Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
I would support a "Fairness Doctrine"... as long as it is applied to ALL media: TV, Newspapers, movies, etc., as well as talk radio.
For every anti-Bush or pro-Obama screed Chris Matthews gives, there has to be a matching delivery from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.
For every appearance by George Stephanopolous on CNN, there has to be equal time for Glenn Beck, whom they must now re-hire and pay as much as they pay GS.
For every "news article" that praises a liberal Obama plan in the New York Times, LA Time etc., there must be an equally long article, as prominently displayed, by Thomas Sowell or George Will etc.
For every movie showing company executives as evil or heartless, there must be a movie produced of equal length showing a company (like Wal-Mart for example) moving into a neighborhood, providing new jobs to people who didn't have them, providing lower prices and greater selection, etc., and people's lives improving as a result (which is actually the way it usually works).
For every rant by Rosie O'Donnell on The View, she must shut up and sit still without interrupting while Elizabeth Hasselbeck (or Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter) delivers an equally-lengthy speech.
And, as the Doctrine demands, the Government must devote an office to examining all TV and radio reports, newspaper articles, magazines, movies, etc., to decide which are promoting liberal ideals or conservative ideals, and making decisions on who will be allowed to speak or write next, based on their political ideology.
Etc. etc., you get the idea.
I can hardly wait for the leftists to praise this plan, as much as they praise the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for radio only.
-----------------------------------
Actually, on second thought, I don't think I want Government to have the authority to examine everyone's speech, decide what is liberal or conservative, and decide who will be allowed to speak and who won't be, based on what has been said in the past.
I've changed my mind. There is NO version of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" I can support.
For every anti-Bush or pro-Obama screed Chris Matthews gives, there has to be a matching delivery from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.
For every appearance by George Stephanopolous on CNN, there has to be equal time for Glenn Beck, whom they must now re-hire and pay as much as they pay GS.
For every "news article" that praises a liberal Obama plan in the New York Times, LA Time etc., there must be an equally long article, as prominently displayed, by Thomas Sowell or George Will etc.
For every movie showing company executives as evil or heartless, there must be a movie produced of equal length showing a company (like Wal-Mart for example) moving into a neighborhood, providing new jobs to people who didn't have them, providing lower prices and greater selection, etc., and people's lives improving as a result (which is actually the way it usually works).
For every rant by Rosie O'Donnell on The View, she must shut up and sit still without interrupting while Elizabeth Hasselbeck (or Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter) delivers an equally-lengthy speech.
And, as the Doctrine demands, the Government must devote an office to examining all TV and radio reports, newspaper articles, magazines, movies, etc., to decide which are promoting liberal ideals or conservative ideals, and making decisions on who will be allowed to speak or write next, based on their political ideology.
Etc. etc., you get the idea.
I can hardly wait for the leftists to praise this plan, as much as they praise the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for radio only.
-----------------------------------
Actually, on second thought, I don't think I want Government to have the authority to examine everyone's speech, decide what is liberal or conservative, and decide who will be allowed to speak and who won't be, based on what has been said in the past.
I've changed my mind. There is NO version of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" I can support.