It All Depends On What You Mean By Fairness
"The Republican National Committee is so desperate for relevance it elects Michael Steele as its chairman, and does so over Katon Dawson, who until last September belonged to a whites-only country club. Somewhere Strom Thurmond is doing about 8,000 rpms in his grave."
John Ridley morning edition commentator NPR
This from the same, er, open minded commentator who spewed that "conservatives love the war".
Oh well, if nothing else it certainly eliminated any guilt I may have had from ignoring pledge week again. Who but a moron would pay to be insulted? It's bad enough your tax money subsidizes hate speech, donating just encourages them.
Oh yeah, I wanted to weigh in on that fairness thing....
Webster's defines fair:: as marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism. Synonyms include: just, dispassionate, objective, unbiased, and impartial.
Works for me...
Doctrine is defined as a: something that is taught b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c: a principle of law established through past decisions d: a statement of fundamental government policy . . .
Hmmmmm. Let me see. It seems to me that for a Fairness Doctrine to be fair those determining and imposing the doctrine would, by definition, have to be unbiased. That doesn't seem very likely. And doesn't their determining someone else's bias actually require bias? This is so confusing.
I would be the last guy to argue against fairness, particularly when it comes to political discourse. I mean what the hell, if true fairness were imposed it would ...
- Require converting about 49% of major liberal newspapers to conservative newspapers
- Compel college and universities to replace 47 to 49% of their 97 to 99% liberal faculties with conservatives.
- Mandate that 2 of the 3 liberal major TV networks convert to conservative while the other last can join PBS to keep it even.
- Demand that CNN, MSNBC, CNBC give an equal amount of face time to conservatives as Fox does liberals.
- Establish, at government expense, new conservative public radio and TV networks to counterbalance NPR and PBS, or provide equal time to opposing views there.
And this only deals with public airwaves, leaving the overwhelming liberal bias in Hollywood unaddressed. (but at least there the marketplace determines winners and losers, not the government)
If you believe the above list of mandates could ever happen you might believe the Democrats efforts to muzzle AM radio has something to do with "fairness". The left's lust for power is as voracious as their propensity to over reach is predictable. Even after legitimately gaining more power at the ballot box they just can't help themselves in trying to get it all. Conservatism occupies one measly booth in the entire marketplace of ideas and they want to shut it down.
I am not even that big a fan of AM talk radio but the idea that one party is openly suggesting government control of free speech is truly frightening. The framers included free speech in FIRST amendment for a reason.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I am pretty sure this is the same constitution those jag-offs blathering about fairness took an oath to defend and uphold. I don't know, maybe the word abridging got them confused, it does have three syllables after all. Let's check Websters again shall we...
Abridge1 a: deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish
Well that seems pretty straightforward. That probably explains why it's beyond the left, not enough nuance dontcha know.
In the interest of fairness I give you my my favorite lesbian libertarian Democrat, for balance..
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Audio: Camille Paglia rips the Fairness ...
Comments