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" 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" 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!

If we want justice we cannot punish people for doing the right thing -- and, yes, physically defending a victim of violence is the right thing (at least, it isn't wrong).




EDITED TO INCLUDE --



Thank-you DU'er OriginalGreek

Thoughts?

Found this while listening to chick rock on YouTube. I thought I'd share with the peeps.






Brava, gentlemen. O' Brava

Too many with power don't like having their power questioned, mocked or denigrated. Yet, it's their own conduct that undermines them the most.

"It's not the paper dragon we built; that is to blame. It's the people who are talking about the fact we built a paper dragon that need to be dealt with!"

Does anybody know the Mandarin word for "face-palm"?