http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0102/t.7036.html

And can anyone explain the delusional, left wing bias of NBC? No wonder people are walking away from these loons.

“Do you swear that you completely disavow and oppose the idea that the government should require the media to distribute equal amounts of information and opinion on all sides of all issues?”

Any candidate that cannot answer that question with a flat “I do.” is not fit for public office. And if they answer “I do, but…” it is prima facie evidence that they are a liar, and really meant “No”!

On July 6th, 2007 at 9:36 am, herself said:

No, Keith the Olberdork won’t be considered, the libs want to focus on talk radio only. Their excuse is the broadcast airwaves “belong to everyone”.

Translated from that Orwellian newspeak, The airwaves belong to liberals. The underlying point to all of this is to insinuate constantly that conservative ideas are themselves hate speech. After all, remember that there is no debate to them. Whatever stands in the way of their socialist utopia is not legitimate, but evil. There is no debate, there is just “the public good”.

In the name of the public interest all sorts of things will be tried. Nannystate knows best, right?

As an afterthought, Rupert Murdoch better watchout. The libtards will try to block him from acquiring the Wall Street Journal, and then they will try to find a way to kneecap Fox News Channel.

That crazy rightwing self-hater Michelle Malkin gets airtime on Fox, and we all know her point of view is just hateful, and something must be done about this. /sarc off

I am actually going to offer a dissenting view.

No, not in suppport of the Fairness Doctrine, far from it. I’m going to present the argument that Michelle and the rest of the gang had their chance, and totally muffed it. And with possibly disasterous consequences on an unprecedented scale.

If the Fairness Doctrine passes now, it won’t surprise me in the least.

If you acolytes wish to shut your eyes and rage against my article with each other, fine. But please don’t address me directly as I won’t be reading them. This is merely to demonstrate that not every conservative out there has been blind to the problem over this past year. You people really should have been paying more attention to Neal Boortz, someone actually in talk radio, not people on the outside looking in.

Michelle, if you’re reading this, I have read every word you’ve written over the past two years, and agree with everything you say 99% of the time. You have been a strong voice when one was needed.

Unfortunately, nobody’s perfect.

You wrote: “Finally, I disagree that the main stream media is biased toward the left. Lefties like me think it’s biased the other way.”

Based upon the ample evidence provided in this thread you are either (1) a liar or (2) a moron.

Which is it?

But all of the possible legal fun and games could become moot if the world does not wake up to the fact that the world-wide war we are engaged in is real, and that Sharia eventually could replace all concept of free speech. Might take a century or two though, depending on how hard we are willing to persevere against the global onset of the evil so invisible to so many.

If they want fairness, let’s go back 20 years and give them talk radio and we’ll take everything else for 20 years and then we can talk about splitting everything down the middle.

Seriously, though, there’s an opportunity in this, much like shamnesty. The liberals, by being greedy, are opening a can of worms they may well regret they ever even played with: by calling attention to the imbalance of political POV in one media, they call attention to it in all media. As a media guy,I’d say the responses on this board amount to a perfect example of the game plan for conservatives. Indeed, no one should let this go away! – they should keep bringing it up, framing it as a response to an idea brought up by left-leaning Democrats. Everyone in advertising knows – as do democrats – that the key to an effective message is repetition. We couldn’t do that before, because it just sounded like whining. However, now that we, as underdogs, have the role of respondant, we can make all the noise we want about it as long as it is framed as a response. Forget if no one brings it up for 10 months, pretend they did.

This is important, because as is stated above, the dems might just lie low and wait for Hillery the President, and then you know they’ll use this to shut conservative voices down, and they’ll be able to so in terms of ethics because they can just play dumb and chuckle and shrug off citings of the liberal bias of the NY Times and NBC and the rest being liberal, and with no media available anymore to challenge them, they’ll win that debate and have only their views to influence the masses. Once they get that and let 12 million illegal Hispanics vote for them, that will, essentially, be the end of free democracy as we know it. Sounds hysterical? Uh-uh. Much worse things have happened in history with much less technology available.

So, the next time any liberal anywhere says anything about anything – Libby, Iraq, anything – find a way to work the conservative response about current liberal bias via the Fairness Doctorine into the conversation. This is a serious, dangerous situation which, as the report says, needs another public outcry – and a resolution! Because, God help us, if Hillary becomes leader of the free world with a democratic congress, that will literally be the end of free speech if this issue is allowed to dangle unresolved until that time.

And frankly that’s the part that really scares me.

Who will decide what is fair? Someone like LGM who doesn’t believe the MSM is liberal therefore see’s no need to counter it… only to punish those horrible concervatives.

The Fairness Doctrine is anything but. And it is censorship. Period.