The only reason non-conservatives are jumping around so excitedly about unearthing the "Fairness Doctrine" is the failure of public radio to attract listeners. Conservative talk-radio is the bane of those who think "Air America" is intellectual fodder. The times I listened to Air America I cringed at the ranting blather of the host, and waited for an intellegent reason for the rant. Alas, the only substance offered was an emotional charge (such as "Bush is so stupid"). The conservative talk radio I have heard actually allow consenting opinion to be heard. Yes, there are those who bate opposing views only to bash the caller, but that is not the norm. If the "Fairness Doctrine" is allowed to to re-enacted the likes of Sean and Rush to be allowed equal time from Thom and Randi. If anyone should fear the doctrine it should be the liberals. Let the market dictate what radio is popular. Oh yeah, it already has.

Sent by Jack Peterson | 3:28 PM ET | 06-22-2007

Liberals do have equal time. If conservatives have 91% of the talk radio market, liberals have 91% of the NPR market. Of course no where near as many people listen to NPR as listen to talk radio. Does that tell you something?

Sent by Terry Bassham | 3:33 PM ET | 06-22-2007

I love NPR, especially "All Things Considered", "Marketplace" and NPR News. I enjoy the approach used when covering stories...opposing voices talk in an expanded manner. They're not reduced to sound bites or catch phrases. And I do not have to hear ranters from the Left and ranters from the Right trying to outrant each other. I call myself a political moderate, but I have a tough time listening to Talk Radio's one-sidedness. That said, it seems to me that in the media aggregate, fairness already exists. A policy or law that requires "equal time" can be imposed on anyone (TV, radio, Internet, magazines, scholarly journals), and with ridiculous consequences. It is most certainly censorship to impose "equal time" on only specific media segments. We should revel in the blessed cacophony of Free Speech, not seek to regulate it.

Sent by Jim Harrold | 3:49 PM ET | 06-22-2007

I cann't wait till they force the Fairness Doctrine on NPR, that's going to be fun. The crazy lefties have ruined NPR with their drivel and it will be good to get the right side back to NPR. I don't use AM radio so I don't care if the government takes it over I have my right entertainment on the internet and XM radio.

Sent by Wally Benson | 4:25 PM ET | 06-22-2007

I think a lot of people forget that our rule of law in the United States is NOT Majority Rule. Our system of law is SUPPOSED to be set up to be fair and equal, so that the voices of the few can be heard just as loudly as the voices of the many.

Too many people are one-sided these days, they're "yes men" who want to hear only the good news, only the news that they want to hear, they stick their heads in the sand to avoid listening to anything that might alter their perceptions.

What's the harm in hearing both sides of an argument? What's the harm in allowing the few to be heard regardless of whether or not they're right or left?

The solutions to our problems will only be found through discussion, mediation, concession, and understanding on ALL sides of the fences. The Fairness Doctrine would guarantee that all sides get to have their say instead of being drown out by the popular majority. I say its long past time we make it a law.

Sent by Kate Loux | 6:57 PM ET | 06-22-2007

The right-owned media is even killing this story. Google "talk radio" and you'll only see 23 news outlets covering the imbalance of media coverage. The 30-year plan of the Powell Memorandum has come home to roost.

Corporatocracy is alive and well. Wealth and power concentrating more and more into fewer and fewer hands. Eventually competition is squelched and consumer prices are set by boards of directors, not supply-demand dynamics.

What kind of democracy do we call this? You tell me. Yes...give us our opinions. We are no longer to arrive at our own.

Sent by Tom Larabee | 7:30 PM ET | 06-22-2007

npr?
national public radio?
and i can't get something even close to balanced or decent?
every time i turn you on i get some homosexual or envirofreek pushing gay rights or tree hugging on me
not to mention how our troops are killing innocent people all over the world
our cops shooting innocent minorities that are dealing drugs only because i don't pay enough in taxes to care for his kids
me thinks you should pluck the log from your own eye

Sent by john kennedy | 9:20 PM ET | 06-22-2007

"Conservative" talk radio propaganda can be easily distilled into simple sound bites and fed to the weak minded. "Liberal" talk radio failed because "Liberal" viewpoints are too complex to be reduced easily to sound bites and "dittos". As Garrison Keillor said "Liberals have think tanks, we call them colleges".

