“Keep Them Doggies Movin’ …”

As if the notion of bailing out President Barack Obama’s sycophantic mainstream media with taxpayer-funded debt wasn’t bad enough, the latest rumor floating around Washington, D.C. is that the Campaigner-in-Chief will join Congressional Democrats in supporting a reintroduction of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” as part  of the bailout proposal.

Established in 1949, the “Fairness Doctrine” mandated that media outlets air contrasting views on controversial (i.e. political) subjects, and threatened fines if they did not do so.

Of course, the problem with that approach is that it not only didn’t work (numerous outlets stopped covering politics altogether to avoid the fines), but it represents an egregious violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.

For these, and other reasons, the doctrine was eliminated in 1987 under the Reagan administration, although a movement backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and numerous Democratic Senators is pushing to have the Fairness Doctrine reintroduced – and a media bailout could be just the vehicle they’ve been looking for.

If true, the logic makes terrifying sense.

After all, Democrats would face a potentially immovable mountain of opposition to a media bailout, and what better way for them to misdirect criticism than by accompanying this massive infusion of cash with a so-called requirement for “fair and balanced” reporting of dissenting views?

Already on top of the potentially disastrous implications this would have on free speech (and a free press, for that matter) is libertarian Howie Rich, whose aggressive support of parental choice, term limits, first amendment rights and other limited government reforms has made him a household name as well as the target of extensive far left sniping in multiple states, including our home state of South Carolina.

From Rich’s column on the proposed media bailout:

One of the most Orwellian concepts ever imposed upon the Fourth Estate, the “Fairness Doctrine” mandated that media outlets provide equal representation to different political views. Outlets that didn’t meet their “quotas” were subjected to fines from the Federal Communications Commission.

In essence, the federal government tried to assume responsibility for determining what constituted “fair coverage” as opposed to our time-honored tradition of a “marketplace of ideas.”

This notion of the state regulating news content is every bit as anathema to our nation’s founding wisdom as government picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

Rich adds that “nothing other than an individual American and their TV remote control, radio dial or computer mouse should ever determine the ‘fairness’ of the Fourth Estate’s reporting, and government attempting to impose its will in that process is every bit as wrong as bailing out watchdogs that have fundamentally failed in his or her responsibilities to the public.”

This view is echoed by conservative Ohio columnist Jesse Hathaway, who wrote recently that “Government has no role exerting control of the media, whether that control is financial or ideological. Such attempts at media control should be abhorred by Americans.”

No doubt.

If you think this country is in trouble now, just wait and see what happens when government becomes the media’s financier and full-time censor.

Pic: Death By 1,000 Papercuts

Comments