On Tuesday, in my post “Silencing the Opposition”, I wrote about the “Fairness Doctrine”, which is anything but fair. After giving it more thought, I realized that while this is a horrible and unconstitutional idea, and I am vehemently opposed to it, it wouldn’t be the total end of conservative or Christian radio. In fact, it may be that the “fairness doctrine” is being pushed by XM and Sirius Radio because it would cause the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world to flee to the unregulated world of satellite radio. It would also cause a quick maturation of the netcast (podcast) market, which is also unregulated. Netcasting makes call-in shows difficult, but would be the gaping loophole that could never be realistically closed. It may even be what it takes to move the netcasts that these shows already provide away from paid subscription and towards an ad-supported model.
That doesn’t mean I don’t oppose this. It’s wrong, unconstitutional, and unfair. I would oppose it if it were directed at Liberal media. Political views need to be advanced by articulate apologetics, not silencing of the opposition.
I’m also quite opposed to the fairness doctrine, but if it works properly, can you imagine what it would do to the network news. They would actually have to show both sides of every story they air. rather than just the side containing the message they want to get out. It’s a different angle to the whole debate.
Hypothetically. Ideally. However, it only applies to “opinon” media. Those who claim they are “news” would not be bound by the “Fairness Doctrine”, especially since most claim to be impartial and claim that their own political views have no influence on thier reporting.
It’s better not to limit anyones free speech than to limit everyones, as there will always be people exempt from the rule.
agreed, I guess I’m just looking at the silver lining. Or trying to find one… I certainly beelive that the fairness doctrine is anything but fair.