Great article in The Politico yesterday about the Fairness Doctrine. The writer notes that liberals, unsuccessful on the radio talk show circuit, are trying to use the government to stifle opposing viewpoints, which the First Amendment was created to prevent. Envy is very unattractive.
For my take on the so-called Fairness Doctrine, see Democrats Seek to Resurrect Dead Fairness Doctrine.
Why do liberals hate free market talk radio, and more importantly, why are they trying to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine now? Derek Hunter writes in The Politico:
This conservative ascendancy did not sit well with liberals. And so the idea of restoring the Fairness Doctrine is one that’s been kicked around Washington for some time. With a Republican Congress, the prospects were slim, at best. But now the Democrats are in charge and bills to restore the Fairness Doctrine have been introduced in both chambers. Led by Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), free speech, allegedly revered by the left, is under assault.
…
The much-heralded launch of Air America was supposed to be the balance liberals sought. But despite free publicity from every media outlet and several influxes of cash (including from a charity), Air America’s management made Enron look like a successful business model. The market has spoken, and they’re failing. Left-wing radio doesn’t work (unless it is subsidized by taxpayers, in the case of NPR).What would be the practical effect of the return of the Fairness Doctrine? Simple — the end of talk radio as we know it. No station could afford to carry a successful conservative show if it had to balance it with a liberal show. Stations would lose their identity and autonomy, and we would return to what radio was like before 1987, when there were about 100 talk shows, not the thousands that exist now.
You can guess what I think of Air America, but just in case…see Air America Fails to Re-Pay Money Stolen From Poor Black Kids in New York – To File for Bankruptcy?
It’s funny how liberals manage to find a “right to privacy” to slaughter unborn babies and a “civil right” for two men to marry each other in the Constitution but ignore the explicit right to free speech, no matter how unpopular or “intolerant” the speech.
