The Fairness Doctrine

The other day, President Bush rolled into town and spoke to the 2008 religious broadcasters convention at the Opryland Hotel and Conference center. During his speech, which focused mostly on Afghanistan and Iraq - and contained nothing that we haven't all heard before from him - he mentioned the "Fairness Doctrine," and said that the Democrats in congress were trying to bring it up again as an attempt to attack the religious broadcasters of our nation. He said that he would veto it if it ever came up during the remainder of his term.

Here's an article from the local news about his visit.

Thing is, though, the fairness doctrine hasn't been around since 1987, and although there has been a minimal buzz amongst Democrats to bring it back - I have to admit that it looks good on paper, assuming it's used the way it's intended - there have not been any concerted efforts to do so. Besides, what's wrong with having opposing viewpoints on at the same time in religious broadcasting. Seems to me that if an idea - any idea - is strong enough, it can stand up to debate. So if Pat Robertson, for example, says that the 9/11 attacks are God's wrath upon our nation due to our acceptance of homosexuality (though he and Jerry Falwell later retracted and apologized for these remarks after being condemned by just about everyone), shouldn't someone be able to come on and say, "You're full of it!"? I would also think that the religious broadcasters would be all for this, since they're so big on having creationism taught in public schools as an "alternate view." Why not put "alternate views" everywhere? My thought is that if you want your views held up against others in one place, you better be prepared to have them challenged in every place.

That, after all, is what dialogue and debate are all about, and it's what makes civilization advance over time.

But then, that's just my humble opinion.

I'm late for my class. Got to run.

Peace.