As reported by NewsBusters here and here, there is a battle going on between liberal bloggers and a conservative radio station in San Francisco, California.
Though arriving at the party somewhat late, USA Today covered this story on Wednesday: “In a dispute between the ‘new media’ of the Internet and the ‘old media’ of broadcasting, liberal bloggers and conservative talk-radio hosts are accusing each other of trampling the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech.”
As this issue has surfaced coincident with liberal members of Congress proposing a media reform bill that would require, amongst other things, conservative talk radio stations to give equal time to opposing viewpoints during their broadcasts, doesn’t this raise quite a compelling hypocrisy inherent in what the left sees as free speech?
Put simply, how is limiting speech that you don’t agree with an exercise in expanding free speech? And, isn’t it most egregious for members of the new media – which clearly epitomizes the explosion of free speech around the world – to be using this fantastic invention to mute the voices of others?
Dan Riehl at his Riehl World View blog expounded on this concept:
This is a sad story for blogging as it runs contrary to a fundamental principle of blogging, that all individuals with incredibly different voices have a chance to be heard. To see such a truly democratic medium turned into a tool used in an attempt to shut down another voice, regardless of the medium, is an unfortunate thing for bloggers of every political stripe. Where does it end?
Possibly answering this question was an article from the liberal blog Raw Story published on Sunday:
Concerns about monopolies and fears of a possible "fascist" takeover of the US media have prompted a Democratic congressman to push to restore the Fairness Doctrine, RAW STORY has learned.
"Media reform is the most important issue confronting our democratic republic and the people of our country," Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) said at the Free Press National Media Reform Conference held in Memphis, Tennessee last weekend. "This is a critical moment in history that may determine the future of our country…maybe forever."
Hinchey told RAW STORY he plans to reintroduce the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA) that would break up media monopolies and restore the Fairness Doctrine, which was eliminated by the Federal Communications Commission under the Reagan administration.
Who are the “fascists” that Hinchey et al are worried about? Take a guess:
“If Rush shoots his mouth off, he must give equal access to our side,” Hinchey said. “The American public will begin to get both sides or all sides of an issue. That is basic – fundamental to a democracy.”
Starting to get a clearer picture of what is really going on here?
This isn’t about free speech or the First Amendment. This is about silencing conservative voices to expand the amount of liberal opinions that are thrust upon the populace.
After all, one of the positions of the liberal bloggers concerning this Spocko issue was that ABC/Disney had no right to try and stop him from using audio clips from KSFO’s broadcasts, a position that I likely agree with. However, at the same time, these folks are trying to stop KSFO from making the statements present in those clips.
As such, these folks are fighting to allow bloggers to copy and air statements made by radio personalities that they themselves object so strongly to that they want said personalities to not be allowed to make. In effect, the bloggers are saying that they should be free to disseminate examples of what they feel is hate speech at the same time that they are trying to invoke a boycott of those committing the act.
Anybody see an extraordinary hypocrisy here?
In the end, folks that are using the ideals inherent in the First Amendment to curb or restrict speech really need to take a long look in the mirror, especially those in the new media who in the past decade have been given a tremendous gift that they currently don’t seem to appreciate.
As amazing as it might seem, our liberal brethren on the opposite side of the aisle don't understand that the more they look this horse in the mouth, the less freedom they might find they have in the future.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If Liberals were liberal, the
January 25, 2007 - 11:55 ET by mattmIf Liberals were liberal, they wouldn't be Liberals.
They throw out charges of fascism while advocating it. My only question is are they aware of what they're doing, or are they just ignorant...
They are acutely aware. Their
January 25, 2007 - 12:00 ET by bassndudeThey are acutely aware. Their goal is to silence everyone who dosent agree with them so that they are the only ones allowed to speak. Now, if, say, every liberal show had to allow Rush equel time to address their statements, as they wish to rebut Rush, you would hear wailing and gnashing of teeth. Of course we hear plenty of that, from them, now.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
So when Al Franken opens hi
January 25, 2007 - 11:58 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsSo when Al Franken opens his big yap, there will be a conservative there to counter him? How about when Letterman opens his big yap? How about when the two get together? Should Olbermann have an anti-Olbermann right there next to him? Should there be an anti-NYT? Sheesh.
