The most recent example of what I am talking about...

Today, I found THIS ARTICLE about the liberal reasoning behind the call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

It's a short article, easy to read and even easier to see that the reasoning this author puts behind his call for the return to the fairness doctrine is that he wants Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity "off the air". He seems to resent the success of conservative talk radio, which he sees as coming at the expense of liberal talk radio.

We all understand that it isn't that easy, though... people listen to Beck, Hannity, et al but do not listen to liberal hosts. I admit to occasionally tuning in to liberal radio, and I can say that I have heard some of them comment on not having a single caller on hold to take for long periods of their shows. How often do you imagine that is the case with Beck, or Hannity, or Wilkow? Do you think Limbaugh has seen a blank board of waiting calls EVER in the last 20 years? Love him or hate him... people listen to his show.

I want it understood that I am not discussing the Fairness Doctrine because I want ANYONE removed from the airwaves... nor do I think that most Americans would support that kind of effort or regulation. In fact, I only brought it up at all because I thought it might be seen as another example of past regulation that actually benefited the country or society as a whole... and was discarded in an attempt to reduce regulations in general. A sort of "throwing the baby out with the bath water" sort of analogy.

As convinced as I am that some regulation and governmental requirements can be a GOOD thing, I am also convinced that people like the author of the article above is completely ignorant of what the Fairness Doctrine actually is. Denying ANYONE access to broadcast opportunity is denying them their First Amendment rights... and that is worse than wrong. However, requiring broadcast companies to afford the same access to one side of an issue as another has proven (historically, and almost exclusively in the newsprint industry) to have been a GOOD THING for the conservative agenda. Traditional, conservative viewpoints and opinions tend to stand up very well to radical, progressive debate... both side by side have long historical perspectives to draw from, with success and prosperity showing up only on ONE side of the debate.

Those that dismiss the prospect of the Fairness Doctrine do so with the one HUGE argument that cannot be debated: there is no better yardstick for the viability or popularity of an opinion than people's efforts to share in it. Short version? If the content is solid and well presented, people will listen (read/view/etc)... if it is not, they won't. Let the viewing audience decide the issue.

The Doctrine simply required equal opportunity to present a viewpoint. Sirius/XM does this. FOX News does this. NPR does not, and neither does MSNBC. No one is calling for the demise of any particular liberal or progressive pundit (at least I am not)... but having equal opportunity to present a view on platforms and outlets such as NPR (a Federally-funded media outlet, to boot) strikes me as an amazingly easy way to dramatically counter false, misleading liberal bias. This is less true of MSNBC... which simply doesn't have the number of viewers to justify making the effort.