Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."
The Fairness Doctrine has been covered pretty well on talk radio, and most reasonable people have found it absurd. There are always the weak complaints about how minority opinions have a hard time finding their way on the the airwaves when it takes huge amounts of capital investment and control over scarce airwaves, but I generally grant them for the sake of discussion. However, I have a hard time seeing how a reasonable person could slip in the line about the internet alongside a comment about "monopoly" of broadcast media.
Are website domains expensive, hard to attain or otherwise scarce? How could anyone think that it could promote free speech to have the government regulate the ideas that appear on websites, even under the best circumstances with the most competent regulators? This is pretty creepy.
