Why are you "holding" the print version of your weekly newspaper?

 I am writing from Texas. A nearby newspaper, owned by a friend, who's also a journalism/mass communications prof.

This last Tuesday was Texas primary election day. Tuesday is his press day, and mine as well. 

Our press normally likes our newspapers at 5 p.m. or so.

The only statewide race in real doubt was the Democratic Senate primary. I think we were pretty sure the Republican Senate primary was going to a runoff, AG, Comptroller and RRC were going to runoffs, Gov and Lite Gov were blowouts, and that Dems would likely have a runoff for AG as well. 

There was one closely contested county commissioner race in his county. A district judge and the county clerk were also contested, but not closely. 

And, you do have a website. 

Plus, we all know that in a county of any size, county elections officials will post the results quickly on the county's website. 

I would have printed at normal time. 

Do we need the Fairness Doctrine back?

I don’t know exactly what California Congresswoman has in mind to replace the old Fairness Doctrine, killed in 1987. But, contrary to MSLBs who insist we’ve moved far beyond its days, due to the wonderments of the Internet, I disagree.

First, there’s no guarantees about what the future of the Internet will be, vis-à-vis Net Neutrality and other issues.

Second, folks like Steve Benen spin this out from the viewpoint of the left-hand side of the two-party duopoly, instead of looking at additional viewpoints beyond its left and right hands that need protecting.

For example, wouldn’t it be great for a socialist — a REAL one, and not you, Sen. Bernie Sanders — to have had access to the airwaves to talk about the lenders’ bailout?

Third, despite some shrinkage on traditional network TV, the cable news networks continue to grow. And, a network, whether old-time broadcast like NBC, newer cable like CNN, or newer yet cable-Net fusion like MSNBC, still has cachet that some third-party or fourth-viewpoint website doesn’t.

Unfortunately, it is 20 years too late. As the comments on the Press Club blog post show, 20 years of a free ride for Rush and dittoheads mean that they're cluelessly infantile about the First Amendment, among other things, as the Fairness Doctrine clearly WAS constitutional.

I’m not saying we need the same Fairness Doctrine today, but we need something. We don’t often get a lot of TRULY different information out of the left and right hands of the two-party duopoly and its emissaries and most people don't even know of something like Pacifica.

The Iranian philosopher Idries Shah says there are never just two sides two an issue. But, a real FD would protect the three or more sides.