A Little Defamation Never Hurt Anybody

Hey, there, square bears. I'm back for another post. I just checked the blog, and I'm happy to see that I got some comments from people who aren't in my immediate circle of friends. It's good!

Tonight's post is just a general amalgamation of the week's events, swirled into a stew of my liking. I'll start with the Fairness Doctrine, since it's been one of the most hotly contested topics of the week.

Certain members of the new Democratic Congress, most notably Dennis Kucinich, are trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and, for some reason, I find myself agreeing with the more conservative side of the argument.

However, I don't necessarily agree with what the flying monkeys on the right are saying. I do believe that the underlying notion, though, rings true. Sort of.

Comedian Rush Limbaugh (thanks, KO) believes that bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is an underhanded attempt to silence right-wing talk radio.

I mean, come on, Rush. That's really simplistic. Do you really think that the Dems have that much forethought? If anything, it seems to me to be an opportunity to force all media outlets to give the other side a chance to speak, whatever the issue may be.

Personally, I find the unearthing of the Fairness Doctrine frivalous because we have so many media outlets these days. People who follow politics pretty much know the leanings of their sources. Don't you, Kucinich?

Does a place like Liberal Oasis have to publish the other side? Would they? That seems to defeat the purpose of L.O.

And would the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh even believe Al Franken or Barbara Boxer, if they were to be brought on the show? No. More often than not, they'd just be ridiculed for their opinions. Oh, and shouldn't Rush Limbaugh have to work just a little bit for his material? Having other, truly opposite opinions wouldn't improve the quality of his shows. It would just melt into more knee-jerk politics. That's exactly why the show Crossfire was bad for America (and yet, so entertaining).

The Fairness Doctrine would go down in flames again, I think. But don't be a sheep. Sean Hannity, on his show the other day, kept reiterating the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech." Personally, I don't think that having someone else on a radio program with a different opinion is an aberration of free speech. It doesn't prevent the talk show host from saying what he wants; it just forces him to let the other side speak.

Yet, I still find my own little Libertarian take on it. I say, let the people decide what they want to hear. If nobody liked what Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity was saying, then they would have stopped listening years ago. Let them stay on the air, as long as there is a market for it. What they're saying may be moronic at times but it's not hatespeech or anything. If you don't like it, turn it off. I do, with great pleasure.