DSG
Want your elected reps to know what you think? Go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/, it's real easy.
No, because they're not biase
January 25, 2007 - 12:04 ET by aeroNo, because they're not biased, you see. There is no liberal media bias.
It is total hypocrisy BUT the
January 25, 2007 - 12:04 ET by RunningBeerIt is total hypocrisy BUT the whole idea would most likely backfire on the libs. Half the time dims and libs won't even accept an offer to appear on a balanced or right leaning show. They hate to be challenged in open, honest debate.
If this does get close to passing, lets make sure lawmakers add a tag to include movie makers presenting both sides of their inconvenient truths.
Good point. Rush is essential
January 25, 2007 - 12:14 ET by aeroGood point. Rush is essentially an entertainer (he has said so himself, I believe), so if they can force Rush to give "equal time," that means all forms of entertainment would in all fairness have to be subject to the same rule. Jon Stewart would have to hire a conservative co-anchor. The View would actually have to let Hasselbeck speak as many minutes as her liberal co-hosts. Jack Bauer would have to stop kicking terrorists' hineys and listen to some anti-war nut give a sermon about diplomacy. TV shows about singles sleeping around all the time would have to every once in awhile give a PSA about abstinence. If Oprah endorses a Democrat candidate, I guess she'd have to endorse a Republican too just to be fair.
Ridiculous. What will they do, open a new branch of the bureacracy dedicated to policing "equal time"? Would members of this bureaucracy be the ones to decide if there's bias in a program or publication and force those who are biased to give "equal time"? What if they decide Fox News is biased but CNN is not? How can the voters protest that? Again, ridiculous.
If I'm not mistaken in the
January 25, 2007 - 16:05 ET by motherbeltIf I'm not mistaken in the way the "fairness doctrine" would work, it would not require Rush to have a Liberal on his show in order to have equal time. It would require radio stations that carry Rush for 3 hours to carry 3 hours of a liberal show to balance it.
Since liberal talk shows are historically money-losers, besides being rare as hens' teeth, it's easier for the station to dump Limbaugh and switch to music programming. That's why it's called the "Hush Rush" bill.
Ah, that makes a bit more sen
January 25, 2007 - 16:09 ET by aeroAh, that makes a bit more sense in terms of implementation. It's anything but fair, but that explains how they could enforce it.
"Media monopolies"
January 25, 2007 - 12:12 ET by nkviking75The media are far more concentrated than they used to be, but I'd be hard pressed to call any media organization a monopoly. By the way, Clear Channel is unloading thousands of stations to concentrate on larger markets. It seems to me there's quite an opportunity for small broadcasters to get back into the market.
The Fairness Doctrine attempts to have liberal speech subsidized by successful conservative broadcasters. Libs have been unable to succeed on their own, so they want to force broadcasters who actually make money to give them a platform. That won't get libs more listeners, and it will hurt the radio stations who have to carry them.
Speaking of media dominance, do you suppose the libs will go after CBS, NBC, or ABC? Consider:
I'm all for it. That way, a
January 25, 2007 - 12:13 ET by GordyI'm all for it. That way, at every turn, these crackpots on the left will have a conservative counterpoint.
As Rush says, and I agree, "Conservatism wins every time its tried." Most liberals are hard pressed to enter a discussion with a true conservative without losing it and turning to name calling.
Lets not fight this. I'd love to see a Rush Limbaugh / Al Franken point-counterpoint for 3 hours everyday. You just know it'll end with Al exclaiming "Rush, you ignorant slut!"
This is not a bad thing, and I'm all for it.
Gordy et al
January 25, 2007 - 12:28 ET by Noel SheppardGordy et al,
Well, from what I've read on this subject, shows like the Daily Show and Colbert would be exempt because they are not considered news shows. As for Rush or Hannity being commentary, this wouldn't exclude them under the legislation because they are reading news reports during their programs and commenting specifically on said items.
Let's understand that they're going after Rush and other conservative talk radio hosts. And, they're going after Fox News. As such, the legislation is crafted to benefit them NOT conservatives.
