Tuesday, October 21

unfairness of fairness

There has been some recent discussion that if the dems take over congress and the presidency they will re-impose the fairness doctrine. This doctrine is by definition unfair. The idea is that the government will impose restrictions on television and radio to say that they have to give equal time to both conservative and liberal points of view. Even if someone were to believe in theory this was a good idea (it isn't) in practice it is entirely unstable. This means essentially that the government has the right to tell the media what they can and cannot say. The government decides what is conservative and what is liberal. I read recently that jokes about the candidates on late night shows are skewing 7-1 against McCain and Palin. No shock there for anyone who watches those shows, although the complete extent is a little shocking. Some try to justify it by saying that biden and obama are boring, that's just silly. Biden is such a maze of ridiculous statements that it boggles the mind, it's a media that thinks it isn't funny to make fun of the democrats, they are too dignified. I wonder if the fairness doctrine is installed, will they be required to make equal jokes about both political parties. There was also an article about the bullying of conservatives in Hollywood. Frasier crane (i don't remember the actors name) says he was forced to give 10,000 to a democratic campaign early in his career to avoid losing his job. 86% of donations from hollywood are to democrats (i don't know if that's donation amounts, or donation numbers.) Once again not shocking when you consider the number of pro liberal movies that have come out recently. I wonder if the fairness doctrine is re-installed will studios be required to make an equal number of pro and con movies about each issue. It would be funny if micheal moore was required to make a movie espousing conservative principles for everyone he made about liberal principles, but that wouldn't happen, nor should it happen. It is not the government's place in any free society to legislate about what and for how long media members can talk, especially in the arena of politics. People talk all the time now about freedom of speech, i can say whatever i want it's a free country. That's not the point of freedom of speech, the point is the freedom to dissent politically, not to walk into a library screaming obscenities. And yet it is freedom of political speech that is most often under attack, and the people most often want to take away. If anyone is actually interested in the fairness doctrine, i'm sure there are many much better articles than this, but this is one you can read.



Blogger Aras said...

this is a really interesting article on that subject: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121694247343482821.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

i wrote about it here: http://arasvebra.blogspot.com/2008/07/this-is-why.html

4:51 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home