DISQUS

When private corporations monopolize a limited medium and use it for propaganda, freedom of speech demands equal time for opposing views. The right to turn the knob is meaningless when the only choice is off.

Clear-channel radio, with 1,400 stations, was created with the sole purpose of being a propaganda vehicle for right-wing ideology and to defend a right-wing government, right or wrong. If a talk-radio host must follow the party line in order to keep a job, the host is a paid propagandist.

The Fairness Doctrine would not prevent a single person on talk radio or television from expressing his or her point of view. What it would do is provide a format that would prevent the one-sided arguments, half-truths and non-truths, and personal attacks that make up much of today's heated media format. prevent the indoctrination of single-view political ideaology's - and the ability to hear both sides, or multiple sides, of a position. Americans should be thinkers, and not followers, on important issues that affect the country and the world. Once educated and able to form an opinion, then falling on either side of an issue is okay by me.


The Fairness Doctrine does not give the government the ability to license and control the airwaves - that is something that the government already does and has done for more than 50 years. Second, no, The Fairness Doctrine in no way gives the government control of political content. What it would do is remove the veil from in front of politcal parties and wealthy political investors that currently control the airwaves and makes them accountable to broadcasting facts - and of course fairness. What does a broadcaster have to fear about providing equal time for an opposing view?