A Question About The "Fairness" Doctrine

Without talk radio, would there have been any debate on this amnesty abomination at all?

Who would have given fair coverage to the position favored by at least 70% o Americans? The MSM, which was blatantly biased in favor of this "bipartisan" piece of shit, putting out sham push-polls which misrepresented the bill as being tougher on enforcement than it actually was and misrepresenting the visa process as being a regular maybe-you-get-denied-maybe-you-get approved deal rather than the automatic amnesty it was? And deliberatley and repeatedly failed to ask the most obvious question of all -- Do you or do you not support the bill actually being debated in the Senate? -- because they knew full well the public was overwhelmingly against it and wanted to cobble together some plausible claim the public actually favored the bill?

Surely there would have been no debate in the Senate, whose establishment tried to shut down all discussion and force the thing through after a week's consideration before the bill could even be read, let alone digested, and let alone weighed in on by consituents.

And the media gushingly praised those engaging in dissent-crussing manueverings.

Why, some in the media even found time to display a "strange new respect" for George Bush, of all people.

"Fairness" doctrine -- right. What they mean is they think it's unfair they don't have complete monopoly over the media-political culture in this country, and they want it back.

They were able to do so many great things for America in the old days, without all the fuss and bother of the riff-raff commenting upon what was supposedly being done in our interests but against our wishes.

posted by Ace at 09:45 AM

| Access Comments