Two big lies have been making the rounds about the proposed return of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine. This is the rule that forced broadcasters to air “both sides” of controversial issues until the agency scuttled it in 1987.
One big lie is that critics of the doctrine shouldn’t worry because nobody is really thinking about reviving it. The other big lie, which sort of cancels out the first, is that the Fairness Doctrine should be re-imposed because it won’t restrict freedom of speech.
Writer Steve Almond argues the latter in a Boston Globe op-ed. He calls Fairness Doctrine foes “desperate and deluded” liars for saying it would assail their First Amendment rights.
But compulsion really is compulsion. Almond himself admits as much when he notes that conservative radio hosts worry that the Doctrine would “spell the end” of what he calls “their ongoing cultural flim-flam.” They would be forced half the time to turn their microphones over to the likes of Steve Almond. In this way, he says, Americans would be compelled to confront their biases.
Not that Almond is exactly an exemplar himself when it comes to pondering or tolerating alternative views. The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto recalls that in 2006, Almond noisily resigned a teaching position at Boston College … because he disliked one of the speakers the college had invited to campus.
So much for hearing all sides.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
3 replies on “Unliberating Bondage”
I’ve read his books and exchanged letters with the man and in my view, Steve Almond is a smarmy absolute liberal idiot.
»Steve Almond is a smarmy absolute liberal idiot.
Is there any other kind?
I mean, their big buzz words all have obvious retorts, eg, “tolerance” (tolerating those who can’t define “tolerance”), diversity (everyone is okay except white males and some white females, eg, Barbara “Ma’am” Boxer), etc, ad nauseam.
Oh, what a great moment! I tuned in late to the show, but Beck was interviewing the leader of the Black Chamber of Commerce, who pointed out that construction unions were excluding blacks, Hispanics, Asians, basically everyone but whites. He used the example of a building in Philadelphia for which union members came in from 60 – 70 miles away.
Beck touched upon the “color blind” argument, but the Black leader gave him the zinger: This is an avenue of attack as there are requirements for minority hiring, and this is legally actionable, so to speak.
Don’t know the name, but this guy was great!
Spare me the whining of the poor minorities. In Chicago, the only unemployed construction workers I know are white. As for the “fairness” doctrine? 1984 doublespeak, which is also part of everything else that’s been rammed down our throats this past year.