Sent by Dan Schultz | 10:09 PM ET | 06-22-2007

Ok. Let us apply the fairness doctrine to the newspapers too. *poof* there goes the NYT, LAT and 91% of the print media. Oh, shall we look at TV now?

Sent by Pat Moss | 11:24 PM ET | 06-22-2007

Oh yes, I so do agree with the above comments. EQUAL TIME GIVEN TO TWO DIFFERENTIATING VIEWPOINTS? Absolutely preposterous notion. Obviously the conservatives would win out due to their natural inborn reasoning abilities. Let these American Apparel hemp thong wearing, Prius driving Berkley graduates try to put together a cohesive argument after they smoking their, "Mary Jane". I
will laugh derisively.

Now that I have laid out my hamfisted thoughts, I think I will go for a drive in my new Hummer, and perhaps run over some of the local wildlife.

Sent by William Kensington | 6:41 AM ET | 06-23-2007

No one is stopping liberals from getting "equal time" on the radio except the free market. Libs can't get airtime because libs don't listen to the radio (except of course the government-subsidized NPR). Why is it the same people who complain about conservative bias on the radio also complain about the one conservative TV news agency? Hypocrites.

Sent by Justin Eisenback | 12:17 PM ET | 06-23-2007

What a horrible, horrible idea. I'm astonished to hear Mr Kucinich would support such an outrageous attack on free speech. Compulsory speech is not the same as censorship, but it is just as deplorable. Why social liberals would abandon the moral high ground on free speech I'm sure I have no idea.

I hope individuals will continue to be free to build TV and radio programs, newspapers, editorial pages, and blogs that are honest, challenging, unique, and unfettered by the majority's view of what is fair.

Sent by Jason | 3:04 AM ET | 06-24-2007

Is compulsory speech the same as stifling free speech? Is it deplorable to require a major media outlet to give some airtime to two or more differing ideas when discussing contentious issues?

In an ideal world, no. News would only broadcast unadulterated truth in a fair and objective manner. In fact, you wouldn't even need to consider policy like this.

Though because of the complexities of our world, these are not questions simply answered by reading a sentence or two, or listening to a thirty second quip from some pundit. One must delve into both sides of the issue, and weigh carefully, the merits of the points made.

Kind of like media is suppose to do.

I think we can all agree on something here.

-The likes of Ann Coulter shouldn't be broadcasted where human beings\primates can potentially hear her. Lest they too be corrupted by Satanic inclinations.

-The E! channel needs to go away.

Sent by Johnathan Doh | 9:17 AM ET | 06-24-2007

If the fairness doctrine gets reinstated, I hope that it also applies to NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, AP, NYTimes, LATimes, etc, etc., as those news sources are slanted to the left. In addition, perhaps an amendment could be added to it so that the political makeup of college professors is 50-50 left-right instead of now and the total domination of leftist professors. Same for reporters as that field is also dominated by leftists.

- Mark

Sent by MARK | 5:13 PM ET | 06-24-2007

Talk radio would go away if all of the major news sources were truly objective. In fact, I think this is the main reason why talk radio is as popular as it is.
And one could look at talk radio as balancing out the leftist bias from the mainstream media. Now all we need are sources to balance out the bias from colleges, movies, and tv shows...

- Mark

Sent by Mark | 5:19 PM ET | 06-24-2007

The supporters of fairness doctrine should be scared... Its a attempt to place a control on political speech. That is Dangerous path to take.

To me,the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.. Takes priority. in this issue.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.???

IF fairness of ideas is the real issue.. its running dangerously close to breaching that right. If a person dose not like what they hear on talk radio, change the channel. I listen to NPR at times and I do not agree with all the ideas presented.. and I noticed that there is not a equal time given to the other side of the issues or there is a one sentence shot at it. But I do listen when I desire too.

The same should apply to any talk radio program... But apparently we want to control that..

Sent by Frank Martin | 9:18 AM ET | 06-25-2007

Persons of all political persuasions should fear a government that dictates your program's content. It's the empowered who decide what's fair to themselves. And those in power can change overnight.

