The FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

It’s About Free Speech, Unless They Disagree With Your Content

The Obama administration has stepped in to circumvent obstacles to reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine and halt dissemination of truthful information to the American people.  The information which is detrimental to the furthering of his political agenda is all apparently from one source – conservative talk radio.

Recently the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) formally announced the appointment of a new “Chief Diversity Officer,” attorney, former senior fellow at the ultra-liberal Center for American Progress (CAP), and worked at broadcasters, NBC and CNN.  

He also co-wrote a June 2007 report entitled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," a shamelessly bias report which decries the fact that Americans like to listen to conservative talk radio in overwhelming numbers.  The report opines the lack of liberal or progressive listeners and continues explaining that the Government must get involved to fix the “problem.”

He suggests that the Federal government restore local and national limits on how many commercial radio stations any individual or company can own.  That the government ensures local responsibility for radio licensing and that they force owners who fail to follow these guidelines by fining them up to $250,000,000.00 which would be used to support public broadcasting.  The problem with this is that guidelines and enforcement are too general and left to the interpretation of whoever the enforcer is.  

In a follow-up report called "Forget the Fairness Doctrine," Mr. Lloyd urges liberal/progressive activists to use the dangerous "localism" requirement to harass conservative stations to continuously complain to the FCC.  The FCC would then be forced to levy fines upon non-compliant stations or even revoke their broadcasting licenses.  This action, proposed by Mr, Lloyd, altogether bypasses the Fairness Doctrine, which although unpalatable, was written by bi-partisan legislators wishing to improve the system for all. 

As one who was until fairly recently unstudied on regulations and intent of the Fairness Doctrine, this author was shocked at the realization that it does not protect free speech.  The doctrine's apparent intent is "fair speech", a concept commonly accepted by liberals/progressives, but foreign to many conservatives. It seems to push public communication to "fair speech" through forced equalization of opportunity, which by structure is antithetical to free speech and the free market.

While free speech and equal speech could coexist by utilization of a bell-curve type equilibrium reached through measures to ensure that both are nominally affected, that is not the intent of the FCC's appointment or their intended bypass of the Fairness Doctrine.

Some may also argue that what the majority of people want to hear, such as conservative radio or television programming, crowds out other opinions (and this is true).  But by force of government intervention, mandating "equal speech" functions in direct contradiction to nature, therefore it must operate in a vacuum and is inherently unsustainable and a much less functional medium for natural social change and development. 

I am certain that like many reading this, the Soros funded Center for American Progress and their former senior fellow, Mr. Lloyd do not agree with me, but in my opinion, change can only be brought through a "natural" progression which can only occur when one affects another and another, until eventually an exponential and natural change occurs.

While the federal government's intent is most hopefully noble, the choice to use the FCC to launch a campaign of force to affect unnatural change smacks of progressive change forced by tyrannical leaders from Chiang Kai-shek , Mao, and Mussolini to Stalin, Wilhelm II and Yahya Khan.

Much of the evidence regarding Mr. Lloyd shows that he is a radical liberal/progressive with intentions of forcibly removing the only means of information that the majority of Americans have left at their disposal for truthful communication – and worst of all, our President, the man who is supposed to represent all Americans, just allowed him be appointed to a position where his planned dismantling can be implemented.