On Fox News Sunday, when asked about the so-called "Fairness doctrine" that some would like passed by Congress, Senator Feinstein said that she was leaning in favor of such legislation
...I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.
WALLACE: But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market.
FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.
The "Fairness doctrine" would require that every "right-leaning" talk show (as defined by the government) a broadcasting company would have to grant equal time to a "left-leaning" talk show. Given as how, as Mr Wallace pointed out, "left-leaning" talk shows don't have much of a revenue stream, this amount to forcing broadcasters to give away airtime. So it becomes a tax.
A tax that can be avoided only if you have no talk shows.
Which, of course, is precisely the effect it had when it was in force until 1987 and is the goal today.
Sure Democrats have an interest in getting rid of "right-leaning" talk shows without seeming to do so (in Newspeak, Fairness = government censorship). but there are those on the other side who also have an interest. Like Senator Lott who is not only upset with porkbusters interrupting his revenue stream, but also doesn't like the fact that we don't like the so-called "immigration bill".
Wallace pointed out to Senator Lott
Take a look at this. You said this also last week. "I'm sure senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk radio people who don't even know what's in the bill.
Right. Well we know this: there are laws on the books that, if enforced, would stop the leaking from the border. So what say we fully enforce those laws first, then see what we need. Pretty simple really.
But forget that for the moment and let's focus on the fact that the Supreme Court yesterday handed down a decision that appears to make it less likely that if and when a "fairness doctrine" is passed by this Congress, it will pass Constitutional scrutiny by this court.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the 5 to 4 decision, saying the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act's prohibition against the use of a candidate's name in such ads in the days before an election was an unconstitutional infringement on the groups' rights to advocate on issues.
"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," Roberts wrote. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."
As it should.