Face the facts: NPR isn't fair, nor is Fox news, CBS, ABC, etc. This move for fairness will bring jobs to lawyers and politicians while the rest of us groan from the pettiness of the arguments.

Mandating that shows present both sides is akin to government's deciding a fair neighborhood housing mix by putting trailers next to tri-level homes and mansions next to sewage plants.

If we give the government the power to censor or promote, what are we going to do when the powers change?

If you are pro-choice, act accordingly. We don't need more government; we need more objectivity.

Sent by Steven Maikoski | 10:48 AM ET | 06-25-2007

These arguments are largely the result of a media that has been a voicebox for the right for over three decades. Leftist bias in mainstream media is a myth long since disproven; the founder of the Weekly Standard admits that it's a lie he keeps repeating in order to "work the refs" - in other words, he views power as a game, not an arena in which bad judgment causes terrible suffering. There is no free speech without an equal measure of personal responsibility, and the fairness doctrine forces demagogues to be thrown into a mix of opposing voices, voices they are far too frightened to hear. Democracy is based on the clash of ideas, not on one-sided propaganda. Let's get a mix of ideas into the marketplace, regardless of whether some people abhor balanced and civil discourse.

Sent by Lee Bridges | 12:50 PM ET | 06-25-2007

'Of course no where near as many people listen to NPR as listen to talk radio. Does that tell you something?' Yes Mr. Bassham, it tells me there are way more stupid people than smart people. The fairness doctrine is a loser because most people aren't interested in fairness or equal time. They want their own prejuduices and biases reinforced ad naseum. President Reagan understood this just as Limbaugh (whom I totally believe does his show with half his brains tied behind his back), O'Reilly, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter and Savage also understand this. No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. But dumbing down the liberal viewpoint to compete with rant-wing, er, I mean right-wing radio (which seems to be the main problem with Air America) isn't the answer. A fairness doctrine is simply asking too much of the armchair patriots who listen to the right wingnuts.

Sent by John R. Otten | 5:59 PM ET | 06-25-2007

I find it laughable that people still think ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. are liberal media. I almost never hear true progressive voices in these outlets. It is true that the only liberal media exists in the internet (or those tubes called the interweb for the conservatives out there) and in some small satirical outlets like Comedy Central. Air America is as much a joke as the O'Reillys of the world.

As far as the fairness doctrine, I believe is not warranted. Conservatives cling to the technology of the 1940s (radio), while the rest of us have left it well behind a long time ago.

Sent by Alex DeBernardi | 10:33 PM ET | 06-25-2007

In regards to Mr. Dan Schultz's comment and the premise that liberal propoganda is too complex, but a "weak-minded" person can be fed conservative propoganda; As that caveman on that one Geico commerical said, "Uh, what?!" I happen to be a thinker and a conservative who thankfully made it through college without getting my brain mashed to pieces.

Why don't you listen to conservative talk radio once. They talk about things like economics, personal responsibility, not to mention the failed democrat/liberal programs of the half century. They also have one more thing: facts and not feelings.

I have listened to liberals, especially the ones on the briefly lived AA stations. It doesn't take a thinker to process 3rd grade rhetoric like "Bush lied, people died", "The war is for oil", "Bush is stupid", etc, etc, ad nauseum. My favorite point to make is that most of the hosts are failed comedians. Can I tell you something about liberal radio: it's a joke.

And plus, it's a proven fact that the most intelligent and educated of this country listen to conservative radio. Maybe because we are conservatives, or maybe the truly intelligent people can handle discussion and debate even if they do not agree totally with certain viewpoints, but we are all Americans, except for 100 million or so of course.

Debate and discourse is what truly matters, not weak liberal talking points. I get more of a workout from the Sunday crossword puzzle.

You still have NPR, ABC, CBS, CNN, Al-Jazeera, most euro-crap news, DailyKOS, other blogs, and numerous other outlets. As Alex below said, you can even find the most left-wing "progressives" (I always loved that word, where are progressing, off a cliff?) on the Internet.

Remember, the real problem here is that the age of left-wing democrat control of the media is over and the leftists are always sore losers. Most of you haven't gotten over the 2000 elections yet.

