I must admit that the first time I heard both Michael Savage, a particularly contentious talk show personage airing out of San Francisco, and Sean Hannity, who needs no introduction, speak about the horrors of reinstalling a FCC monitored policy called the Fairness Doctrine, I was appalled by the notion. The way it was explained by both the aforementioned indicated that it was enforced censorship to the highest degree.
The original Fairness Doctrine seems, from all I can learn from other persons, such as a contentious lawyer in Nashville, is that it was a benign policy in instituted 40 or 50 years ago that simply said that only X amount of wavelength existed to assign to radio stations and that none of it could be used as a one voice, one politic, one philosophy station. Some minimal counter must needs to have been employed. If the station had 23 hours of Rush Limbaugh they had to also have 1 hour of Liberace or the maniac liberal now acting as an FBI analyst on the television series 24.
Apparently, this notion was overthrown at some point as the Fairness Doctrine has disappeared for these many intervening years. So, why bring it back?
Michael Savage and Sean Hannity say that it is being brought back by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and the entire left wing in order to silence Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and so on. The contentious lawyer in Tennessee says that this notion is madness. Is it? I don't know.
Do you? If so, post your views.
Comments