Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) thinks so.
When it was law it did a couple of things: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.
Should this really be the government’s role? Is ensuring “balance” in political speech the same as restricting pornography? I don’t think so. Right now it only applies to radio (which conservatives tend to dominate), but doesn’t apply anywhere else. Not to say that it couldn’t eventually be extended to cable and the internet. Slippery slope. Schumer interview below:
HT: Hot Air
Sphere: Related Content
Well, it’s really not that surprising. This is the same kind for free speech philosophy that the tax code had when 501c3 tax status denied if organizations tried to influence legislation prior to 1954. It’s also the same philosophy that LBJ had in mind when he re-wrote the 501c3 tax code to include his antithesis (and others) on July 2, 1954. It’s also the same philosophy that Congress had in passing the Revenue Act of 1987 to further change the language again.
It’s a slippery slope and we’ve been sliding for a long time!
I’d like to see them apply the “fairness doctrine” to themselves;) Not sure how you do that;^)
In Christ,
Noah