Progessives/liberals/socialists/communists (all the same) have infiltrated every aspect of our lives over 50 years especially higher education. You would think they'd be okay with all the above media outlets, but no, they have to control the entire wavelength because liberals can never handle opposition viewpoints. I've seen it before, they usually explode with insults and rants.

Sent by James | 12:09 AM ET | 06-26-2007

'Why don't you listen to conservative talk radio once. They talk about things like economics, personal responsibility, not to mention the failed democrat/liberal programs of the half century. They also have one more thing: facts and not feelings.'

I've listened to conservative talk radio quite a few times, so I won't respond with an explosion of insults but a good belly laugh instead. Conservative talk radio is actually very thin on facts, thick with half-truths, innuendo and sometimes outright lies. For example, your statement that it's a 'proven fact'that most of the 'intelligent and educated of this country listen to conservative radio?' Where'd you get that from? Based on what study? What were the methods used to come to that conclusion? These are the kinds of questions you'll only find on conservative talk radio if the study in question comes to a liberal-friendly conclusion. Such questions are never asked when it goes the other way. Debate? On Conservative radio? ROTFL. Oh man that's the funniest thing I've heard in a while. There's no real debate on conservative radio. Limbaugh et. al. will debate someone from the left who isn't very bright or maybe not too good at getting their points across, but rarely do they actually interview someone from the left who can match them. There are plenty of such people out there on the left but you won't find them on conservative talk radio. On the rare occaision that you do get one, someone like O'Rielly will self-righteously shout them down or close them out with the usual chest thumping psuedo patriotism.
These talk radio conservatives have ZERO respect for true debate and democracy. The simple fact that they've all been such staunch and ardent supporters of this debacle in Iraq, automatically questioning the patriotism of anyone who disagrees, is all anyone who is still reasonable needs to consider when judging them.

Sent by John R. Otten | 2:03 PM ET | 06-26-2007

Air America hasn't "failed." It's been on the air 24 hours a day, seven days a week for over three years. Yes, it was under-capitalized and operated under the bankruptcy laws for a short period (so have several major airlines and thousands of other businesses), but it's now under new ownership and on its way to profitability.

The Fox News Channel suffered similar growing pains, losing hundreds of millions of dollars before finally turning a profit after five years of red ink.

Sent by Dennis Engstrom | 3:08 PM ET | 06-26-2007

This is ridiculous....you can't have the government force companies to allow democrats to get as much time as republicans. It is a free market. If the people want Hannity and Limbaugh, they'll get ratings. If the people want NPR and Air America, they'll get ratings. Obviously the left is bitter because people are tired of listening to their whining about everything.

Sent by Bill | 9:12 AM ET | 06-27-2007

the FNC did not lose hundreds of millions before it turned a profit. That is a flat out lie, much like Air America "on it's way to profitability". That is utterly outrageous! It's like a restaurant that serves garbage to it's customers and goes out of business. Then someone else buys the restaurant and puts a big fat sign that says "Under New Management" but yet they still serve the same garbage. People aren't going to listen because of new management. It's the content...which I like to compare to garbage.

Sent by Bill U. | 9:19 AM ET | 06-27-2007

*************WARNING*************

This is automatic detection response. Due to FCC guidelines within the Fairness Doctrine, software has detected an imbalance in a politically oriented thread. As such each reply will now be evaluated and posted in opposing order. Should more of one side be posted, a queue will be establish and held until an opposing view is posted.

Thank You
John Calhoun
US Secretary of Political Involvement

Sent by George Cucchi | 11:31 AM ET | 06-27-2007

When one listens to talk radio, it is very clear what the biases of the speakers are. There is no pretended objectivity. Values are explicit. This is not so with NPR, NYT, The Washington Post, AP, Reuters, etc. I was taught by liberal professors that there is no such thing as objectivity. I consider it a good lesson.

Also, I thought there was quite a bit of concern on the left that America was becoming a police state.

Here is a prominent Democrat on free speech and censorship:

Markos Moulitsas -- a.k.a. "kos" -- created Daily Kos on May 26, 2002, in those dark days when an oppressive and war-crazed administration suppressed all dissent as unpatriotic and treasonous. As a veteran, Moulitsas was offended that the freedoms he pledged his life for were so carelessly being tossed aside by the reckless and destructive Republican administration.

