Shades of things to come: THE “FAIRNESS” DOCTRINE
Here is Sen. Chuck Schumer essentially comparing pornography to conservative talk radio and Fox News. In this he sounds like Bill Moyers who once accused Sean Hannity of engaging “a freak show of political pornography.”
Schumer argues, for us to be consistent, we should welcome government regulation of broadcasting to insure fairness, balance and accuracy. Congressional action is contemplated to recharge the Federal Communications Commission with oversight of broadcasting to insure “fairness.” Presumably, in the treatment of controversial topics, someone from the federal government will be seen sitting around with a stop watch to make sure television and radio stations provide equal time to all parties and all points of view.
Conservatives prefer government stay out of journalism and public debate, allowing an open and free exchange of ideas in the social and political marketplaces. Conservatives are wary of proposals to allow government the power to dictate what is said by whom and under what circumstances, fearing encroachment upon free speech and freedom of the press.
Liberals like Schumer insist government is best able to referee public debate and regulate journalism on the airwaves, and that such oversight is comparable to the legitimate regulation of pornography. Somehow, Schumer and his colleagues consider obscene points of view different from their own.
Two points: on the one hand, government involvement always means control, and that always means freedom takes a hit; and, on the other hand, pornography and politics are comparable only when liberals engage the obscenity of tyranny, attempting to justify it as a legitimate role of government.
Does anyone doubt politicians will abuse power to regulate free speech and freedom of the press, using that power to propagandize for selfish reasons?
What then, can ever be fair about a Fairness Doctrine?