Replies

I have only one question: "Is journalism objective?"
If it is, then the Fairness Doctrine makes sense, since journalism, being objective, will fairly critique unfairness in broadcasting.
But the question is, how does anyone go about proving that journalism is objective? One example of coverage of a controversy which seems objective to you now cannot suffice to prove the proposition; it would be necessary to examine all coverage over all time - including the unavailable future time - in order to make that conclusion. And even then, how would you know that you were objective in making that determination? Who is to be trusted to make that exhaustive determination?
The Constitution has a clear answer. Article 1 Section 9 ordains that:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States
The First Amendment requires that
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
It follows that nobody has the right to unquestioned determination of what is fair in public discussion.
The assault on liberty which we-the-people are faced with comes from a group of people who own, or work for people who own, printing presses or radio/tv broadcast licenses and who belong to an organization styling itself the Associated Press. And we have the co-extensive group, the "National Press Club." And notwithstanding the uncontroverted fact that not just newspapers but also books and magazines are produced by printing presses and are covered by the First Amendment, or the fact that broadcast journalism is not produced by printing presses and is transmitted under government license as books and magazines and newspapers are not, the Associated Press/National Press Club presumes to be "the press" and presumes to have rights superior to the people whom it presumes to have the right to exclude.
Any person who styles himself "the press" arrogates to himself the right to exclude people - most people - from equal right to participation in the public discourse. The right to freedom of the press is not a privilege of the government, and it is not a privilege of noblemen. It is a right of the people. And the right of speech and press is not a right of the speaker and the printer only, but equally is a right of the voluntary listener and reader, without which the right to speak and print would be mooted.
The Right to Know