REPEAT: it is the pattern of misogynism we are talking about, and the need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

freightdawg, I would never suggest that networks be forced to censor political speech, even offensive political speech, especially in times like this (election year, during wartime, etc).

But right now, the government, through the FCC, regulates speech on the public airwaves, and does it quite unevenly, based upon the offense as it is perceived by a bunch of conservative Republican middle managers and political appointees (think Katrina & Homeland Security response).

If it was necessary for the government to become involved in legislation regarding hate speech regarding race, then it certainly should be involved re: hate speech regarding gender, because it is out of control.

I think the reporter should be fired. That is wholly appropriate in corporate marketplace, and the networks are the corporate marketplace.

What other response should be made? At the very least, if I were the Clinton campaign/Hilary Clinton, once the election is past I would seriously consider filing a lawsuit to force the issue into the courts. We may need another fight up to the Supreme Court to get a new Fairness Doctrine passed into law.

And don't forget freightdawg--the law does also require that networks comply with "community standards" regarding decency issues. No one at Mudcat is a legal scholar in media law, and I have no idea where this falls on that spectrum.

But like I said, even John McCain stood up for the Dixie Chicks. Lots of people "get it" (why this is a big deal) even if you don't.