@ Jester, you are correct if you say that everyone is free to create a blog. But I think not everyone able to read a blog has the wherewithal, it terms of knowledge, ability, time, resources etc. to make a blog off the bat in response to criticism, deserved or not. Comments provide an avenue for immediate response.

No doubt, it will be a big financial burden on the part of media if the right of reply is mandated. It will not only cut into their profits, it may even drive the smaller players out of business. As you pointed out, the law of unintended consequences will come into play, with all its unforeseen and devilish outcomes.

@ Pedestrian Observer, it will very likely be a very profitable opportunity for all the hired guns ready to sell their talents to the highest bidder. But there will always be those who will fight for the truth.

That said, I personally think the right of reply is a terrible idea and will only play into the hands of politcos and other scalawags, as PO GB puts it. Just that I perceive a hint of smug self-righteousness in the arguments being put forward by the MSM (they know the right to reply bill will not be passed in the face of nearly universal condemnation ) and I wanted to rattle their cages a bit if I’m able to.

in contrast with the blogosphere, it is the cost of production where i think MSM’s opposition lies, in that there would be financial reverses due to having to provide the right-to-reply airtime or column inches.

that said, i think your argument above can be persuasive. why not institutionalize fairness? why not, indeed?

(of course, we have to consider the Law of Unintended Consequences. )

“Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider. Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously; and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Some books also may be read by deputy, and extracts made of them by others; but that would be only in the less important arguments, and the meaner sort of books, else distilled books are like common distilled waters, flashy things. Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man. – francis bacon”

imho, the best “regulation” is a person’s ability to weigh and consider, to discern. I find people seem to do less and less of that (myself included). people should have the opportunity to read or see or listen and think for themselves, that’s full of crap or hey, that’s great. imho it isn’t government’s duty to impose what content should be, even if it means “fair play” or absence thereof.