[BC] Fairness doctrine by another name? Donna's humble request

[Dave Dunsmoor]

> Progressive talk does not "fail" nor has it been rejected by the 
> general public.  I repeat:  individual talkers are doing well and 
> getting numbers and making money for their sponsors.  

So why are we discussing the merits of having the government
mandate time in their corner? Something's missing in the argument
here....

> Those talkers should get the chance to be heard.  

Not a problem. They pay their money and start right in talking.
If they make money for the stations carrying them, the get to 
continue talking. If not, they walk. Simple.

Donna, your argument(s) is missing something very important:
logic.

We do not want the government running the programming department.
Under no circumstances do we want this, and that is what the
"fairness doctrine", by whatever name it's referred to, is advocating.

Wrong, in all colors, it's wrong.

Dave Dunsmoor