Furthermore, since they don't feel that the other news organizations are biased, it would be very easy to informally exempt everybody but conservative talk radio and Fox from this legislation. That's what should be our real concern. ns
"Well, from what I've
January 25, 2007 - 12:44 ET by ckc1227"Well, from what I've read on this subject, shows like the Daily Show and Colbert would be exempt because they are not considered news shows. As for Rush or Hannity being commentary, this wouldn't exclude them under the legislation because they are reading news reports during their programs and commenting specifically on said items"
Don't they try to justify targetting Rush and others because they use the public airwaves, whereas the Daily Show and Colbert do not?
Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.
Last time I looked FNC is on
January 25, 2007 - 13:03 ET by Dan The Man 2Last time I looked FNC is on cable also, so are they exempt?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
...and if Rush moved to satel
January 25, 2007 - 13:47 ET by aero...and if Rush moved to satellite radio, would he be exempt?
Maybe Rush will save Air Amer
January 25, 2007 - 13:58 ET by bassndudeMaybe Rush will save Air America, and move over to there. I would hope that they would fit into the same media.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
"Last time I looked FN
January 25, 2007 - 14:18 ET by ckc1227"Last time I looked FNC is on cable also, so are they exempt?
...and if Rush moved to satellite radio, would he be exempt?"
Well, if using the public airwaves is their excuse, then yes, I would assume these guys would be exempt under these circumstances. Not a lawyer though, I just know I have heard this excuse used to justify their lame attempts to silence free speech.
Now, does the fairness doctrine also mean there can no longer be genre specific radio stations? Would country stations be required to also play rap, rock, gospel(well, not gospel, can't have religion imposed on the people), celtic, etc, etc?
Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.
But the Daily Show and Colber
January 25, 2007 - 12:56 ET by aeroBut the Daily Show and Colbert include quotes and clips from news reports and specific commentary on said items. Why would they exempt but Rush wouldn't be? That doesn't make sense. I agree that the primary danger of this legislation is who gets to decide what's biased and what's subject to the law in the first place. There's a fine line between news and entertainment these days.
How the liberals would scream if conservatives somehow got control of this Fairness Bureacracy and started declaring that Rush and Fox News are not biased, but CNN and MSNBC are. The assumption is that it will be the other way around, and I'm sure that assumption is correct.
Maybe the solution is to en
January 25, 2007 - 13:02 ET by sarcasmoMaybe the solution is to entirely-defund the Fairness Bureaucracy (AKA the FCC)? No more bureaucracy = no more danger.
JMR
GordyThe libs would never con
January 25, 2007 - 12:32 ET by Mica the MagnificentGordy
The libs would never confront Rush in a debate, live in a studio. They would submit their 'talking points' on tape regardless of the points Rush would make. The station would be required to play the lib tape.
I suggest the radio stations do what they are required to do; play the lib tape. But I'd add circus music to the background, fart noises every 10 seconds, and maybe, just to be fair to the libs, screaming birds from the rain forest.
Example: Hi, this is Al Franken (faaarrrrrrrt). Now that you heard the lies of the right (ooo-ooo-eeee-eee-ahh-ahh) it's time to hear the truth from the left (faaarrrrrrt) (caw-caw)
I want to go on record as being able to tell a joke without botching it. Hey waiter, what is this hair doing in my french onion soup with hand rolled croutons and italian capers? The waiter walks over, thanks me for serving in Vietnam, and replies: 'to get to the other side!' - Sounds like John Kerry
I understand and agree with t
January 25, 2007 - 12:33 ET by aeroI understand and agree with the theory of what you're saying, but in practice it would fail miserably. Yes, if commentators like Rush took on opposing commentators like Al Franken, Rush would reduce Al to a slobbering, whimpering blob of jelly in 30 seconds flat. That would be fun to see/hear. However, I think the reality is that Rush wouldn't be having fun anymore if he had to spend half his time arguing with idiots every day. He'd retire quickly--he's got enough money that he can say "screw this" and go play golf for the rest of his life if he wants to. I think it would also leach all the fun out of the show for listeners after the first few days of listening to liberal commentators get the smack-down from Rush. I know I get *really* tired of reading threads at my favorite blogs where some lib starts spouting lib talking points and drags the conversation way off to the side in the process. Yes, it gets sparks flying, but it gets old, too. If every other caller on Rush's show were a liberal idiot, I'd stop listening the first day.
