Web Site Analytics
MobileRJ | RSS Twitter Twitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Opinion
Jul. 30, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: All about 'fairness'?

Perhaps the most ridiculous idea to come out of the current Congress is the push by some Democrats to revive the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Smarting from the fact that consumers prefer Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to Air America and CNN, many lefty lawmakers -- including Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the upper chamber -- want the government to step in and oversee content to ensure "balance."

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: Casinos learn gamblers want the human touch
  • GLENN COOK: Hypocrites! Hypocrites! Hypocrites!
  • EDITORIAL: Reverse discrimination
  • LETTERS: Reid's hometown rejects wind power? Oh my!
  • LETTERS: Berkley, Titus support witches' brew of taxation
  • EDITORIAL: Turn out the lights ...
  • EDITORIAL: Lights out
  • EDITORIAL: Confronting witnesses
  • EDITORIAL: Paid to do nothing
  • Springs Preserve a positive for Las Vegas




    • Sort of like in the old Soviet Union or today's Venezuela.

    The Fairness Doctrine -- imposed in the late 1940s and abandoned in 1987 -- demanded that broadcasters present both sides of a controversial issue or risk having federal regulators pull their licenses.

    It was an incredible affront to the First Amendment in the first place. But it would be even sillier today, given the wide array of choices available in the modern information marketplace.

    Thankfully, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin -- in a letter released last week -- says his agency has no intention of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. Government regulation simply isn't necessary, he noted, to ensure the public has access to a broad range of opinions.

    In the meantime, however, Republicans should continue to push legislation to ensure that no future administration or FCC could reimpose the Fairness Doctrine without the consent of Congress.

    That, at least, would make it somewhat more difficult for Democrats to breathe life into what should be a rotting corpse.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 8 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Beytovin wrote on July 31, 2007 12:19 PM: I really don't see how the "Fairness Doctrine" serves in the safegarding of our liberties.


    Douglas Democrat wrote on July 30, 2007 03:17 PM: "I remember a comic releif program one year where Robin Williams, Woopie Golberg, and Billy Crystal spent the entire 3 hours assuring Demecrats that a vote for Perot was a vote for the Republicans. That Perot was an evil little man, and not to be trusted. And, that a vote for the Republican would destroy America. Should NBC or CBS (witchever one it was) then have to pay to allow both the Republican candidate and the independent a chance to rebut?"

    Nice straw man argument there, Ken. Comic Relief was on HBO (a premium channel that subscribers pay for), not an over-the-air network or a "basic" cable channel. So even if the Fairness Doctrine existed at that time, it wouldn't have applied (just like FCC rules about indecency and vulgarity don't apply to HBO now) because you can choose to pay to recieve the channel or not.


    Ken wrote on July 30, 2007 12:51 PM: I remember a comic releif program one year where Robin Williams, Woopie Golberg, and Billy Crystal spent the entire 3 hours assuring Demecrats that a vote for Perot was a vote for the Republicans. That Perot was an evil little man, and not to be trusted. And, that a vote for the Republican would destroy America. Should NBC or CBS (witchever one it was) then have to pay to allow both the Republican candidate and the independent a chance to rebut?


    BG wrote on July 30, 2007 12:45 PM: Rather than discuss the factual issues surrounding the Democrat rush to institute thought control in the guise of the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine", Mr DeMattia has instead followed the Democrat play book that says whatever else you do be sure to attack the President and everyone even remotely associated with him. Based on his final comments it is apparent that Mr. DeMattia doesn't really grasp that the "Fairness Doctrine" isn't about promoting multiple viewpoints but rather limiting conservative speech. To describe this Orwellean abomination in terms that perhaps even a left wing zealot can understand consider this: It isn't just conservative talk radio that will be impacted. If the "Fairness Doctrine" is revived, for every hour Air America broadcasts the musings of folks like Al Franken and Randi Rhodes the station will be forced to broadcast an hour of Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan or perhaps even the dreaded Rush Limbaugh. So Mr. DeMattia, does the "Fairness Doctrine" still sound so fair?


    Douglas Democrat wrote on July 30, 2007 12:26 PM: There are many areas where "market forces" should control. Journalism and news broadcasts shouldn't be one of them.

    And Rush Limbaugh is an OPINION show, not a news program.


    edg wrote on July 30, 2007 11:28 AM: what do you dems know about fairness? oh i get it that only applies to conservatives


    patriot wrote on July 30, 2007 10:14 AM: In our modern age of technology, with the wide use of the internet, and cable programming. Id say that equal time is readily available.what they really want is to silence those who oppose them, and that includes dems, and rep, for without it they probably would have easily passed, amnesty as an example. NO this is nothing more then a communist styled deception, to silence our freedom of speach, and to filter what americans have access to hearing, if you dont see that then you truly are blinded and decieved.


    Vince DeMattia wrote on July 30, 2007 09:21 AM: Regarding the fairness doctrine... I think the author of this editorial and others who think like him or her are a good example of what is wrong with this country. Using the First Amendment as justification for this outlook is right from the Bush/Cheney/Rove playbook. This Fairness doctrine would not, in any way... violate the intentions of the First Amendment. These folks like to make these unfounded interpretations to suit themselves and their selfish objectives. This writer must be a faithful follower of Ruppert Murdock... who would have us all get only his side of any issue. He has been very successful in bringing the media very close to that end with all of his control of so many sources of information. This is just more disregard for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and their intended benefits. Hey! So what if there is more than two viewpoints... I don't care if there's a dozen... let's make sure we have access to 'em all! Thank you. Vince DeMattia