Define Fair...

The second incident came at the instant Obama uttered these words in his inaugural address: “Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.” As soon as he got to the word “communism,” the censors at the state-run China Central Television could take no more. They cut away from the speech and went to an anchor interviewing an analyst.

In other news today, President Obama has two vacancies to fill on the Federal Communications Commissions board which could reimpose the “Fairness Doctrine” by a simple majority vote. (There are five seats on the commission, no more than 3 of which can be filled by members of the same party)

Aside from the obvious, the imposition by 3, 4 or 5 people of what radio programmers can and cannot broadcast, another difficulty we have with the Doctrine is how it would be applied. If the goal of the Doctrine is for issues of public importance to be presented in a manner that is honest, equitable and balanced, how exactly would the mechanics of that goal be carried out and to be more precise and to the real nitty-gritty of those who support the Doctrine, how is it that you would determine who is the “liberal” and who is the “conservative”?

Take us, please. As we’re filling in the bubbles on our FCC Fairness Doctrine application for airtime on a 500 watt station situated at the far end of the dial being broadcast from Searchlight, Nevada and our FCC overlords see that we’re opposed to a Flag burning amendment, are virulently against school prayer and really have no need for English being declared “the official language” of this nation, we might just find ourselves on the midnight shift as the “liberal” alternative.

All this to say, there are just too many opinions and views held by people across the political spectrum, or quadrant, if you will, to be able to lock down people into two specific camps which is what proponents of the Doctrine will need to accomplish in order to fulfill their own doctrinaire policy.

Lastly, we are going to pick on someone who wrote into the San Diego U-T with respect to the U-T’s piece on the Fairness Doctrine and which seemed to typify the views of those who support the Doctrine: Hey, were huge supporters of free speech, but…..

David B. of Del Mar writes:

Yes, I heard these characterizations on right-wing radio and view them as possibly inciting ideologically extremist people to try violence. So while the airwaves should be free and open to reasonable (and even some unreasonable) communications, where is the limit? In a country with the legacy of the assassinations of JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King Jr. and the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, public calls to stop Obama from imposing a fascist or communist (forget the distinction, these right-wing fanatics seem too dumb or hateful to know the difference) system seem to cross the line into irresponsible “radio journalism” that needs some reasonable limits.

It is duly noted that the assassinations Mr. B. speaks of all occurred during a time the Fairness Doctrine was active and thus by his own logic should probably remain inactive. We believe that to be quite reasonable.