"I'm just saying that without checks and balances, take caution when you hear somebody talking on the tv or radio."

And I'm saying that I would NEVER trust the kind of checks and balances suggested by the Fairness Doctrine so much that I would not take caution when I hear someone talking on the radio [i]anyway[/i].

In fact, with or without regulation, I wouldn't expect ANYONE to be so naive as to think that they need not take caution when they hear someone talking on the radio ...... or when they read something in the paper, or when they read something on the internet.

In fact, that has been the soap box from which I've shouted for years now ------ I don't want ANY goddamn media to have the power to operate with a listening public that is under the illusion that they are unbiased. I do not want an unbiased media. An unbiased media is not even a possibility. All I have EVER wanted is a media that does not claim to be objective/unbiased, but rather, shows their prejudice up front -- rather than this cute little game we play now with journalists swearing to their objectivity.

And I wouldn't want a governmental agency to be able to come in and act as judge as to who represents the "balance" of opinion, should there ever be a "fairness doctrine".