The Fairness Doctrine

The left-wing websites parroting Senator Durbin’s demand for a return to the bad old days of the Fairness Doctrine might want to consider the slippery-slope repercussions; as Rasmussen reports, “Thirty-four percent (34%) believe the government should ‘require web sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints.’” More: Fred Thompson, Brian C. Anderson, Jesse Walker, John Berlau, Mike Franc, Adam Thierer. Bush has stated that he would veto any such measure.


  • And how much of the main scream media news reports will be considered liberal political commentary requiring equal time? Yup, that’s what I thought!!

  • We did a survey of 100 Soros-funded groups and a majority of the grassroots really want this.

    /No, really, just like McCain-Feingold!

  • The problem of course is that the Orwellian termed “Fairness Doctrine” would only be enforced on Independent and Republican free speech.

  • The problem is that this solidifies the notion that there are 2, and only 2, positions on any issue.

    Anything “bipartisan” really means “pro-establishment.”

  • Under the unintended consequences doctrine, liberals may be surprised when the mainstream media is required to present conservative views on the evening news and NPR and CNN. Assuming of course the surveys of news content are accurate.

  • JL,

    And assumming, of course, that there’s something even vaguely resembling even enforcement…

  • This whole discussion re-surfaced, if I’m not mistaken, when it was revealed that Billary & Feinstein were quoted on something they said 2-3 years ago. Then Lott said something. Then Drudge ran it, and Limbaugh made it front-page material. Next we had [T]Durbin, Reid, Nancy and a few others seeing an opportunity to gain airtime. TFD will never-ever been seen with presidential ink on it; at least not from an approving pen. But I have to admit, it’s strangely titillating to write and talk about it.