever participate in the debate in the first place... but Levin would NEVER back down from such an opportunity. The worst conservative talk show host that has a job could work circles around the best liberals on the face of the earth... or should be able to... and all the Fairness Doctrine really says is that there must be time provided if it is requested by the other side. When has that ever conflicted with conservative grounds and positions? It does not... but it directly threatens liberal positions time and time again.

What better possible means could the conservative movement in America hope to find then a promise of equal opportunity to present both sides of an issue?

Okay... rant away and dismiss all that I have said without actually ever reading or pondering my points. I'm ready...