[BC] Re: Fairness doctrine by another name? aka censorship?

[Glen Kippel]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Donna Halper <dlh at donnahalper.com> wrote:

>
> Aww, come on, Glen, you can do better than this.  You are intentionally
> mis-stating what the Fairness Doctrine is about, in order to score some
> political points.  I love ya, I really do, but can we talk about radio and
> about what the Fairness Doctrine REALLY says, as opposed to the mythical
> right-wing talking points version of the Fairness Doctrine?  The FD never
> mandated 'tit for tat' programming, and it never said if you broadcast a
> rightie, you must immediately broadcast a leftie.
>
> ~_____________________________________________________________________~
>
-------------------

Well, my last  comment was extreme, to make a point about "equality."  But,
I did day that the "fairness doctrine" sword has two blades, and that an
all-liberal station would (or, should) have no more traction than an
all-conservative one if it comes to pass.  And I never said that a "rightie"
must immediately be followed by a "leftie" any more than I said that an
"innie" must be followed by an "outie."