A modest proposal in lieu of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine

[Nuclear Unicorn]

One of the arguments in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine (FD) is that, if left to their own devises, consumers (hereafter, referred to as "consumers&quot of news and opinion will self-select narrow ranges of opinion that comport with their pre-suppositions and beliefs. The FD, it is proposed, will expose them to a broader range of opinion and in this vein those who produce news and opinion (hereafter, referred to as "producers&quot should set aside time and space within their publications and broadcasts to those of differing arguments.

I find this proposal lacking.

First of all, not all producers produce in equal measure. For example, Rush Limbaugh broadcasts for 3 hours a day whereas Rachel Maddow runs for only a single hour. It does not matter what percentage of broadcast time is set aside, Limbaugh will enjoy the decisive 3:1 advantage. Moreover, the proposal will invariably dilute the Maddow show more than Limbaugh's.

Second, what those making the proposal are actually saying is: They want those who consume Opinion X to have an equal amount of time consuming Opinion Y. They are cloaking this statement in the guise of regulating producers but at the end of the day it is really the consumers they are targeting.

In order to more closely conform with their intentions my counter-proposal is this --

Do not regulate producers but rather consumers.

If a person consumes news and opinion they must then seek out countering viewpoints or be in violation. Television and internet providers can track consumption habits. They do already for marketing purposes. Whatever time they spend consuming news and opinion from Source X they must spend a regulatory mandated counter-balancing amount of time consuming news and opinion from Source Y.

That way the producers do not have to dilute their time and space while the demand that consumers gain broader exposure to more diverse opinion will be met.

Those found to be in violation can assessed a penalty during the annual tax filing season.

Those who will protest on 1st Amendment grounds can be reminded that the 1A protects the freedom of the press but makes no prohibition towards mandates concerning secular media.

Democracy demands this mandate!

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

1. Good thing I saw the sarcasm at the end. [nt]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. I debated leaving it out just to see what sort of replies the OP would draw out.

[branford]

3. I was getting a little nervous before I scrolled down and saw the sarcasm tag.

I've read so many similar type comments by people claiming to be liberal, yet still eviscerating the Constitution, that your post sadly didn't seem all that outlandish for this forum.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. As I noted in the OP --

The reason people want the FD reinstated isn't about fairness but rather for the self-serving purpose of requiring others to force feed their preferred viewpoint to consumers. They may not be honest enough to say it openly but that's really all this is about.

If they idea is to force the consumer to be exposed to select messages let's not do it half-heartedly.

Although, I'm sure once those wanting to reinstate the FD see their favorite host cut short to allow some RWer's face spew across their TV set they will look they will look at each other and question the wisdom of their victory.

[branford]

5. I think you might be wrong.

Those who would support anything close to such a policy would almost certainly never admit to the obvious shortcomings.

I would suggest that they would claim their new "viewpoint mandate" just didn't go far enough. They would then demand a mandatory "hate speech" exemption to the mandate to ensure only the "correct" viewpoints were aired and discussed.

[Rex]

6. .

This should be interesting since you put the tag at the very end!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. You checkin' out my end?

[Rex]

8. You do know that you glow in the dark right?

Hard to miss, you're like a Pink Floyd laser light show!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Is that what Lover Boy means when he says

my *** lights up the room?