'Broadcaster Freedom Act'

There was action on the Fairness Doctrine in the Senate yesterday.

As is typical of action in the Senate, the action took place within action on something else that was completely and entirely unrelated. So the action about the Fairness Doctrine actually wasn't about the Fairness Doctrine itself, and it was done on a bill that had nothing to do with communications oversight and accountability.

But we overlook and even expect this confusion because, you know, the Senate is the more deliberative body.

(And here I thought it was just because they had trouble grouping similar things together. But I digress.)

Anyway, U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) one-upped Fairness Doctrine proponents with his success in attaching the "Broadcaster Freedom Act" to a bill that would give the District of Columbia ("Taxation without Representation!") sovereignty.

SIDEBAR: Does anyone else find it ironic that D.C. is on the verge of winning its long-awaited sovereignty from Washington just as citizens in so many states are engaging in movements to reclaim the sovereignty they believe they've lost to Washington? END SIDEBAR

As U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the House sponsor, explains it:

The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints in controversial issues of public importance. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. This legislation ensures true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves ...

OK, so the "Broadcaster Freedom Act" is actually the anti-Fairness Doctrine (I'm beginning to empathize with the nomenclature problem the anti-Federalists had). It passed 87-11. More on that in a minute.

But it wasn't a clear win for DeMint. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-That-Place-Where-Roland-Burris-Is-From) managed to tack on an alternate amendment that would order the Federal Communications Commission to encourage radio ownership "diversity," according to FoxNews.com.

A DeMint aide said Durbin's measure will "impose the Fairness Doctrine through the back door by trying to break up radio ownership."

The aide called the Durbin proposal "an attempt to break up companies like Clear Channel and hurt their syndications and therefore putting many local radio stations out of business that depend on those syndicated shows for revenue."

The measure passed by a vote of 57-to-41.

OK ... someone explain this to me, please. If 87 senators oppose the Fairness Doctrine, then:

1) Why are we even talking about it like it may happen, and

2) How did the Durbin amendment get 57 votes?

Wait ... maybe I answered the first question with the second: Maybe the senators, in all their deliberative genius and with all their sophisticated legislative maneuvers, have managed to confuse themselves.