Over at The American Prospect, Tim Fernholz says that conservative complaints over the New York Times’ refusal to publish a draft of an op-ed by John McCain is “rank hypocrisy” because conservatives also support the revocation of the “Fairness Doctrine.” That law, repealed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan and one which many liberals wish to restore, required broadcasters to provide equal time to proponents on all sides of political issues. (This piece by John Fund accurately shows why the law violated the First Amendment.)

The law’s being scrapped eventually gave rise to conservative talk radio and Fox News. And liberal attempts to combat such conservative media — like Air America — have failed. Hence their perpetual effort to reinstate an Orwellian regulation that would tell privately-owned media outlets how to operate. “It really just provides for reasonable discussion of views, but the Right demagogues the issue to raise money and keep Rush Limbaugh on the air unopposed,” Fernholz writes. (“Provide for reasonable discussion of views” is a nice euphemism for “government censorship.”)

But there’s nothing “hypocritical” about criticizing the Times’ refusal to print the McCain op-ed and simultaneously opposing the Fairness Doctrine. While Fernholz permits that “The FCC’s regulation wouldn’t affect a print newspaper,” he seems to be missing the bigger picture. There is a clear difference–one that he apprently can’t discern–between the government ordering a private media entity to cover news and opinion in a certain way and a presidential campaign complaining about what it believes to be unfair coverage. No conservatives I’ve read are saying that the government should tell the Times what to print–a fact which undermines completely Fernholz’s charges of hypocrisy.