EDITORIAL - A systematic approach to regulating speech at the hands of our federal legislators is well underway, and it presents clear and convincing evidence of the dangers that exist under a system of consolidated power in the hands of select lawmakers.

This approach is cleverly termed the “Fairness Doctrine”, and it requires media outlets to provide equal time to all sides of any particular issue. Under this regulation of the press, the news accounts after the horrific September 11th attacks must be countered by representatives of the Taliban to ensure a “fair” and “equal” discussion of the terrorism that just killed more than 3,000 innocent Americans.

The “Fairness Doctrine” means some federal bean-counter is keeping score of the number of minutes that media personalities are discussing the important issues of the day. It means the Federal government is provided with the imperial authority to regulate the information that the American people receive from our news outlets.

One of the surest ways to control the thoughts and minds of the people of any country is for the government to control education. The United States attempts to do that with the Department of Education. The second is controlling what the people hear through the press, and the “Fairness Doctrine” is a giant leap forward towards that end.

Think about this for a minute. We live in a supposedly free society, but yet, the federal government has regulatory control over our schools, and they are trying their best to take control of our media outlets, specifically talk radio that consistently tends to question the actions and intentions of the federal government.

Democrat lawmakers have talk radio firmly in focus with this legislation, hoping to curb the continuing success of conservative and libertarian radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Neal Boortz. It provides Democrats in Congress with further authority to use the power of the government to regulate that of which they do not like.

New York Democrat Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, a strong proponent in the government's right to regulate media, said in an interview with Bill Moyers that the “airwaves belong to the people”, and added that “...at least half the people in the United States have no voice because they're not allowed in on talk radio.” When a politician claims that something “belongs to the people”, it immediately opens the door to federal government regulation. Thus, what belongs to the people actually belongs to the government, and what belongs to the government is well under the control of politicians. Perfect.

If the congresswoman believes that half of the United States is not allowed on talk radio, then perhaps she needs to address, in a more meaningful way, why. Perhaps the American people do not find leftist talk interesting or entertaining? Perhaps leftist radio hosts simply are not skilled at what they do? Maybe, just maybe, radio stations do not believe that the market (yep, that darn Capitalism) supports leftist talk radio programming? It seems leftists are more comfortable writing in newspapers and reading pre-written copy on television and then retiring to their comfortable recliners instead of having to defend their positions and answer questions from [a few] callers listening to their radio programs.

Air America was a wonderful experiment in leftist talk radio, and Air America failed miserably for a reason. The market decided that the ideas presented were not those that the American people wished to hear. Air America, often paying radio networks to air their programming, lost at the hands of capitalism. Capitalism is definitely not their friend.

Sadly, Democrats already have a firm hold on television and newspapers media outlets. And truthfully, that is okay. The government should have absolutely no right to regulate newspapers or television news programs, and similarly, they should not have any right to regulate talk radio, either.

But, this is not only about talk radio. This is about the federal government having editorial control over media outlets in America. This is about the dangerous precedent that regulations like this set. It proves our federal government has no interest in becoming a small and protective force. It demonstrates that the priorities of our elected officials have strayed severely off base. With September 11th serving as evidence, it means that the power and influence of the federal government supersedes our politician's desire to keep the American people safe.

When a political party needs to rely on federal government regulation to make things “fair” [in their minds], it means there is something deeply troubling about that political party. It means that perhaps instead of using government to systematically silence the free market, that party should take a look at what they stand for, the issues they fight for and the people they represent and re-think their commitment to federalism.