Just to avoid the creation of any myths here, Rush Limbaugh's success did not prompt elimination of the "fairness doctrine." At the time the "fairness doctrine" was elimined in 1987, Limbaugh had a local show in Sacramento, California. The fairness doctrine was eliminated as it was determined to be an unjustified restriction of free speech. It was only later, in 1988, that Limbaugh's show moved to NY and took off.
Unlike in the era when the "Fairness Doctrine" did apply, when there were very limited broadcast media options, today there are myriad options for the public to obtain information (cable, satellite, internet, etc. with hundreds of stations and thousands of websites). There is no bona fide purpose for its imposition today.
Under this regime, at the discretion of the government enforcement officials, radio stations would have their political speech monitored for content, and fined, or have their licenses suspended or revoked, if they do not comply with government monitors' demands regarding the content of the political speech expressed. To significantly burden those stations that continue to broadcast this material, with some likely abandoning the talk radio format altogether as a result.
The clear immediate purpose is to substantially curtail and/or silence conservative political voices on AM Talk Radio that Pelosi and her ilk disagree with, after free market efforts to compete with Left/Liberal programming proved unsuccessful or only mildly successful.
The purpose, in short, is censorship.
To get a real picture of the consequences of this totalitarian interference with political speech, forum members should read the article that I cited above, that prompted this discussion. Similar principles could apply to any radio or TV outlet, including Pacifica Radio, NPR, and any number of other outlets. What constitues fairness will turn on the ideological bias of the government monitors.
