Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in distress at not recieving much of a favorable nod from talk radio, recently revived the specter of the Fairness Doctrine. This concept was introduced and rapidly killed in the last century. She was joined in this clamor by fellow liberals, to no one's surprise.
The essence of the Fairness Doctrine is equality in presenting points of view. The idea is that if one political candidate is criticized on a media outlet such as television or radio, he or she must be given equal time to rebut with a personal defense.
The problem with the doctrine, which was quickly discovered when the original act was implemented, is that the United States of America is not a socialist nation. That is, the airwaves are "public" in the sense that no one owns them per se, but they are very private in that one must pay money--big money--to secure the exclusive right to broadcast on a particular bandwidth. Neither you nor I could broadcast an alternate program on one of the major networks because they have a license to transmit solely their choice of programming.
Thus, to demand of Rush Limbaugh's network that Al Franken be allowed equal time to do his unfunny rant-and-rave routine, which failed miserably on Air America despite being subsidized to the tune of millions of dollars in donor contributions, one would cite the Fairness Doctrine as the casus belli. (Note that that particular Latin term is deliciously appropriate: it means the rationale for going to war.)
But the Doctrine quickly ran into the problem of ownership. Having nothing of substance to say, liberals are rather boring. Once one sees past their accusations and spins, a process which requires up to five minutes for the dull-witted of us, they are worthless in terms of entertainment or interest value. Radio and TV stations make their money from renting air time to advertisers, who pay the high fees to pitch their products and services in anticipation that there is someone out there listening. If your main content is a drag, your ratings go in the tank and advertisers go where the eyes and ears are. Hence the merciful death of Air America after years of useless drivel. It was a total, utter, and dreadfully embarrassing failure for liberals because they have nothing whatsoever to say that anyone other than a moveon.org mouth-foamer would want to hear.
But Hillary says that's not fair. After all, she alleges, talk radio is almost entirely conservative. Therefore, raido listeners are presented with a daily barrage of conservative points of view and there is no surviving liberal counterpart.
This is somewhat mysterious. After all, Hillary is reasonably bright. She managed to survive the Bill years with a reputation that enabled her to buy a New York senate seat. Does she not understand that no one wants to hear liberals on the radio because there is nothing to hear? That listeners tune in to talk radio--voluntarily, with no one holding a shotgun to their head--because conservative points of view are preceived to be factual, sensible, and reasonable? That they are actually interesting?
Perhaps Hillary isn't so bright after all. She seems to think America is rather stupid not to see through her nonsense. But then, liberals are by definition afflicted by the mental disorder of trying to live in the world of their imaginations and earnest emotional desires rather than reality. More likely than not, she is sincere and just living up to her job description.
