Away for the weekend (Boy Scout camping trip) and in my absence, the polls appear to have tightened a bit. I'm not sure it matters much: we will have to see if there is movement in the battleground states, or if anything happens which might make the Supreme Leader have to defend his own turf.
The Powell endorsement; the blatant bias of the media; and the defections of some eager to jump on the Leader's bandwagon all help make the outlook for McCain, and for the country, rather bleak. Legally speaking, the odds of denying Obama the prize the whole world wants to give him are slim -- if he doesn't win, he's going to simply litigate until he does. Finally, once Obama wins, the great and good are going to fix it so that he can really rule, and the Right can be locked out, forever.
Still, here's hoping for some overreaching; that the backlash comes before the election, rather than after.
3 comments:
One of the articles you link to suggests that Dems, in the event they continue to control (or increase their control) of Congress, will try to revive the Fairness Doctrine in an effort to muzzle rightwing talk radio.
This is, well, nonsense. First of all, the point of the Fairness Doctrine was not to muzzle. Second and more to the point, the Fairness Doctrine is gone and I think it's not coming back. Whatever one thought of it and how it worked or didn't, I don't think any attempt to revive it will succeed. The Reagan-era FCC buried it and it's gone for good. Period.
I wish it were nonsense, but the matter is being debated, studied and talked about quite openly -- the present Speaker, Mrs. Pelosi, wants it , among others -- and is on the laundry list of things the extreme Left wants to see happen.
You're being more than a little disingenuous by saying the point of the Fairness Doctine was not to muzzle. Maybe, but that's the result when you practice viewpoint control in requiring the presentation of all points of view. Of necessity some expression must be dropped or curtailed to make room for other expression. The government should not be in that business.
I think an effort to revive some kind of viewpoint control through manipulating spectrum availability and allocation has a very good chance of succeeding. Besides the hard Left (which also wants more Hate Speech regulation) too many others at the table -- pro-immigration business lobbies, the environmental movement, etc., have an interest in seeing it happen.
Well, you may be right.
On the other hand, the most persuasive argument vs the FD (although I didn't personally agree w this argument) pointed to the growth in non-broadcast outlets since FD's original adoption -- a growth which (allegedly) broadened the 'marketplace of ideas' and made efforts to encourage diversity of views (which is what the FD was supposed to do, at least in theory) less necessary. That argument is still there, waiting to be used again vs anyone who wants to revive FD. I just think Pelosi et al will have too many other things on their hands to bother. We'll see.
Post a Comment