THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AT THE HUFFINGTON POST

There are no stronger proponents of the Fairness Doctrine than the gang at The Huffington Post. Their recent entry into the fray comes from Taylor Marsh (I've never heard of her either). Amazingly, in one paragraph she completely implodes and defeats her entire argument:

But the Fairness Doctrine isn't going to kill Rush or Hannity. With tens of millions of listeners and a dozen years head start, are they really in jeopardy? This is about something much bigger. The Fairness Doctrine would bring new competition to the radio airwaves at all levels all across this country. It wouldn't keep a show on that wasn't any good either. But even wingnuts like Rush and Sean would actually have to offer facts amidst their snide, condescending decent into propaganda, while having guests on to offer the opposite side. That's just too much work, especially for Rush, who hasn't broken a sweat, except when he was in trouble for allegedly doctor shopping pills, or when he got caught with somebody else's penis pills after his single man's holiday to an underage capital of the world.

Wow. Okay, first off let's get one fact straight: The Fairness Doctrine would work and would be a good idea if all media was controlled by the state. If this were the Soviet Union in the early 1980s and they installed a Fairness Doctrine to allow non-communist views to be heard on Pravda, we in the West would have applauded.

But here in America, we live in a free society where the news media is not controlled by the state - except for the fact that the government controls the licenses to the broadcast spectrum. Some governmental rules then apply to those licensees, of course, but unless the government is prepared to completely dictate content (like the Lefties did in the Soviet Union), the fairness doctrine cannot work. Companies which broadcast are businesses. And in a free society - again, this is a still a free society, and in a free society you have free market capitalism, otherwise you're society cannot really be free.

Okay, let's look at Marsh's argument: She says what's the harm if the "wingnuts" already have such a head start? Okay, that's a fair point, but then she argues that radio stations wouldn't keep a show on the air which wasn't any good. Um, with the Fairness Doctrine in place, they would have to. That's the main problem with the whole idea. In the name of "fairness" you give the public programs even if they don't want them. This argument would have a leg to stand on if only Air America had decent ratings, but instead, it's been a disaster.

Then, like a German car that goes from 0-to-60 in less than 6 seconds, Marsh descends into Leftist hate faster than you can say "Hail Stalin!" She rips into Rush Limbaugh for his alleged doctor shopping and for having "somebody else's penis-pills after his single man's holiday to an underage capital of the world."

Hmmm, interesting. What's her proof that Rush was cavorting with underage Dominican women? It's he's Rush Limbaugh, he had Viagra, he was in the Dominican Republic. Not exactly stellar journalism from someone who's lecturing us on fairness.

And you know what else is interesting. I looked over The Huffington Post, and I didn't see any entries offering an opposing view on Rush Limbaugh's personal life. Thank you and good night.