where's the "fairness" in the fairness doctrine... ?

This is a subject that's been burbling up in my subconcious, and I figure at some point I'll expound further. Meanwhile:

[Progressive talk show host Ed Schultz] correctly tells guest host Michael Smerconish that it’s not about the ratings, when Smerconish tries to dismiss the CAP report because the market decides who is successful in radio. Ed points out to Smerconish that his ratings are better than Hannity in several markets, but still can’t find more stations to carry him. Ed argues that it’s an ownership problem.

I've always chafed at the idea of a Fairness Doctrine, where government dictates by law that for every point of view expressed on-the-air, an opposing point of view must be given equal time. This is a tree in the forest of of concentrated media ownership.

A more proper and viable means for balancing that which is broadcast over the airwaves would be for Government to reverse its non-enforcement of corporate anti-trust and force Big Media to sell off their affiliate properties one-by-one until each and every one of them has no more than 1 television station, 1 radio station, and 1 newspaper in a given municipality.

This is not a "free speech" matter. Money is not speech, irrespective of the unfortunate Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo, for example, saying it was. Even so, enforcing media ownership to decentralize is a national security issue, indeed the primary means for preserving anything remotely resembling democracy, not only in America but the entire world.

Of course Hillary playing patty-cake with Rupert Murdoch leaves me considerably less than confident at the prospect she'd do the right thing if elected president.