Bad FCC / Fairness Doctrine Takes

All good except the Fairness Doctrine, the return of which would have no impact on today's media landscape.

The Flies were spot on up until the insinuation that the end of the Fairness Doctrine was what created the RW talk radio boom.

It wasn't: technology and demand was.

Let's face it: the 1st Amendment just isn't that important to some people who instead find it an inconvenient obstacle to squelching viewpoints they don't like.

The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't have impacted this an awful, since the technology that was rapidly developing in and beyond the 80s (cable, internet) wouldn't have been subject to it.

Even if it did come back, it wouldn't mandate that the rich assholes that own media outlets would have to cover specific stories. They could still ignore ones like this that make their political allies look despicable.

The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't impact ownership; you're thinking of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

The Fairness Doctrine did not prevent propaganda.

You guys got any openings for new citizens up there? 😂

You guys, look it up! There was no bias in news reporting before 1987!

It wasn't unbiased. Stations could air one-sided perspectives all week long and comply with the Fairness Doctrine with a public affairs show broadcast at 5:30 Sunday AM.

"Look it up" only works when one knows what they're talking about in the 1st place.

It would literally have no impact if it was brought back today.

Justifying more goverment control over the 1st Amendment "because FoxNews" and other right-wing garbage channels is silly.

FoxNews gets around 3 million views per day. Even as the top cable network, that's less than 1% of the American public.

It's not as influential as people think it is.

Propaganda has been "allowed to flourish" since the first days of our nation.

I wish you the best of luck with your attempt at gaining support for the necessary Constitutional amendment.

That's unenforceable.

Sure. The good people I like will make sure that liars can't tell lies, meaning that nobody bad ever gets into government again.

Voila! Problem solved!

Sure could, if 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures can agree on an amendment to change it.

Best of luck!

A Nationwide Book Ban Bill Has Been Introduced in the House of Representatives Hours after the State of the Union address, House republicans introduced legislation banning LGBTQ+ books from public schools nationwide.

And there's people who read articles like this, then come on here and say they demand the next D admin greatly expand the government's censorship power. What could go wrong?

bookriot.com/hr7661-book-...

Proving you wrong would be really, really easy. Kalendae is first in line if you want to answer their question.

a man in a green sweater is standing in front of a television with the words im in written on his chest . ALT: a man in a green sweater is standing in front of a television with the words im in written on his chest .

Ditto

I think the Fairness Doctrine would have banned Fox News, because it made sure news wasn't propaganda and both sides had to have their viewpoints equally represented.

FoxNews' Entertainment license from the FCC wouldn't allow them to do news under the fairness Doctrine.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Fact based media wasn't really the norm in the FF time, either. The newspapers were all partisan and ran scurrilous attacks on the other side and its members. And they still wanted to protect that with the 1st Amendment.

Social media is speech and/or press. What I am saying here is covered by 1A from government consequences, and it should stay that way.

Bluesky can and does set terms of use, which is OK; it's their platform. But I don't want government to shut me down for an opinion that they decide to deem a lie.

a man is laughing in front of a videomic box on a shelf ALT: a man is laughing in front of a videomic box on a shelf

Look who is mad mad mad.

I didn't lie, Tony. You blocked people who were explaining reality to you.

"I'm positive of that, therefore it's reality, and I will not allow anyone to tell me otherwise." Sorry, Tony ole boy--just following the precedent you set.

And again--if lying becomes illegal, someone is going to have to define "lie" and give consequences. That "someone" is the executive branch every single time.

It isn't good.

How is it good for guys like Trump and Elon to squelch people from calling them our on their bullshit? That's bad, too.

Give these wanna-be autocrats power and it's ripe for abuse. Only way to keep these assholes from being dictators is to not give them power to do so in 1st place.

No, I only enjoy mocking fools who block people when they are corrected on their ignorance.

And if you give government specific powers, they can't just be removed when the executive branch is controlled by people we dislike and reinstated when people we like are in charge.