Fairness Doctrine reinstatement unnecessary

The United States of America is a land that is like no other. Here in the good old U.S. of A, you can do whatever you want, live wherever you want and say whatever you want - sort of.

It's true you can't say whatever you want in some cases. You have to be politically correct and nice to everyone. It is a way the government and other interest groups have put their hands on the freedom of speech.

Issues like these have given way to the possible reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

Created in 1949, this law stated all controversial issues need to be discussed by all sides. Back when it was still the law of the land, the Fairness Doctrine regulated what people heard on the radio. If a broadcaster made a personal attack, he or she was required by law to allow the attacked a chance to respond. The same was true if a broadcaster brought up a controversial point of view -- the station was required to provide airtime for a counterpoint to be made. If a broadcasting company did not accommodate the rule, it could be fined or taken off the air. Many radio stations avoiding tackling controversy to avoid the hassle.

In the 109th Congress, legislation was introduced to restore the Fairness Doctrine. Now the target is talk radio and the conservative/libertarian points of view. If talk show hosts are forced to put a series of checks and balances on their opinions, many may opt for silence instead of saying what's truly on their minds.

Support of the Fairness Doctrine seems to stem from an unbalance in the media. Some Democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi, Robert F. Kennedy, Richard Durbin and John Kerry, support the Fairness Doctrine.

Even some Republicans are following suit.

Now you have to ask, "Why are they doing this?"

The Democrats have a few problems with the media content out there now.

For starters, more people are listening to the conservative/libertarian point of view. The top 4 talk radio hosts are Rush Limbaugh, with 14 million listeners per week; Sean Hannity, with 13 million listeners per week; Michael Savage, with 8.5 million listeners per week; and Glenn Beck, with 6.5 million listeners per week.

The top liberal talk show host is Ed Schultz, with 3 million listeners every week.

So Democrats see more and more people listen to the right instead of the left. One of the biggest liberal television hosts is Keith Olberman. He draws a good 643,000 viewers a night, but that's still overshadowed by Bill O'Reilly's 2 million nightly listeners.

You can call it an injustice or simply say people don't want to listen to your points of view. But that doesn't change the fact that trying to balance the political spectrum present on America's airwaves is unconstitutional.

Another reason the Democrats are uneasy is that talk show hosts single out politicians that are just not that good. The Democrats see the attacks on Barack Obama as personal attacks. But if a talk radio host sees someone as an elitist, a radical or just not good enough to do the job as the leader of a nation, it is their right under the constitution to make any comment they want, without having to pander to people who object.

Now the Republicans have a different story behind the fairness doctrine. The right-wing talk show hosts see Republican nominee John McCain more as too middle of the road, as "Republicrat" rather than a Republican. The new FCC commissioner, Robert M. Mcdowell, understands that if someone can be prohibited from saying what they want on the radio, such restrictions could spread to the Internet.

In our constitution, it says that the government can not make any law that prohibits freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The Founding Fathers knew that freedom of speech and freedom of the press wouldn't be nice, that any American citizen can say the meanest thing and no one could do anything about it. I am sorry - freedom of speech means the freedom to say whatever one wants. And if you don't like it, run for Congress and vote against it.

johnturner@dailynebraskan.com