Democrats seek to institute government monitoring of media
Already giddy with the power they expect to be delivered to them today, Democrats are promising to reinstate government control of public communication to insure what political appointees determine is “fairness” and balance:
Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, [Sen. Charles] Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
Talk about consistent? Schumer says he is “for” regulation that prohibits pornography on the air, but that “the very same people” who favor that regulation — but not him, just the other “very same people” — oppose mere “government intervention” to insure “fairness.” Of course, the comparison is also inapt: Pornography is not protected by the Constitution. Political speech is.
Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
We have a feeling she isn’t talking about the “fairness” with which the networks covered this year’s Presidential election.
Welcome to your new world of free speech — free only when it is “fair,” and “fair” only when Washington (and perhaps your local “dependable” state government) tells you it is.
And guess whose Washington it is now?