From Townhall, Rich Galen has some good comments.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Ca) said on Sunday that she thought it would be a good idea if the Congress would pass a law bringing back what used to be known as "The Fairness Doctrine."

First some history to understand 'what' the Fairness Doctrine is, or more accurately,  what it was.

On Fox News Sunday this past weekend, Feinstein, according to Broadcasting & Cable Magazine said that "talk radio is one-sided and 'explosive.' She said it 'pushes people, I think, to extreme views without a lot of information.'"

Which sounds much like she's describing the Senate Floor debate on the immigration bill, but maybe that's just me.

The basic law covering the use of radio waves in the United States - including everything from radar to your local disc jockey - is built on the Communications Acts of 1934 and 1937 which, in turn, were based on the Radio Act of 1927.

Part of those laws included Section 315 which provided for equal time - or more precisely - equal opportunity for all legally qualified candidates for public office.

This was back in the time when newspapers were openly partisan. It was not at all unusual to have one newspaper in Upper Iguana named the UI Democrat; and another named the Republican Iguanian. And they really were partisan.

Because there are a finite number of licenses available for AM, FM and Television broadcasting it was decided that if a radio station made time available for sale to candidate A in the race for City Council, it had to make the same amount of time available at the same rates to Candidate B.

If Candidate B was underfunded, there was no requirement that the station give him time to match what Candidate A bought; merely that Candidate B have the same opportunity.

In the way of Washington, the FCC later determined that it was not enough to afford reasonable opportunities for such discussions, but the stations had an obligation to "actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues."

This was not a law but a regulation of the FCC. Came the Reagan era and deregulation was all the rage. On of the regulations which was dee'd was the Fairness Doctrine.

Now for a look at bringing it back into play:

Twice Democrat-controlled Congress tried to pass a law re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine, twice it was vetoed - once by President Reagan and once by President George H.W. Bush.

And here is a critical bit, a realistic understand of what Radio is and why this won't work.

The realities of broadcasting are: The market tends to work. If a local radio station thinks it will get better ratings (more people listening, hence higher ad rates, hence more income) by airing Rush Limbaugh, then will rush Rush to air.

If it thinks it will make its numbers by airing Air America, then it is free to do that.

The Fairness Doctrine would, in effect, require a station airing Limbaugh to air a Liberal talk show for the same amount of time. There is no requirement on the listeners to hang around, however, so it is likely that higher ad rates will be paid for Limbaugh than for Ben Mankiewicz on Air America.

That is the key point that the liberals hate to admit:  Liberal talk radio is not as popular.  Hate it all you want, that is reality.

But more telling is the fact that this continues to be an issue that only focuses on radio, and not on newspapers, magazines or television.

The fact is that all of these mediums are biased and have preferences and no one is crying wolf at them, since they tend to swing to the liberal side.

In effect, there is balance.  The conservatives may dominate the radio dials, but not the TV or the newspapers.

And unless liberals are going to allow fairness there, this is a concept that needs to die.

Speaking of local talk radio, here is a snap shot on what is on and what I listen to typically.  I focus on the major three talk radio stations:  710 KIRO, 570 KVI and 770 KTTH, with my picks in bold.

So why?

First of all, Kirby has  good show but Sytman and Boze have a good cross talk that seems to resonate with me better then Kirby bellowing about various issues.

At 9, John Carlson and Ken Schram have what can be the most entertaining and equally most frustrating program.  Ken is a liberal who leans to the middle a bit, and though he runs very liberal on a lot of obvious issues (gay rights, abortion), occasionally his common sense gets the better of him and he takes a reasoned logical position.  His partner, John Carlson is solid republican who is rarely out of lockstep, but who also has been known to show some surprising sense.  It is frustrating generally when Ken starts bellowing like a stuck pig over something minor and you just can't help but call in.  But be warned, Ken is not afraid of the truth, he just ignores it a lot.  But I admit, they have me hooked.  Surprisingly they offer a fairly good balance, but they need me on the show to act as the buffer between the blowhards.  When I call in I often take both their arguments and find the truth in the middle.

At noon, I like Michael Medved over Sean Hannity.  While I do like Hannity, he does tend to move too fast over some issues and he loses me when he jumps to conclusions.  Medved I admire for not being afraid to take on his haters directly and respectfully.

Between 1 and 3 I waver between Medved and Dori Monson.  Dori is the token moderate/conservative on liberal KIRO, but more then that he is a solid thinker and shows reason and logic in his positions which are quite libertarian.  He is also very compassionate.

3-6 belongs solidly to Bryan Suits.  Bryan is a conservative centrist who also values logic and reason, but coats it with a generous dollop of humour and sarcasm.  My coworker and I listen and howl at his comments.  His one liners and quick jabs are brilliant.  But more importantly he is by far the most rational and common sense voice on local radio, and the one show I look forward to the most.  He is also a gracious host, as I found out when I was a guest on his show.  Ask him about his horse, Purina.  I first heard him years ago on KIRO, and followed him when he moved to KVI.

He is also an Iraq War veteran who actually earned his purple heart.

After 6 is disappointing.  We used to have hothead liberals like Mike Webb (has anyone seen the man lately  his parole officer is concerned…) and Erin Hart on KIRO, both whom were notoriously Bush haters and brought liberal vitriol long before the advent of Air America.  They were fun in their outrageousness, and I used to enjoy calling into to their shows to disagree, but to do so calmly and rationally, and refusing to be baited.  They both loved to insult and bait their guests and then hang up on you, but when faced with a reasoned calm argument, they had to settle for mild insults.

Now we have the Ron and Don show, which has its fun moments, and New York Vinnie and his sports talk, which is also informative but I am not a huge sports geek.. 

On KVI and KTTH we have Mark Levin and Michael Savage, neither of which I can stomach for long, as both are outrageous with their hasty conclusions and rhetoric. 

KTTH follows Savage with O'Reilly, but it is a replay so you cannot call, and thats half the fun.  Lars Larson and a Rush repeat finish their day. 

KVI follows Levin with my personal least favorite show, Coast to Coast with George Noory….for 7 friggin hours, 8pm to 3 am.  Coast to Coast is a fruitcake magnet where all manner of conspiracy, supernatural and any other whack job can come out and be happy.  It stops being fun about 2 hours into it, unless they are covering alien abductions, and heck, that never gets old.  Larry Elder finishes the day.

So thats my take on the big three talk radio stations in the local area.  For what its worth.