Rush to TV?

If only Isaac Newton had studied the softer sciences, his third law might have stated

"That for every diktat by rulers there is an equally perverse unintended consequence."

Such would certainly seem to apply to the current infatuation of the left with their discussion (in public, yet!) of possible efforts to reincarnate the old soviet-style Fairness Doctrine. The doctrine was popular with ruling elites until its demise in 1987, a final casualty of the Reagan Revolution. The doctrine

demanded that broadcast licensees present controversial issues of public importance, and that they present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner.

Perhaps conservatives could most easily balance the current argument by making certain that the discussion properly includes all segments of the over the air broadcast industry.

Let's see. On CBS that would give Laura Ingraham and Katie Couric 15 minutes each in the early evening. Sean Hannity and Brian Williams could team up on the other network. If we put Mike Savage in with Larry King for an hour, we'd all have at least two reasons to never watch CNN ever again.

The worst news would be that to make everything balance out, Rush would need to get up earlier to host his new pacesetting and agenda-driving It's a Good Morning in America show in the prime morning hours. Perhaps Today would recruit Al Gore, then the two networks could strike some sort of agreement that would satisfy the government's inspectors.

We'd keep Fox News. They could hold onto MSNBC.

Related Links: Fairness Doctrine: Not Just For Radio Anymore?
Senators Clinton and Boxer to Rush: Hush up!