In January 1997 when I worked on Captiol Hill and Newt Gingrich was up for a second term as Speaker of the House, we received word in our office that one TV network (as I recall it was NBC) would feature on its evening newscast (and/or its Sunday talk show) any Republican member who voted against the Georgian’s reelection.

In other words, the supposedly unbiased network would reward any dissension from GOP unity with free air time.

As I read Jim Hoft’s post on what he terms the “Double Cross” of the three Republican Senators who voted for the Democrat’s spendthrift “stimulus” package, I wonder if  the prospect of favorable media treatment impacted their decision to buck their party (and their principles).   By turning on their own party, Republicans almost always earn the accolades of an otherwise hostile (to Republicans) news media.

No wonder, as Jim observes:

At those critical moments, when Democrats need party discipline, they are unanimous. The GOP on the other hand, has a few familiar faces who can be counted on to betray their party time after time.

It seems the media helps reinforce Democratic Party discipline while rewarding Republicans who break ranks.

As we are all contemplating our whopping $13.00 tax refund, and $36,000 per family debt to the US of Obama government, I thought it was appropriate to remind you of our exclusive bumper stickers and other merchandise.

Show it proudly on your gas-guzzling SUV or quiet/kid-killing Prius.

Questioning Obama IS the highest form of patriotism.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

While lunching today with some Bay Area GayPatriot readers, I commented that if Democrats want to try to reimpose the “Fairness Doctrine,” let them bring that debate on.  It’s a debate they’re sure to lose.

Coupled with the rushed manner in which they passed the “stimulus,” it will make their party seem increasingly like one opposed to free and open debate.

The media market has so changed since last that Doctrine was originally adopted that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would be hard-pressed to justify it today.  Should the FCC again reenact the doctrine, it would serve to silence certain forms of speech, shutting down fora that did not exist, indeed, were not even contemplated, when it was initially introduced sixty years ago. As such, it might not now pass constitutional muster.  

And the debate would only remind voters that Democrats tried to silence conservative media.  That would play well with the most extreme elements of their base, but not with the American people as a whole.

Those liberals who favor the Fairness Doctrine just don’t like having conservatives regularly challenge their policies and ideas.  Just as congressional Democrats refused to solicit Republican opinions when they crafted the “stimulus,” those liberals seek to exclude their ideas from popular media.

It is entirely that exclusion which led to conservative success in the new medium (at least it was relatively new in 1987 when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed) of talk radio.  Had the mainstream media not tilted as far to the left as it did then (and still does), offering excessively critical coverage of Ronald Reagan, conservatives would not have felt as frustrated as they did, longing for a forum which presented their views.

Rush Limbaugh would not have then found –and held–an audience had the MSM not so regularly distorted conservative views.  Indeed, one could say that Rush Limbaugh is a creation of liberal media bias.

If Senator Stabenow wishes to silence Rush Limbaugh, she need not reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine as she seems eager to do rather all she need do is persuade her allies in the MSM to cover her political rivals fairly.

For many conservatives, Rush is a necessary antidote to media bias.  Thus, the only way to silence him would be to make him unnecessary.  The media could make him unnecessary by covering liberals with the same scrutiny they conservatives.  And fairly reporting conservative ideas and policies  

I daresay that Mrs. Stabenow has no intention of promoting such journalism.