Liberals in Congress
want to silence
conservativesIF YOU STILL are wondering whether you should cast your ballot for Barack Obama, add this to the mix: Will he reinstate the onerous Fairness Doctrine to muzzle radio and television debate?
With a Democratic House and a possible supermajority in the Senate, anything could happen. And while you are worrying about what that will mean for your bank account, what with increased taxes, environmentalism run amok, skyrocketing government health care costs, union demands and other, leftist special interest legislation, you can add silenced dissent.
Brian C. Anderson, a New York Post, columnist, reports the Obama campaign says there are no plans to move against conservative talk radio to diminish the influence of the right. But most Democrats — including party elders . . .
(cont'd from front page) Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness," he said. "Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful."
Heaven help us all, but Americans may not be smart enough to see it as a bad idea. A Rasmusson report of a few months ago concluded that 47 percent of Americans believe government should mandate radio and TV stations offer equal time for conservative and liberal political commentary.
It is a horrible idea enticing bureaucrats with the promise of too much power. It was designed to drive off the air conservative talk radio, a constant thorn for the left. If a station were to broadcast a popular conservative program it would be forced, under the doctrine's demand for balanced programming, to offer the same amount of time for a liberal program. Such programs generally do not do so well at the box office, so a station actually loses money along with the inclination to host costly controversial programming.
The doctrine was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission after it was dreamed up in 1949. Until its repeal in 1987, the doctrine did what it was designed to do, add expense and inconvenience for broadcasters and make debate and controversy something to be avoided like the plague. Government bureaucrats dictated what we heard and saw, especially on small radio and television stations, essentially silencing conservatives.
It should be noted that the Fairness Doctrine was applied only once against a newspaper; the Miami Herald. In that case, the nation's high court warned the doctrine inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.
Let's face it, the doctrine's intended purpose abuses the First Amendment for political gain. It is not about encouraging debate. It was a lousy idea when it was cooked up decades ago. It a lousy idea today. One can only hope Obmama, if he were elected, would be smart enough to see that and do the right thing.
We do not need less rational debate in this country. We need more. |