The Fairness Doctrine, Part Three: Have you heard of the internet?

Anyone who read the comment that Barnes left on my last post has an idea where I'm going with this last entry. He made the case pretty well. Ironically, so did the proponents of The fairness Doctrine in the first link I posted:

"When the Sinclair Broadcast Group retreated from pre-election plans to force its 62 television stations to preempt prime-time programming in favor of airing the blatantly anti–John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, the reversal wasn’t triggered by a concern for fairness: Sinclair back-pedaled because its stock was tanking. The staunchly conservative broadcaster’s plan had provoked calls for sponsor boycotts, and Wall Street saw a company that was putting politics ahead of profits. Sinclair’s stock declined by nearly 17 percent before the company announced it would air a somewhat more balanced news program in place of the documentary (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04)."

Thank you, Steve Rendall.

You see? We didn't need the FCC to step in. The market handled things all by itself. That's because this is a capitalist nation. That's just how it works. No expensive government oversight. No mazes of buraucracy and red tape. Just good ol' supply and demand. Citizens made decisions for themselves, and it didn't cost any of my tax dollars.

I just wonder why they chose to lead with this paragraph. Rather counterproductive, as long as people actually think about what is going on there. But I think that's the problem...

It can be pretty dangerous for government to interfere using socialist-type policies in a capitalist nation. So much depends on the market doing what it can, and what it can bear. When policies are imposed on it, it may be in such a way that the market cannot bear it. But if you let the people decide what they want, they can find a way to make it happen in a way that will actually work.

And this ties in a lot with my first entry. One of the reasons that we don't want government being so involved is because they don't have to be. If people don't want something, they won't buy it. If what they do want is unavailable, they can demand it, or just supply it themselves. We have the freedom.

But you know what the good news is? Multitudes of people have already exercised their freedom and you can already find all views on all issues anytime you want, thanks to things like cable, satellite, and the internet.

The Fairness Doctrine just seems so absurd in this way. It only focuses on broadcast radio and network television. If the government wishes to regulate effectively, why are they ignoring other large areas where people are getting more of their information? Don't they care? Are they that out of touch with the way technology is advancing? Cos seriously, who relies on network television to keep them completely informed?

It's like the CDC focusing only on the bubonic plague.

In conclusion, it's all about personal responsibility. We need to stop relying on the government for so much. It's like how some friends of mine work with missions organizations that have in programs to teach people how to help themselves with resources that they have. The simple solution would be to just give them some great technology that we have here in the States. But as soon as we leave, or it breaks, they're SOL. So now, when government programs go belly up (which they tend to do), we need to be able to take care of ourselves. But if we need the government in order for us to do something so basic as to stay informed, we are in big trouble.

Just remember: you have the power!