You're right, the Fairness Doctrine is crap.

I read a blog recently that denounced the Fairness Doctrine as being crap. You know, you're right. I mean, listen to this BS:

"Until the mid-1980s, a Federal Communications Commission policy that required broadcasters to provide time for opposing viewpoints any time they broadcast an opinion supporting one side of a controversial issue." (MarketConscious.com)

You're right, that's so bad. Think of the possibilities--without the Fairness Doctrine, a person who had a hugely successful fund raising campaign could put their image out much more than their opposing candidate, thus increasing their chances of election. Put your face everywhere, your name everywhere, put out dozens of smear ads against your opponent--he or she doesn't stand a chance! And isn't that what America is all about?

No.

The basis for electing our leaders shouldn't be money or notoriety. It should be ideas and policy. Think about it--if you were asked the question, "Would you rather elect a leader based on their ideas or based on how much money they have?" it wouldn't be a question. You would elect a leader based on whether or not you agreed with their ideas. And there is only one way to figure out if a candidate agrees with your ideas: exposure to those ideas. There are two ways to accomplish this exposure.

1. The Fairness Doctrine

2. Reform campaign spending, including but not limited to spending caps, federal and state funding equally for both candidates, and campaign spending transparency.

People who oppose the Fairness Doctrine complain about freedom of the press. Wah wah wah, we're a conservative network and we don't want to run liberal ideas. Wah wah wah. Freedom of the press doesn't really apply here. The first amendment to the constitution says this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Note that is says abridging the freedom of the press. That means that, say, the Republicans can't take control of congress and prevent the press from printing stories with a liberal bias. Even though they did. But they didn't do it with an actual law, and they can't. That doesn't mean that they can't pass a law requiring the media to cover certain things, though. It means that they can't force the media not to cover something. That is what freedom of the press is about.

You jerks.

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm all in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. Why wouldn't you be? What does it hurt anybody to be able to be a little more open minded, to have to listen to both sides of an argument? My God--it might even help. Unless you know that you don't have any facts or reason supporting your argument--then I could see why you might not be in favor of the F.D. Good luck with that. We Americans may be a little more self-involved than politically involved, but as is evident by the last midterm election and Bush's approval rating, you can't run willy-nilly and expect us not to notice.