Americans are evenly divided as to whether or not the government should "require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary." The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% favor that proposal and 41% are opposed. The concept, known as the "Fairness Doctrine" in legislative circles, has been gaining ground on Capitol Hill ever since public opposition forced the Senate to back down on the immigration issue.Immigration? The immigration bill failed when the Democrats who control Congress failed to cut off debate on the subject. They tried to get a vote with no debate, and their plan was ruined by a public debate on radio and elsewhere.
An interesting dynamic of the public debate is that liberals are more supportive of the "Fairness Doctrine" than conservatives. ... A separate survey found that the general public tends to believe that major broadcast networks have a liberal bias. ... Even those who are politically liberal are more likely to see the New York Times as biased in favor of liberals than conservatives.So this liberal push for "fairness" appears to be driven by an attempt to censor opposing viewpoints. Here is the real kicker:
A large segment of the public would like to extend the concept of the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet as well. Thirty-four percent (34%) believe the government should "require web sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints." Fifty percent (50%) are opposed.Wow. These folks really want the govt to censor the political content of web pages?! How would that even work?