Quite a Quandary

I am unsure how to react to this article. The article talks about the "Fairness Doctrine", which is (was) supposed to help ensure that news was covered "fairly", and that both points of view on a particular issue were represented. In reading the article, it was interesting to note the timeframes: The Mayflower Doctrine, which prohibited editorializing on the radio, was replaced bu the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. This was just after WWII, and coincides very closely (coincidentally?) with the rise of the Military-Industrial Complex and the notion of Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (beginning with the anti-communist issues). The next change came in 1987, when a (Reagan-appointed) FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, saying that with cable TV, there were enough media outlets to make the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary. This corresponds to the rise in the American fundamentalism and national polarization on a scale not seen before. Since, after 1987, demagogues and the like were not required to pay any attention to opposing points of view, it became much easier to polarize the listener, if one could get their message out. This leads directly to broadcaster's pandering to advertisers for their business, which further strengthens the economic stranglehold on the dissemination of information and ideas. All of this would make one think that I support the Fairness Doctrine. This is where the quandary begins. In spite of the fact that the elimination of the Mayflower and the Fairness Doctrines allows corporate America to control the news media through advertisers, I still do not think that government regulation of media outlets is necessarily a good idea. The Fairness Doctrine, specifically, leaves far too many loopholes in the rules, and is therefore useless. Imagine a situation where FOX news presents "both sides" of an issue, employing a political professor to advocate one side and Charles Manson for the other. This type of "fairness" actually makes the polarization worse, not better. I would actually be more in support of the Mayflower Doctrine, where opinion was not allowed in "news" reporting. This would obviously never be allowed, since this type of opinion reporting is the single strongest tool for controlling public opinion that currently exists (Manufacturing Consent). I also do not favor the regulation of Internet content. Internet content is the only location that currently exists for those without the funding from advertisers can publish their thoughts and interpretations of world events. The most recent law, in 1996, read that the CDA allows for fines of up to $250,000 and two years imprisonment for anyone who, "by means of a telecommunications device knowingly makes, creates, or solicits, and initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication." I don't agree with this type of legislation for reasons that are clear to anyone who has read this blog before. I'm not sure I want to go this far in allowing anything anybody wants to afford either, though. So, how do I feel about fairness in media broadcasting? I just don't know...