"Fairness Doctrine" is fine... if it's applied to ALL media

[Little-Acorn]

I would support a "Fairness Doctrine"... as long as it is applied to ALL media: TV, Newspapers, movies, etc., as well as talk radio.

For every anti-Bush or pro-Obama screed Chris Matthews gives, there has to be a matching delivery from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.

For every appearance by George Stephanopolous on CNN, there has to be equal time for Glenn Beck, whom they must now re-hire and pay as much as they pay GS.

For every "news article" that praises a liberal Obama plan in the New York Times, LA Time etc., ther must be an equally long article, as prominently displayed, by Thomas Sowell or George Will etc.

For every movie showing company executives as evil or heartless, there must be a movie produced of equal length showing a company (like Wal-Mart for example) moving into a neighborhood, providing new jobs to people who didn't have them, providing lower prices and greater selection, etc., and people's lives improving as a result (which is actually the way it usually works).

For every rant by Rosie O'Donnell on The View, she must shut up and sit still without interrupting while Elizabeth Hasselbeck (or Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter) delivers an equally-lengthy speech.

Etc. etc., you get the idea.

I can hardly wait for the leftists to praise this plan, as much as they praise the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for radio only.

-----------------------------------

Actually, on second thought, I don't think I want Government to have the authority to examine everyone's speech, decide what is liberal or conservative, and decide who will be allowed to speak and who won't be, based on what has been said in the past.

I've changed my mind. There is NO version of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" I can support.

Never mind.

[5stringJeff]

I would support a "Fairness Doctrine"... as long as it is applied to ALL media: TV, Newspapers, movies, etc., as well as talk radio.

For every anti-Bush or pro-Obama screed Chris Matthews gives, there has to be a matching delivery from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.

For every appearance by George Stephanopolous on CNN, there has to be equal time for Glenn Beck, whom they must now re-hire and pay as much as they pay GS.

For every "news article" that praises a liberal Obama plan in the New York Times, LA Time etc., ther must be an equally long article, as prominently displayed, by Thomas Sowell or George Will etc.

For every movie showing company executives as evil or heartless, there must be a movie produced of equal length showing a company (like Wal-Mart for example) moving into a neighborhood, providing new jobs to people who didn't have them, providing lower prices and greater selection, etc., and people's lives improving as a result (which is actually the way it usually works).

For every rant by Rosie O'Donnell on The View, she must shut up and sit still without interrupting while Elizabeth Hasselbeck (or Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter) delivers an equally-lengthy speech.

Etc. etc., you get the idea.

I can hardly wait for the leftists to praise this plan, as much as they praise the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for radio only.

-----------------------------------

Actually, on second thought, I don't think I want Government to have the authority to examine everyone's speech, decide what is liberal or conservative, and decide who will be allowed to speak and who won't be, based on what has been said in the past.

I've changed my mind. There is NO version of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" I can support.

Never mind.

You scared me for a second. I'm glad I read the whole post!!!

The "Fairness Doctrine" is an unconstitutional oppression of free speech and should not be voted for or signed into law. If it is, it should be immediately challenged in court.

[Little-Acorn]

You scared me for a second. I'm glad I read the whole post!!!
Gotcha!!!!! Hee hee hee


If it is, it should be immediately challenged in court.
Of course it will be. But such challenges can take a year or more, if usual patterns are followed.

So, count on Dems enacting it or signing it, maybe around 1/2 year before the 2012 election. Radio station across the country will be forced to drop shows like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Rick Roberts etc., or else face barrages of lawsuits. In part because there are very few liberal radio personalities in existence at all, much less ones that anyone wants to listen to.

The result will be the timely reduction or elimination of most of the major voices of opposition to the Democrats, just before an election where the results of Obama's economic socialism are becoming clear (disaster) and he is facing a grim re-election bid.

When the Fairness Doctrine is finally declared unconstitutional by a unanimous Supreme Court after 20 minutes of deliberation, Obama (and the Pelosi/Reid Congress) will already be safely re-elected and out of danger.

Remember when Bill Clinton took $millions in campaign contributions in 1996 from Chinese and Indonesian nationals who were forbidden by law from contributing to an American Presidential campaign? When the sources of the money were revealed after the election, Clinton had to pay most of them back, but escaped any indictment or prosecution by the U.S. Attorneys he had appointed in the first week of his Presidency (which was ALL of them).

His then-adviser Dick Morris was quoted as saying: "We had to give back the money, but we didn't have to give back the votes (chuckle)."

If it worked once for the Democrats, you can count on them to try it again when they most need to.