The fairness doctrine might as well be named the Agricultural Accord or the Industrial Ideology. Why? Because all three names are equally inappropriate titles of the bill for which they are named. For the sake of saving even more confusion than what the bill produces already, I will refer to it by its official name, the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine suggests that political radio and television stations must present equal sides to every topic presented. This liberal dream raises more than a few questions for me.

• Who decides what radio and television shows are political entertainment vs. news?
• What is considered equal? How deep into each extreme must the opinions reach?
• What is the penalty for not presenting “fair” coverage?
• What agency is willing to punish a private media source for not broadcasting approved messages?

The last question brings to mind the biggest legal issue presented. Freedom of speech does not exist within any situation that does not include a governmental agency trying to oppress a member of the community. This concept (as with many factual circumstance) baffles many liberals and furthers their misinterpretation of actual laws versus modern cliches. For example, outspoken Bush hater, Natalie Means of the Dixie Chicks, exclaimed that America shouldn’t be allowed to boycott her music on the basis of her right to free speech. What she is missing here, is we do not have a right to say whatever we want and not be held accountable for our statements. Our free speech only protects us against government persecution for our speech. Don’t believe me? Try telling your boss to go to hell. Try shouting racial slurs in a minority neighborhood. See how protected by some imaginary protect liberals believe in.

Another popular misconception, as side note example, held by liberals focuses on the separation of church and state. Try finding “separation of church and state” in the constitution, the articles of confederation, the declaration of independence, or any lawbook. The actual law states that there may be no government sponsored church. This isn’t understood every time some religious statement or display occurs on a governmental institution. As long as the governmental isn’t sponsoring the religion and is instead merely supporting multicultural beliefs, the display or statements are constitutionally protected.

So, the question remains…. what governmental agency is willing to step in and actually enforce a private and protected entertainment source’s infraction against a fair broadcast? How is this “fair”?