As for the reality of "equal time," I don't think libs would do it for real. For example, I bet the producers of the TV show "Boston Legal" think they're giving equal time to conservatives by showcasing "conservative" character Denny Crain. But he is not in any way an accurate portrayal of a conservative--he's shown as an idiot. An amusing idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. Would that count as "equal time" if entertainment is subject to the fairness doctrine? I bet it would, but it's far from being equal, now is it?
Given what Noel just wrote ab
January 25, 2007 - 12:40 ET by aeroGiven what Noel just wrote about entertainment being exempt and only news commentary being subject to the law, perhaps the View would be a better example than Boston Legal. On the View, there is a conservative on the panel--Elisabeth Hasselbeck. But she is consistently drowned out by her more liberal co-hosts, who both outnumber her and out-shout her. I don't consider the View to represent "equal time." But I bet under the Fairness Doctrine, the View would be considered to be "fair" because it has people commenting on the news from both sides. Or would it literally require equal time--as in, they have to let Hasselbeck speak for as many minutes as all her liberal co-hosts combined? That would be funny.
Speaking of equal time, is it only for professed Republicans and Democrats? Or do Libertarians, Green Party members, Hamas, and people of any political persuasion get equal time, as well? How did they enforce this thing back before Reagan killed it the first time?
Good points. Who would de
January 25, 2007 - 13:16 ET by kathleenirishGood points. Who would decide any of these issues under the "Fairness Doctrine"? The FCC? The Supreme Court? Chuck Schumer and H-Rod Clinton? Time's "person of the year"? The World Court at the Hague?
What about the quality of the views, not just the quantity. Whatever. We know what the absurdly named, "Fairness" Doctrine is really about, described adeptly by several posters in this thread. Funny about libs and their use of the words, "Fairness" and "Equality". Big brother doublespeak.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
"What about the quality
January 25, 2007 - 13:30 ET by aeroYes, that's one of the points I was trying to make but didn't quite make it. An example of this would be that Rush could easily provide "equal time" by having his screener choose the most extraordinarily idiotic liberal callers he can find--even easier to tear apart than usual. He could have guests who are very weak in their beliefs or their arguments. Libs would not consider them to be good representatives of their point of view, but Rush would be fulfilling the letter of the law by having them on for his listeners to laugh at.
I'm sure that's what liberal commentators who had to give "equal time" would do--they'd find the most insane off-the-deep-end bottom-feeding representatives of the right that they could dig up for the "equal time" on their shows.
I continue to read stories
January 25, 2007 - 12:16 ET by JDWI continue to read stories on the subject and am encountering more and more dem bloggers... who are in concurrence with us. I have obviously always understood the socialistic motivations, the perspective in this case of Brainwashing 101: Free Speech is right on. This gives a candid perspective as to what these 'people' feel about anyone within their party deviating from the foundation beliefs.
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Sharing air time - no problem!~
January 25, 2007 - 12:19 ET by Gary HallSharing air time - no problem!~
As long as NPR, Kieth Olberman, Katie Couric, GMA, Pacifica Radio, Air America, Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, Jack Caffrety, The Nation, Mother Jones, Jim Lehrer, Travis Smiley, Chris Matthews, LA Times, NY Times, Newsweek, Time Mag., and KOS, and the rest of the long list, are so ordered to provide equal time to opposing views.
This whole argument about &qu
January 25, 2007 - 12:20 ET by pmohbuckThis whole argument about "fairness" is a joke ... it's more like "we control the mainstream media so it's unfair that we don't control talk radio and the internet too" ... it's getting to the point in which the democrat left is going to have a hard time convincing people that it truly supports a democracy over an autocracy ... government manipulation of the media is a tactic hitler and stalin used to control the masses.
although it would be interesting if we were forced to watch "fairness-oriented" talkshows pairing the likes of rosie odonnell with ann coulter or rush limbaugh with al franken ... talk about must-see-tv
at some point people need to realize that there is more to being an american than just exercising their rights
I'd really like some though
January 25, 2007 - 12:24 ET by sarcasmoI'd really like some thoughtful lefty to try to defend the "Fairness" Doctrine here. The problem is, Balboa and those like him are able to read the First Amendment, and are probably also able to remember the days -- not so long-ago -- when the left used to defend the First Amendment just like the right used to defend the Tenth...
