No, I meant it... believe me.

I'm more than willing to concede my argument that there might have been a real benefit to pundits and hosts that have cashed in on the AM radio "boom"... it is unarguable that Limbaugh and the rest have made their fortunes (at least initially) in deregulated AM talk radio.

What I found so tragically painful was the inability of Ryan to even try and see what I was saying... all he could focus on was what he (and I assume the rest of AM talk personalities) thought would happen if the doctrine were magically reinstated as it stood in 1980. The Reagan Administration removed the Fairness Doctrine from the books, yes... but not to make radio (or any other information medium) more "open". They did it through necessity because the sheer volume of cable television channels and programs that were flooding the American homes made the regulation too costly and ponderous to enforce. The easiest-to-read source for that is HERE. Thus, it is my contention that cable television and community access broadcasting is what killed the Fairness Doctrine... not outrage over government regulations overbearing the talk radio genre.

My point was NEVER that the return of the Fairness Doctrine would be a GOOD THING... not once did I ever say that. All I EVER said was that it wasn't the "doom and gloom" end of free speech that I so often hear from talk radio personalities (and the Supreme Court upheld this opinion TWICE, in fact). I don't BLAME them for saying this... because I also can't argue that it is undeniable that a return to the regulations would effect their bottom line. Thus, arguing for a maintaining of the status quo only makes sense for them... they stand to make the most money with the least effort if nothing changes. They gain nothing from objectively questioning whether or not the Fairness Doctrine had anything to do with a "lack" of media bias prior to its removal... which is all I was ever asking in my initial posts.

Remember that? All I asked was "When did the media bias become so prevalent as to damn near render mainstream broadcast media irrelevant?" Neither of you responded, so I looked into it myself and thought this a viable explanation... Ryan disagreed, it seems, but offered no responses to my initial question.

It was my genitive opinion that prior to the Fairness Doctrine, biased media was so profound in this nation as to have almost forced the nation into a war with Spain that need never have been fought. This isn't a solid defense of the regulation, of course... I do not say it as such... only that it is evidenced by historical fact. Furthermore, once the regulation went into place, the problem went away almost entirely... but there was no opportunity for break-out, multi-million dollar careers to be made there, either (at least in AM radio). Since the demise of the regulation, AM radio has proven itself a "king maker" of the first order... but traditional prime time broadcast television and much of its cable equivalents are as biased as anything we've seen in 40 years.

I whole-heartedly agree that AM radio, the internet, and cable television are the last bastions of true conservative political views... but at the expense of all other mediums available to pundits and hosts. This is the status quo, and not being able to argue a negative position I concede all points in this matter. I cannot make the case that AM radio would survive intact should the regulation go back into place any better than Ryan can say it would not... thus it is a moot effort in the extreme.