I realize that you're probably much better educated and smarter than I am – certainly better at firing off talking points to support your suppositions. After all, I've chosen to spend the last 24-plus years serving in the U.S. Army and making sure you have a right to talk or write about whatever intellectually challenged position you've chosen to talk or write about instead of polishing my rhetorical skills.
I also realize that you and I have very different views of the world and what constitutes right and wrong. (Oh, that's right, you probably don't believe in right or wrong – too judgmental, right?) However, I'm stumped how you think something like the so-called Fairness Doctrine is required.
I mean, am I wrong in observing that pretty much all three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial) are now controlled by either the Democratic Party or left-of-center (I apologize, "progressive" is the term you used) thinkers? This in spite of talk radio that is "owned, controlled, locked up by the right wing – with little or no opportunity for liberal voices." I would submit to you that if "progressive talkers" (your term, certainly not mine) could carry on with a substantive stream of ideas and solutions (hint: more government involvement is not a solution to every problem), they might find it a bit easier to break into markets unavailable or hostile to them until now.
Furthermore, if the Fairness Doctrine is going to be instituted, will it be applied across the board (print, television and radio medias)? For every hour (or five minutes, for that matter) I have to listen to Ms. Couric, will CBS be required to dedicate broadcast time of a like amount to a G. Gordon Liddy or Neal Bortz? Or for every air-headed liberal editorial I have to endure in print, will there be a like-sized editorial by a conservative writer? I didn't think so. If the media moguls of radio are as profit-driven as you claim they are, and if liberal talk radio hosts are as capable and entertaining as you say they are, then don't you think those greedy moguls would be beating down the doors of said radio hosts to get them on their stations?
How about maybe, just maybe, those folks who listen to conservative talk radio do so because they agree (in principle) with the conservative views of those hosts and reject the morally bankrupt views of the left. How about the novel idea that those talk radio owners are servicing the public by giving their public what it wants.
I also found it rather humorous that the cities you cited in your articles where "progressive" talk radio has succeeded (Minneapolis-St. Paul, Madison, Portland and Chicago), reads like an extract from a top-10 list of liberal cities where the type of "progressive" views you advocate are in fact the way those folks think – again, the owners servicing their public.
More government intrusion in our lives is not the answer. Spend federal dollars the way the Constitution says it should – defending the borders and our national interests, not on thought-control.
(David E. Willis/WorldNetdaily.com "E-mail To The Editor" 2/14/09)
Fairness … on campus
"Would proponents of the Fairness Doctrine like to see this extended to the university campus? A 50/50 split on liberal/conservative college professors?
I'll take that deal." (Vince Natrella/WorldNetdaily.com "E-mail To The Editor" 2/14/09)