[On Censorship at DailyKos]
But, what about Freedom of Speech?

Doesn't the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?

No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.
-www.DailyKos.com
---------------------

I don't want to see either the right or the left subject to the infringement of speech that is called the fairness doctrine. If my preference is to talk about first amendment rights, and instead you are forcing me to air opinions favorable to the ten commandments in the courthouse, you are "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" because you have reduced the time and resources I can spend on airing my views.

Keep your laws off of my speech.

Sent by David Prince | 12:05 PM ET | 06-27-2007

From an article about News Corp., the parent company of the Fox News Channel, in the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 8, 2001:

"In cable programming, operating profit jumped to $44 million from $24 million in the year-earlier period, largely due to the Fox News Channel finally reaching the break-even point for the first time since its launch four years ago."

Air America was launched three years ago.

Sent by Dennis Engstrom | 12:43 PM ET | 06-27-2007

FNC's Brit Hume confirmed that the Fox News Channel lost hundreds of millions of dollars in its first five years. From an article in the New York Observer dated October 12, 2003:

"It is estimated that there were losses amounting to a billion dollars before Fox News turned a profit," said Mr. Hume. "We're talking about a grand-scale investment."

Sent by Molly | 1:22 PM ET | 06-27-2007

The position many are taking with the "fairness doctrine," is moving toward an interventionist government.

If talk radio has any relevance in the complaints, it confirms that free market choice, supported by sponsors who have products to sell to listeners who are making choices with the dial, works.

If the demand did not exist -- as it does -- then sponsors will pull ads that would otherwise cater to no one. These are factually supported.

On the other hand, there are publicly supported avenues such as NPR, universities and other agencies which broadcast with a particular bias that many would rather leave alone -- are they to be regulated in this "fairness" doctrine?

If one truly believes in "freedom of speech," and "freedom of 'choice'" then one would wisely let the market system work as it should. If you want other -- i.e. liberal -- messages to succeed in the radio broadcast marketplace then please allow them to learn from their television competitors such as MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and others on how to package and market a product. The audience is there, they only need to reach them.

Stop this nonsense -- we don't have the resources!

Sent by Tom Tobin | 3:08 PM ET | 06-27-2007

How do we measure "fairness"? If, as a recent MSNBC poll says, 9 out of 10 journalists are "liberal" or "democratic", does this mean we need to hire more conservatives or Republicans? Or fire some of the liberals or Democrats? Be careful what you wish for!

Sent by John H | 4:02 PM ET | 06-27-2007

Ironically, I listen to NPR and watch conservative televison news. I believe the only time "equal time" should be inforced is when federal money is involved. Yes. That means NPR not Rush.

Sent by Alice Dominguez | 12:38 AM ET | 06-28-2007

The Fairness Doctrine should be reistated. Rush Limbaugh and all of of the conservatve radio shows should have to be balanced with liberals like Al Franken on a 50/50 basis. Of course, then we would have to have all news ralated broadcasts (including morning TV and evening news) of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC fill 50 percent of their programming with content from Fox. Then we would finally have real fairness and equality of the airwaves.

Sent by OC JT | 3:04 PM ET | 06-29-2007

Let's not waist our time with the Fairness Doctrine. The free-speech market will take care of it. I've already adapted to the biased conservative talk shows and learned to filter the extreme liberal noise. I listen to both. Its not always easy to sort out the garbage from each, but it is worth the effort. Occassionally, it is entertaining to witness the sheep that blindly follow the extreme views of these butchers of truth. What we have now is working just fine. Just because Rush Limbaugh caters to the right doesn't mean that he hasn't got a liberal audience as well. His show would be short lived if that were the case. Obviously, claims of left leaninngs from other media does a pretty decent job of attacting conservatives. Just read the other postings. The Fairness Doctrine would not improve intelligent broadcasting any more than turning up the volume of Bill O'Reilly's banter or the musings of A.A.. The Fairness Doctrine would do nothing but fill the pockets of boring lawyers.

Sent by Billy | 2:23 PM ET | 08-01-2007