Comment

Ally, you wrote "Reinstated and brought to the vast smorgasbord of information that is now available besides broadcast and print news." ... Ally, thanks for honestly stepping out and honestly expressing that desire. IMHO, although that broad brush certainly 'appears' to be a need / necessity in this day and age of the internet, cable news outlets, and the 24/7 news cycle, my gut tells me that's just a bridge too far. Limits on 'free speech' is problematic; and that's just one aspect of that very 'slippery slope.' This topic, being endlessly debatable is prime for our good Dr. to address. I encourage all to implore her learned input and that of sound, sober legal minds she might bring to bear on said topic. It is rightly of deep fundamental importance to not just all of us, but to our entire country and world writ largest, as it really is part and parcel of so much that's gone wrong in our country and world today. Restraining myself herein is something I try hard to do. In that spirit, I'll suffice to state that I believe there must exist legally enforceable responsibilities that are married to the exercise of free speech; most especially applicable to any broadcast business purporting to present actionable news. Broadcast news is a constitutionally 'protected', encouraged, and once vaunted / trusted essential endeavor for strong democracies. Given that weight, it must carry equal responsibilities that are legally enforceable; responsibilities and penalties should be commensurate with broadcast outreach capability - regardless of corporate or business model legalities. IMHO, the industry should carry the cost burden of policing itself, yet subject to legal oversight, again costs commensurate with broadcast potential outreach. Lest I go rambling on as I'd like to, I'll end on that note and defer to our good Dr. and her resources. Thanks again for your honesty Ally.