JMR
"Anybody see an extrao
January 25, 2007 - 12:47 ET by ckc1227"Anybody see an extraordinary hypocrisy here?"
Of course it is. Isn't that the definition of "liberal"?
Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.
The idea that a blog can co
January 25, 2007 - 13:00 ET by Dan The Man 2The idea that a blog can convince advertisers to not support a station is free speech. And at the same time ABC/Disney has the right to prevent copyrighted material from pervading the airwaves if the material is used in a non proscibed manner. I read the USA piece.
As far as the fairness doctrine I think it is a good idea in theory, but would be a disaster in implementation. The question is and always has been who decides what is fair? Does Pat Buchanon speak for all conservatives, and who speaks on religious matters, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson or some of the real wackos out there.
The market should decide, and in the case of KSFO the market will decide.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
* * * LIBERALISM CAN NOT SURV
January 25, 2007 - 13:05 ET by TheTruth* * * LIBERALISM CAN NOT SURVIVE IN TRUTH * * *
Boy is THAT the Truth! :-)
January 25, 2007 - 13:08 ET by MightyMouthBoy is THAT TheTruth! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
"If Rush shoots his mout
January 25, 2007 - 13:17 ET by aeroThis is the main flaw in the Left's perception of free speech, or lack thereof. The American public already has access to both/all sides of an issue, regardless of who is speaking in the media and for how long. Democracy is being served. Republicans are not suppressing any kind of speech in the political debate, any more than Democrats have been suppressing our speech through their domination of the MSM. Republicans were still out here talking, even when we didn't have Rush or Fox News or a majority in Congress to amplify our voices. No jackbooted thugs came and arrested us or murdered us in our beds because we disagreed with the party in power. And no jackbooted thugs are silencing the idiocy that liberals spout. The libs tried to compete with Rush in the free market and failed miserably, so they're trying to do it the hypocritical and fascist way.
As Rush himself is fond of saying, you have the right to speak all you want, but you do not have the right to be heard.
aero...Air Amerika anyone?Per
January 25, 2007 - 13:24 ET by bigtimeraero...
Air Amerika anyone?
Perfect example of leftist failure... they whine and cry, bitch and moan, 'It's just not fair, it's just not fair!'... so they want to shut up the conservative side of air time because they are failures...
Well, whose fault is that?
LMAO!
Exactly.Rush and FNC were the
January 25, 2007 - 14:02 ET by aeroExactly.
Rush and FNC were the answer to our feeling that the liberal domination of the MSM was "not fair." Market forces rocketed Rush and FNC to the top because huge numbers of conservative news consumers had a strong desire to hear our point of view on the airwaves. We did not try to shut the liberals up--we instead supported the rise of an opposing point of view. They simply can't muster that level of support, so they have sour grapes. Feh.
On a side note, if the audience of television news is roughly 50/50 conservative/liberal, like the voters seem to be, then FNC probably has most of 50% of news viewers in its pocket, while the other (liberal) news channels have to split up the remaining 50%. And given the track record of liberal-leaning news consumers, there are probably fewer liberals watching news than conservative viewers--liberal news consumers seem far more disengaged than conservative news consumers (hence the success of Rush versus the abysmal failure of Air America), so the liberal news channels are probably splitting up 30% or less of the regular news-viewing audience, while FNC is likely getting above 50% due to the greater engagement of conservative news viewers. Just my armchair analysis.
aer,...and great arm chair an
January 25, 2007 - 14:14 ET by bigtimeraer,
...and great arm chair analysis it is!
Thanks. Makes it really easy
January 25, 2007 - 14:51 ET by aeroThanks. Makes it really easy to see why FNC is so successful when you look at it that way, doesn't it? Also makes it easy to see why the libs are so scared of
FNC and Rush...
An analogy: Let's say that market analysis shows that half of all consumers like apples and half like oranges. But all the major grocery stores sell only apples. If one store starts offering oranges, it makes sense that they'd experience a surge in sales and enjoy the almost exclusive patronage of all the orange-buyers. Simple market forces--demand and supply. Would anyone then seriously entertain the idea that the apple-selling stores could force the orange-selling store to sell half as many oranges, or even stop selling oranges altogether? Of course not. But libs don't understand market forces; and if they do understand market forces, they think they're evil.
