There is a price to Free Speech - and a cost for Censorship
One of our favorite phrases around the "Grok is "the answer is more speech, not less"; we also are avid backers of the free marketplace, especially when it is free from government distortions. What we see, however, is the indoctrination of "equal outcome" being pushed by Progressive /Socialists vs the "equal opportunity" pushed by Conservatives.
What's the battlefield? The so-called Fairness Doctrine -a rule that stemmed from the 1930's that mandated that radio stations give "equal' time to all sides of an issue. Given the high hassle factor of complying with that rule, instead of getting the lively debate, radio stations just tossed everyone overboard and stayed "mellow" and off the playing field. It was Reagan that finally ditched that doctrine as it was clear that radio stations were not a scarce resource anymore. Since then, Conservative talk radio exploded onto the scene, filling a void in the marketplace that (obviously) that had a pent up demand. For those that wish to argue that point, if the demand was not there, the marketplace would have collapsed upon launch....it didn't.
Well, this is a topic that will be bashed around like a shuttlecock by teams of badminton fanatics on steroids & speed and it will not be solved where it should be - in the marketplace. The Progressives are not happy that talk radio is dominated by Conservatives and they wish to use the force of Government to change the one area of the media that it does have traction (i.e., Conservatives ruling the TV airwaves? Please....). All the while ignoring that fact that for the most part, liberal talk radio has been a complete bust (i.e., Bill Press and Ed Schultz being two exceptions to that rule).
Anyways, even though The One has stated that he does not want the Fairness Doctrine put back in play; fair enough. The problem is that a growing number of Dems Congresscritters have, and it may be instituted as well without the force of law but by the force of simple regulation (another reason for being cynical about the growth of Big Government).
Cynical? Here's a reason why "omnibus" or "comprehensive" bills in Congress should NEVER be trusted - you NEVER know what gets slipped under the slimy rock of legislation (either by Dems or Repubs!!). Representative Tom Price reports over at RedState:
Congress just passed another pork-stuffed omnibus spending package this week. Buried in the bill, however, is a provision that paves the way for Democrats to revive the misnamed ‘Fairness Doctrine’. Currently there is protection of free speech over the airwaves by prohibiting federal funds from being used to control and censor media content. Yesterday, the Majority elected to remove that protection.
Debates like this should not be hidden and rushed (as was done in the Stimulus bill with the advent of Universal Healthcare, for instance). It should be debated in the light of day, with Congressional hearings and putting all on notice who is for and who is against the Fairness Doctrine and it's crimp in Fair Speech and distorting the marketplace, once more, by government.
UPDATE: Just before I hit the PUBLISH button, I saw this:
The Senate approved an amendment Thursday that would outlaw the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," an off-the-books policy that once required broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.
Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment passed by a wide margin of 87-to-11. The South Carolina senator had attached his proposal, called the Broadcaster Freedom Act, to a bill to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House. It's unclear whether the amendment will survive as Congress debates the voting rights bill.
Keeping free speech free....but I also dislike the idea of attaching amendments to other legislation that is also odious (I bet that giving DC a House Rep will be found unconstitutional).
Regardless of what Obama has said, until he comes out and promises to veto any bill that attempts to bring back any part of the Fairness Doctrine (or lead ups to it), this issue will be in play.However, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin also won approval for an alternate amendment that would order the Federal Communications Commission to encourage radio ownership "diversity."
A DeMint aide said Durbin's measure will "impose the Fairness Doctrine through the back door by trying to break up radio ownership."
The aide called the Durbin proposal "an attempt to break up companies like Clear Channel and hurt their syndications and therefore putting many local radio stations out of business that depend on those syndicated shows for revenue."
The measure passed by a vote of 57-to-41.
