Imagine if for every song by The Rolling Stones a radio station played, it had to play a song by the Cherry Poppin’ Daddies to balance it out. Radio stations’ ratings would plummet, as neither fans of classic rock nor swing music would be willing to sit through the songs they disliked, and would flip through stations until they found something more suitable.

Although this situation may be deemed absurd, it is actually not too far off-base from what has happened in the past, and what could happen the future. It will infringe on political commentary being shared via radio conversations if reenacted.

In 1949, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) enacted a regulation called the Fairness Doctrine to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.” In other words, listeners tuned in to political talk radio had the equivalent of hearing both The Rolling Stones and the Cherry Poppin’ Daddies when they really only wanted to hear one. It was justly abolished in 1987, but there is constant chatter in Washington debating its possible revival. The Fairness Doctrine should stay defunct, because the FCC has no right and no responsibility to control what kind of opinions are exposed through the mass media. Attaining balance in the media and giving equal time to share different perspectives on government policy and current events sound like great ideas. However, actual bias in the media comes primarily in which stories a news outlet chooses to run or not run, which details are included or left out and the general tone of the broadcast or article. These freedoms cannot and should not be regulated. Therefore, arbitrarily targeting radio and imposing “fairness” in radio broadcasting doesn’t solve the root of the problem: biased reporters.

Studies coupled with pieces by journalists of noted publications including The Washington Post and Newsweek admitting a liberal bias have been published. According to a Rasmussen poll from last September, 69 percent of voters believed that reporters tried to help their favorite presidential candidate, and by nearly a five-to-one margin the voters thought that reporters were advocating for President Obama by giving him more positive publicity. A whopping 86 percent of Republicans thought that the media favored Obama.

Radio is essentially another entertainment industry. Talk radio is designed to supplement news stories and provide entertainment and sometimes some laughs, not be the news. It is nonsensical to regulate entertainment.

The potential reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is more than just a liberal versus conservative quibble. Americans, or anyone else tuning in on their radio, should be able to hear what they want to hear when they want to hear it. If that means listening to conservative Rush Limbaugh, fine. If it means tuning in to liberal Ed Schultz, that’s fine too. The bottom line is that people should be able to choose what political perspectives they tune in to just as they can with their music. Shoving show hosts off the air to make room for others in the name of fairness is, ironically, government censorship. Let the people choose what media will flourish and what will not.

Former President John F. Kennedy once said, “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” So the question remains: what exactly is our government afraid of?