The Fairness Doctrine, Part Two: The government is not God.

Let's step back a moment from all of the legal and political ramifications of The Fairness Doctrine and just take a look at logistics. Now, it would be one thing for the FCC to monitor and regulate every single broadcast signal being dispersed over the air, or by cable or satellite, on TV and radio. But, apparently, this will only concern radio and network TV (for now, anyway). Fine. That's still a freaking lot of content.

There is also another very troubling notion floating around out there. I think that Dick Durbin expressed it well:

"I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The troubling word here is "both," which is often used in such arguments, and insinuates that there are two sides. Well, Dick, if you believe that there are only two sides to every issue, your attitude is very "old-fashioned" indeed. Dick.

If recent elections are any indicator, people in droves are becoming disenfranchised with the notion of a two-party system because they don't see that only having two choices can represent them fully. We have the classic Democrat and Republican views. But even within those categories we have hosts of differing opinions. Then you also have your Libertarians, Socialists, Anarchists, Neo-nazis, and on and on and on. Are their views going to be represented? Well, if the FCC truly wants to be "fair," then they will have to be.

But could you imagine the bureaucratic nightmare? How could anyone possibly regulate this and make sure that ALL sides are given a voice? They will no doubt have to limit the number of sides being represented just because of sheer plausibility. Then, by doing so, they will be guilty of censorship by omission. But then how do they decide which views to respect and which to ignore?

"Well, we obviously wouldn't go to any trouble to make sure that people like Neo-nazis, Fascists, racists and the like have their views fairly expressed."

Why not? They're Americans. The First Amendment still applies to them.

And now we get into the government deciding what opinions are relevant, and which sets of values matter. That is fucking scary.

So we would either have only a select group of opinions being voiced, or we would try to squeeze so many in that many would not have adequate time. It would be like the Presidential Primary debates. All of them are there (the "important" ones, anyway), but they only get a few seconds to fit in a blurb consisting of talking points and little substance. And who wants that?

If this thing ever gets passed, I would not want to be one of the people responsible for enforcing it. Not only would I feel like part of my soul is just gone forever, but it would be impossible! It would take a miracle to do what they intend!

It's the kind of thing where you see someone so gungho about an idea that you know is doomed to fail, but you almost want to let them try so that they learn something. Unfortunately, they want me (and you) to fund this little exercise in fascist futility. (Alliteration!)

And that may be the biggest miracle of all: getting me to agree to this madness.