Equal opportunity talk? (un)fairness in broadcasting.

A movement is taking place underfoot to 'level the playing field' in the area of AM talk radio. Certain legislators backed by lobbies from the media and beyond have taken serious measures to force radio stations to give equal airtime to the liberal left, to promote their spiel, and to do so by enacting federal law. In essence "The Fairness Doctrine" championed by Senator Charles Schumer of NY, demands that if a radio station airs a conservative talk program, it must also air a liberal talk program to accomplish some sort of balance. This is supposedly because there is a preponderance of conservative talk programs broadcasting from the AM band. To date, virtually all liberal programs attempting to air have failed miserably due to lack of interest on the part of listeners or because those calling in more frequently took them to task rather than promoting their doctrine.

Schumer, responding to inquiries about his Fairness Doctrine said, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?” Oh sure, we all believe in fairness, but let's take a look at the liberal definition and logic of the issue of fairness. Quoting from an article printed in The Hill, a well established online news site, the senator elaborated, “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

This is the best logic he can come up with -- equating the limitation of public broadcasting of pornographic sleaze, to forcing an unsolicited opposing political position on an unresponsive public? Did I miss something? If I'm not mistaken, he is comparing his and his cronies' ideology to pornography. You know, I probably wouldn't take it that far, but if that's what the good senator has to say about it, I guess I will have to go along with it -- leftist liberal chatter=pornography. But seriously, how can they possibly make a connection between limiting something as offensive and destructive as pornography to superseding the citizen's right to listen to or sponsor whatever political perspective they choose.

Also quoting from The Hill, Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Isn't it the essence of free enterprise to provide for the public what they are willing to buy? If the public doesn't wish to buy their talk radio, in a normal free society the proprietor of that spiel ought to look to another public, or another medium at least to peddle their wares -- or go broke. Now the leftists want to officially subsidize their own blather on AM radio by federal decree. My question is: Since when has the Senate turned into the politburo. I guess since the benevolent Soviets failed in their attempt to impose thought control and official government compelled dialogue in Russia, our very own bolsheviks are going to force their new and improved version down our throats here in the new Obama-nation.

One last thought: Where was the the hue and cry for 'fairness' amid the major television network (mis)treatment of the candidates during the last four-year-long presidential campaign? Who was it that outspent the other candidate by more than double, who had two channels on sattelite TV bought and paid for, whose most adamant supporters and endorsers were virtually every news(?)caster and prominent spokesperson/talk show host from all of the major networks except one (FOX)? Do I detect a hint of imbalance or unfairness here? No one should begrudge anyone of their right to endorse whichever candidate they choose, but we are not talking about a simple right to endorse here; these news(?) people are swearing to be impartial, when their transparent biased commentary makes no attempt to disguise their unrequited love for the Obiden ticket as though the public were so stupid not to recognize the superficial ruse.

So we exercise our right to boycott the hypocritical TV networks and turn to talk radio to listen and find some degree of solace and straight talk. And now their gestapo has tracked us, and insist on force-telemarketing their unsolicited claptrap there too with the sanction of the federal government.

Out of here for now.