The party of inclusion, the party of tolerance, conveniently forsakes those self-anointed virtues when conservatives are involved.
“Political activists and even certain U.S. senators have argued that the federal government should reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, which would require broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. Opponents charge that Fairness Doctrine advocates are trying to reduce the impact of conservative talk radio.”
The Orwellian (and unconstitutional) Fairness Doctrine may eliminate conservative talk radio entirely. No radio station would wish to be burdened with monitoring who has expressed what on which issue/topic. Nor would a station wish to pay the penalties (or defend itself against penalties) for not complying. From a radio station’s view, it’s alot easier to broadcast another sports show, or Bach’s 9th Symphony, rather than worry about whether the pro-choicers have had their say in the last, say, 15 minutes.
Since conservative radio tends to educate the masses about things that Democrats preferred to remain a mystery, Democrats would be overjoyed to shut down radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Tammy Bruce, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, etc.
Some of our tolerant Senators, all Democrats, have expressed favor for the (unconstitutional) Fairness Doctrine.
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.” — Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) [This coming from a man who smeared our military on the Senate floor. If a doctrine restricting speech (which is the intent behind the Fairness Doctrine) should be imposed on anyone, it should be imposed on Dick. -- Ed]
“In my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information…. I’m looking at [the Fairness Doctrine] …. Unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.” –Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) [Put aside the fact that these assertions are incomplete and misleading at best. Does Feinstein honestly believe that the mainstream newsmedia is not one-sided, does not dwell in hyperbole, is never explosive, and doesn't push people to extreme views without information? She's a fool if she does. --Ed .]
“I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there … One of the most profound changes in the balance of the media was when the conservatives got rid of equal time requirements. The result is that they’ve been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views.”
– Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) [ I guess ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, PBS, the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Boston Globe, the Detroit Free-Press, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, the Kansas City Star, the Miami Herald, USA Today, NPR, Air America, etc. have been "squeezed out." Idiot. -- Ed.]
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire
NRO: What’s Fair Is Fair — And fair is not the “Fairness Doctrine.” By Barbara Comstock & Lanny J. Davis
Culture and Media: Unmasking the Myths Behind the Fairness Doctrine
Weekly Standard: Here They Come — Democrats gone wild. by Matthew Continetti
CNS: Democratic Senator Tells Conservative Radio Station He’d Re-impose Fairness Doctrine–on Them By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor & Matthew Cover
Filed under: Crazy liberals , censorship, Democrats, fairness doctrine, First Amendment, free speech, hypocrisy, oppression, Orwell
