You can talk about the “intent” of the original fairness doctrine all you want – but, that does not comport with today’s Democrats. Which see & hear their side represented on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR. There is not even CLOSE to a fairness in airing both sides fairly on any of them. These huge media sources grossly, and visibly favor the Democrats. And they know it (anyone that doesn’t certainly has mental deficiencies, as the bias is/has been admitted even by the left, themselves.

The only thing they “Dems” want legislated is talk radio where the “market place” – people’s choice – is made clear as to the preferred content in that forum. If the Dems want a piece of that pie – they must earn it. And that they can’t is no one’s fault but their own. So, what do the Dems want – to legislate only against conservative talk radio.

There is nothing fair about this, or them. As I stated – if it is “fairness” they want, and demand – then only a hypocrite (actually a deceitful, lowlife) would demand it in the one forum where they can’t compete “freely” – while allowing multiple other forums which “favor hugely” themselves, remain biased in their favor.

If you can’t see the insaneness in this position – I don’t care how educated you claim to be – you flunk basic logic right out of the gate. Hence, your subsequent premises collapse from such a flawed foundation.

From Dick Durbin: “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” says the assistant majority leader. “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
- So, where is his proposal to make ALL political/social discourse fair to Americans by implementing an across the board fairness in discourse/reporting? And why not education of our youth, if he is so concerned for fairness in learning/understanding?
- He, like many others with this idiotic mindset, who think they can lie and deceive – are the epitome of hypocrites.

What is he referring to is only “talk radio”. Which only reaches a small portion of people compared to the MSM. – and conservatives for the most part. This man, and there are many others, including women in the Dem party, stand in stark contrast to free speech.
If this were the case, they would be all over colleges to correct their imbalance, all over the MSM, to correct their imbalance. Yet, are they? – NO. They want to go after talk radio.

“To begin with, for five decades, there was a Fairness Doctrine–a Federal Communications Commission regulation, not an act of Congress. But in due course it came to be regarded as a relic of its time (1934) and, more important, an impediment to broadcasting as a public service. The Fairness Doctrine was repealed during the Reagan administration (1987); the courts have since upheld the repeal. And therein lies a tale.

When the FCC was established early in the New Deal, there was concern that the size limitations of the broadcasting band, and public ownership of the airwaves, would discourage discussion of public issues on the radio. So the FCC instituted the Fairness Doctrine, requiring stations to air both sides in debates; in 1949, the commission expanded the Doctrine, mandating stations to provide a specified amount of public-issue discussion in order to retain their license.

As often happens, this particular initiative had exactly the opposite effect from what the FCC intended. Over the years station owners grew so wary of attracting the scrutiny of federal regulators that they largely banned discussion of political issues on the air, and mandatory public service programming was deliberately anodyne.

All that changed once the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. A half-century of pent-up free speech was suddenly liberated, and talk radio came into its own. Rush Limbaugh became a household name, paving the way for other entrepreneurs of the air, and radio went from being almost devoid of substantive content to a new, and unpredictable, factor in American politics.

By just about any measure, the Fairness Doctrine was an unfair impediment to free speech, and a public disservice in an open democracy. But it was something else as well: It was a federal regulation that had kept Rush Limbaugh–and Laura Ingraham and William Bennett and Sean Hannity and others–off the air. That is why Democrats have been seeking (in Dick Durbin’s word) to “reinstitute” the Fairness Doctrine: It would require any station that carries Limbaugh to offer equal time to his critics.

Never mind the wisdom of the marketplace, or freedom of choice for radio listeners: Revival of the Fairness Doctrine is not intended to facilitate “both sides of the story” but to shut down conservative talk radio. Why? Because efforts to invent a successful left-wing Limbaugh have consistently failed, and what Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo, and Al Franken’s Air America cannot manage on the air might be accomplished by congressional action. This has been a forlorn cause of the left since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed 20 years ago; but now that Democrats control Congress, new life has been breathed into the effort. A Democratic president could appoint enough compliant commissioners to the FCC to accomplish the mission. Or Congress could act.

Talk radio became the only alternative to the Dem promoting MSM, until Fox came along and offered counter balance. Imagine that ONE major tv news source (FOX) vs NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN. When you add PBS & NPR, and conservative talk radio – that makes 2 to 7. So, where is fairness in that, I ask?
The “..beginning of the end of real journalism in the major media outlets” began with the left dominating the media – which has led us to where we are. From and to the likes of Dan Rather, Bill Moyers, Chris Matthews (leg tingling for Obama) Olbermann, ect, ect,.. via the numerous other left/Dem shills from the MSM. Which is like Professional Wrestling in that it is obviously rigged, one sided, and inanely predictable. And, though I don’t watch wrestling, I would prefer it to watching liars, deceivers, and shills like the aforementioned.

That is not censorship. It is meant to reduce censorship by private and powerful interests. Media ownership has become more concentrated over time. A few corporations control a large percentage of outlets. We are in danger of hearing ONLY the corporate view;point on any issue. This is destructive to democracy.

Oh, and the people who hassled Jello in the ’80s never used the word “censorship” either. Nobody ever CLAIMS to be in favor of censorship, genius. It’s always for “the public good.”

I also like how comments here are censored.

Yeah, nobody can read what you wrote, dude.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/99-grammar/

(FYI I’ve never heard even one second of a “right-wing” radio show)