Comments on: The Fairness Doctrine

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:47:14 +0000

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.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:42:55 +0000

JL,

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

By: James Laurence

James Laurence — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:19:37 +0000

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.

By: jb

jb — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:36:51 +0000

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.”

By: Edward Sodaro MD

Edward Sodaro MD — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:53:28 +0000

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

By: astroturf man

astroturf man — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:46:25 +0000

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

/No, really, just like McCain-Feingold!

By: Dick

Dick — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:32:00 +0000

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!!