This Georgia conflict really brought the Ronulans out of the woodwork.

MadisonConservative on August 14, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Heh! +1

freevillage on August 14, 2008 at 4:56 PM

This Georgia conflict really brought the Ronulans out of the woodwork.

It was brilliant of the FCC to call this the “Fairness Doctrine,” because hey…who can argue against fairness, right?

The name of the Patriot Act on the other hand doesn’t try to camouflage controversial issues with a feel-good header.

Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary…

Outlander on August 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM

The proof is in the pudding. From what I’ve read over the past couple of years, the lefties want to silence radio, not television. If that were the case, then no TV news broadcast in America, including Spanish stations when it comes to immigration, would have time to report any other news.

This is why only radio is targeted. TV stations would argue, in part, they already have balance.

But MSNBC and CNN are great examples of how this is not so.

Republicans and unaffiliated voters are fairly evenly divided.

Dumber than I thought. Never assume anything.

kirkill on August 14, 2008 at 4:02 PM

You mean, the other 53% think the MSM is unbiased?

what if, ironically, it’s being fueled by conservative reaction to election coverage?

I really liked the fact that it included TV. I’m pretty sure it did before when it was the law of the land, but the big difference now is the ability of the “new media” to push stories into the public eye.

There was an old labor trick called “work to rule,” in which factory workers would stop doing things the quick way that they had figured out, and started doing things the way they were written down in the manuals. With the help of the new media, and Fox News, lefty media bias will be exposed, and pressure can be applied to add conservative content/journalists. How about a nice class-action suit if the “Fairness Doctrine” is unfairly applied?

That’s the real beef liberals have. Nobody wants to listen to what they have to say. So they run to Mommy to make everyone listen.

Even though the Fairness Doctrine is wrong even in principle, it is even more wrong in that ‘fairness’ is not the goal here – snuffing out conservative viewpoints is.

Let them try it. The SCOTUS will put this to rest for good.

carbon_footprint on August 14, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Remember two things:

1. SCOTUS affirmed McCain-Feingold’s anti-speech provisions. Political speech is not entitled to great deference anymore.

2. SCOTUS affirmed the old Fairness Doctrine in 1969 (Red Lion v. FCC). Why not affirm a challenge to a new Fairness Doctrine now?

Bingo.
Let them try it. The SCOTUS will put this to rest for good.

I’d love to believe this, but I’m afraid I don’t. 200 years of history has shown that any amendment can be abridged at any time by any legislation for a given pretext.

2. Stupid people like terms like “fair” and “equal”

3. Stupid people don’t like the “unfair” free market