I agree with you, Aero. The
January 25, 2007 - 22:32 ET by Chicago RepublicanI agree with you, Aero. The market is a wonderful thing. Proof positive that just about every show on PBS is left wing dribble is how the network screeches in horror at having to compete in the market. I love when walruses like Ted Kennedy talk about Republicans wanting to pull the plug on Clifford and Sesame Street (or put another way, pull the funding from PBS). If Clifford and Sesame Street are what kids want to watch, then the market will accomodate them and they will succeed in competing for advertising. If they are out of vogue, they'll go the way of the do-do.
Rush Limbaugh and FNC are successful because there is a vast market of people across the nation that want to hear them. Hence, they succeed.
After all, one of the positio
January 25, 2007 - 13:23 ET by Jack BauerAfter all, one of the positions of the liberal bloggers concerning this Spocko issue was that ABC/Disney had no right to try and stop him from using audio clips from KSFO’s broadcasts,
And if that were the case I'd agree.
But of course, ABC/KSFO do have a right to stop him misusing clips by playing them out of context -- that is not fair usage.
For instance, it would be remarkably easy for a conservative to take feeds from network news, and recut them to say, make it sound like Katie Couric was happy to see US troops murdered.
Thta would be unfair usage.
You know, like CLAIMING Lee Rodgers, the ascerbic KSFO host, had called for an African-American to be tortured because he was black.
That's a lie peddled by Mike Stark-Raving-Nuts. Stark claims to just be against "hate" speech.
Yet many of you will have already seen the pictures of a smirking Stark holding up a sign behind Alan Holmes on live TV saying "Hannity Sucks Ass".
Have you noticed how leftists are so limited in their abilty to insult that they always seem to have this obsession in calling conservatives "queers."
Why, it's almost as if they think there's something wrong with homosexuals. Why, isn't that hate speech?
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
This has gotten so old. How
January 25, 2007 - 13:27 ET by PeskyDaneThis has gotten so old. How many times do we have to explain that Rush is the answer to the alphabet soup networks and socialist rags?
The fairness doctrine will no
January 25, 2007 - 13:50 ET by florida_chadThe fairness doctrine will not pass unless republicans vote for it. It they do then they are idiots and we will have no one to blame except the republicians.
As amazing as it might seem,
January 25, 2007 - 13:56 ET by Dave RAs amazing as it might seem, our liberal brethren on the opposite side of the aisle don't understand that the more they look this horse in the mouth, the less freedoms they might find they have in the future.
I have difficulty understanding this as well, given the true shallowness of their so-called election "victory." What can be used against us could very easily be turned around and used against them. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time the DimLibs have cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Liberals and fairness?
January 25, 2007 - 15:41 ET by watchful eyesWould the liberals then allow equal time to conservatives in the classroom when federal dollars support the school? Equal speech is equal speech, right? Bet the liberal profs wouldn't like that!
All media should be included
January 25, 2007 - 15:45 ET by bacadogOK, Hinchey, let's bring the Fairness Doctrine back. This time, however, let's include the print and cable media as well. I can't wait to see how the NY Times and CNN will present both sides of the story.
It wouldn't apply to them
January 25, 2007 - 16:23 ET by Carl KolchakThe Fairness Doctrine would not apply to left wingers.
Sincerely
Members of the Pravda Fan Club
Can someone explain to me w
January 25, 2007 - 16:20 ET by MightyMouthCan someone explain to me what would be a better "fairness doctrine": The government imposing arbitrary fairness rules on the public OR THE PUBLIC TURNING THE DIAL!?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
"But the Daily Show an
January 25, 2007 - 16:55 ET by ckc1227"But the Daily Show and Colbert include quotes and clips from news
reports and specific commentary on said items. Why would they exempt
but Rush wouldn't be? That doesn't make sense."
Because they don't use the public airwaves to do their show; Rush does. That's why Rush has to operate under FTC guidelines(under which I assume the fairness doctrine would fall), but the folks on cable don't.
Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.