Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

Ever notice how politicians scurry around like cockroaches when the light shines on them? First we had BCRA which was supposed to take Big Money™ out of politics. The policians had already figured out how to bypass that before it was ever really considered, so it was a non-starter as far as reform is concerned. And when small-money ways of expressing support of or opposition to candidates made inroads, politicians and bureaucrats looked to quash that vehicle, too.

Now a politician wants to return to the Media Dark Ages and reinstitute a fairness doctrine for all electronic media. Rep. Louise Slaughter, a Democrat from New York, has lined up such luminaries as Charlie Rangel and Dennis Kucinich to co-sponsor her bill. And there is now a web site dedicated to its passage, with an online petition which has garnered 5850 signatures thus far.

We once had a Fairness Doctrine which required television stations and networks to provide equal time to all candidates. It was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. Court of Appeals in 1986, primarily because it was a rule instituted by the FCC rather than a law (sound familiar?). Slaughter apparently feels a law would pass judicial muster. So do many others.

Bill Moyers and The Pioneer of Progressive Talk are all over this. So is Media Matters, who take issue even with liberal media:

But after reading the magazine’s nearly 6,000-word profile of Coulter, readers still don’t know the real Ann Coulter. They don’t know the real Ann Coulter because Time carefully hid her from view, glorifying her legal work, whitewashing her habitual lies, and downplaying her — at best — grossly inappropriate rhetoric.

I haven’t read the article, but I’m sure Time fawned all over Ann Coulter.

AlterNet thinks it’s “Time for a Digital Fairness Doctrine” because those nasty Swift Boat Vets wanted to air their concerns about the Democratic candidate for President:

The debate on Sinclair Broadcasting’s plans to air an anti-John Kerry documentary on its 62 stations underscores the need for new national safeguards for the electronic media in the U.S. Policies that ensure that digital media – including cable, satellite, and the broadband Internet – have an obligation to provide diverse viewpoints are more necessary than ever.

I keep writing about the latest FEC rulemaking proposals and the move in Congress to “exempt” the internet from such intrusions, but few others seem to be. Now we have Congress trying to resurrect a bad rule by making it law. Where do they come up with the sense that media “have an obligation to provide diverse viewpoints”?

All the sponsors are Democrats. Do you think there is a reason for this? Aren’t the Democrats always telling us how they support and defend the rights of all Americans?

Talk. Right now they’re upset because people actually criticize them and they have no rebuttal except to whine about people being mean to them. Perhaps they should try and develop some kind of reasoned policy.

Nah. Too hard.

I am a fan of his, and pay close attention to his analysis of political issues. His article today, which touches on his personal life, speaks volumes:

What’s dismaying is the knee-jerk tendency among liberals and conservatives to rush so passionately to one side or the other in this case. It has more to do with winning the culture war than helping Terri Schiavo, whose fate should rest on medical fact, not political posturing.

Mort lived through this with his own wife. And I would beg each of you to read what he has to say about Terri and ask yourself the tough questions he does.