Glenn Logan, once a prolific blogger himself, is an EA veteran who periodically shows his talent for forceful commentary, as in his Comment of the Day finishing off the Washington Post editors with a rhetorical haymaker after I had softened up the miscreants a bit. I admire Glenn’s precision in pointing out just how disingenuous the paper’s protest over the FCC’s revitalization of the Equal Time rule, which would never have been necessary if TV “entertainment” hadn’t devolve into single party propaganda.

Here’s Glenn’s Comment of the Day on the post, “No, Washington Post Editors, THIS Is What Stephen Colbert’s Spat With CBS Is REALLY About…”

***

Consider this:

“The government shouldn’t be dictating the political content of late-night television — or of any other entertainment Americans choose to consume. But that’s exactly what the equal-time rule does. It is rooted in an entirely different technological landscape; in the early 20th century, scarce radio frequencies meant that the means of mass communication were limited. That’s why Congress saw fit to try to mandate that all candidates got a hearing.”

First of all, in its “explanation” of the Equal Time rule, the Post deliberately muddles the intent of Congress in passing it. Congress wisely (omg, did I actually write that??) thought that it would be in the public interest to prevent networks from supporting only one side of the public debate on the publicly-owned broadcast spectrum. That spectrum, last time I checked, is still publicly owned, CBS is still a lessee and the subject broadcast was supposed to air on broadcast television.

For a Leftist outlet like the Post, fairness is supposed to be perhaps the most cherished touchstone of any debate, yet because reminding its audience of the two fundamental motivations for the FCC rule — fairness and the public interest — would undermine its argument, the post just glosses over them altogether and argues by implication that freedom of entertainment choice is the most important thing.

Again, it is with sadness that I observe many people, perhaps even a majority, are so unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking that they will accept this editorial as holy writ. But make no mistake — this was a malicious, deliberately partisan and utterly facile argument, and the Post knows it.

Verdict: Deliberately and intentionally unethical.