I am not quite old enough to remember talk radio during the good old days of the fairness doctrine. For those of you wondering what the “fairness doctrine” is? It is legislation that would require radio stations to allow equal time for opposing views. That may be a simplified description but for the sake of this discussion it will do. I would like respond to some of the discussion that is quickly becoming mainstream for liberal politicians like democrat Dianne Fienstien to silence those on the right. (Or as we still like to call them, Americans )

I started listening to talk radio when I was eighteen years old. Sure I was into music. I even played the drums in a Christian rock band. Okay we only lasted two weeks but we were really cool for two weeks. Anyway, I was fascinated by talk radio because of the back and forth between the host and caller. However, I was not naive enough to think that the ratio of callers agreeing with any one side of a discussion was indicative of the country at large. Even with sports radio the host wants a bit of a fight or it gets boring. So that was the hook but the reason I kept listening was entirely different.

I quickly noticed that most of the talk radio hosts of a political nature seemed to resonate with me and the things that I believed in, or at least had similar opinions on most issues. This was a completely new concept for me. I was a Christian, home-school graduate who grew up watching television and news that always seemed to mock or at best marginalize who I was and what I believed in. So, to find out that there were millions of listeners tuning in to the same programs all across the nation was eye opening. Whether they all agreed with me or not was irrelevant. It was confirming to know that my opinions were at least being heard. Since then I have heard politicians, pundits and friends accuse me of being a robot that just regurgitates what I hear on the radio. The truth is I don’t care why anyone thinks I believe what I believe, and if it were true what difference would it make (being that we live in America and all).

For the sake of argument though, let’s agree that the public broadcast airwaves should be regulated by the federal government in such a way to insure "fairness" to either side of a political debate.

First, who would actually monitor the programs. Who would decide what is actually an opposing view. All we hear anymore is that there are many sides to an issue. Do we get to air them all or just the elephant and donkey versions. Take the immigration bill for example. Since the White House and democrat leadership agree, do we call it a draw? What about politically charged music being played over the “public airways”? I can hear it now, Deep DJ voice says: “we're back with another politically balanced thirty minute music set. Keep it here for the all the hits and your favorites for rap, rock and country. Coming up next, Green Day, Kanye West, and the Dixie Chicks. Unfortunately the last fifteen minutes will be painfully silent because we're still waiting on Toby Keith’s new release.” I know it sounds absurd because it is absurd.

Recently released documents show that when people that work in television or print news give to political candidates or causes they give to democrats by a margin of 2 to 1. I know, no big surprise. My point is that these people tell us they are objective. You would have to be somewhat naive to swallow that. So whether it’s talk radio or cable news editorial shows. When the host clearly defines that it is a opinionated program, conservative programs are hugely successful and liberal shows are not. It’s not even close. So is it “fair” to regulate a free market because elected officials can’t get people to agree with their positions. By the way, If Liberals ever have the success in talk radio that conservatives enjoy, I would fight the fairness doctrine just the same.

We live in a nation where people can gather in the hundreds of thousands to voice an opinion. Al Sharpton can stand behind a podium and make racially incensed claims, Rosie O'Donnell can accuse the president of masterminding 911 and homosexuals can march with seat-less chiffon pants carrying signs that read “I was born this way”. Believe it or not this is a freedom that was given to us by our fathers and brothers before us that believed in a different kind of nation. One where any citizen could stand and speak. Whether it’s on an empty street corner or in front of thousands in protest. It is only in this open forum that ideas will be tested by us, the citizens. Whether we decide to pick up a cause or ignore it is up to us, but singling out the voices of one specific medium because they may resonate with “us the people” is wrong and un-American. I’m quite certain it's not “fair” either.

Jeremy Randolph