Does the FCC's failure to fine Limbaugh represent regulatory capture?

[onenote]

77. Well put,melm00se.

As I have stated, I understand the frustration of those who don't like the current state of broadcasting. I'm not thrilled about the level of ownership concentration myself.

But there are a few considerations that those advocating for increased regulation of the content of broadcast stations need to keep in mind. First, what is the standard going to be -- if its the standard of the original fairness doctrine, you may be disappointed since it never was used to prevent someone from getting to speak or that every utterance on one side of the issue triggered "equal time" for those with a different point of view. Second, how comfortable are you with allowing the government to be the arbiter of content disputes --- do you think an FCC with a majority appointed by a repub president is going to be even handed? Third, once we get started down this slippery slope, where does it end? I've seen calls for regulation of subscription services as well as "free" over the air broadcasting. A lot of broadcast content is now available over the Internet. Why stop at the electronic media? The fellow that delivers my daily newspaper gets to my house by driving on public roads. Absurd? Maybe, but if lines are going to be drawn they better be clear and rationally drawn. Finally, there is the political reality factor: the FCC can't enforce the fairness doctrine today because it decided years ago that it did not serve the public interest. Before it could reinstate the FD, it would have to conduct a new proceeding and accumulate a new record that would justify the return of the FD. Just starting that proceeding will be a gift from heaven for the repubs who will milk it for all its worth in terms of scaring their base into thinknig the big bad liberals want to shut them up. And even if the FCC had the political will to find that the FD is in the public interest, that decision will be challenged in court and based on the current make up of the court, its a pretty safe bet that it would be struck down, thereby handing the repubs a victory that they will trumpet as proof that they are the defenders of the first amendment and liberals are the enemy. Bullshit? Of course, but why give them the opportunity?