Yesterday, I posted on a comment from FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, where he said:
“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,†McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?â€
I opined that it was an unlikely scenario, but I might be wrong. Rasmussen is reporting that almost a third of people polled think “Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary.”
Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary, but they draw the line at imposing that same requirement on the Internet. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say leave radio and TV alone, too.
At the same time, 71% say it is already possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) do not agree.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) say the government should not require websites and blog sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints. But 31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary
It is baffling to me that while “71% say it is already possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media” almost 50% “believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary.” Are these people honestly saying that even though they can find what they want, government should still force television and radio stations to play content they don’t want to?
Yes, they are.
These are the people who usher in big government, then when it has its boot on their throat, look around and wonder, “What happened?”
Related posts:
