D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
In theory it sounds like a good idea, but in practice there's no such real thing as "fairness" or "equal time" in politics. Any thoughts?

 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Thanks for finding that article from 1½ years ago. It neatly explains just what the Fairness Doctrine was and wasn't. And it summarizes it's history.
Today the Fairness Doctrine is even less plausible as a ready-made solution for solving modern media problems. For starters, it pertained only to broadcast media, so extending it to cable outlets would require an entirely new regulatory framework. And it’s unfathomable to strictly apply it to social media platforms for numerous legal and practical reasons.
The Fairness Doctrine was aimed, more than 70 years ago, at radio broadcast media, but soon also included TV. It wasn't revised to cover cable news outlets, much less internet news. It was argued that before the numerous cable TV news outlets existed, the three nation-wide network TV broadcasters required regulations for fairness. This was incorrect IMO. Cable TV or internet news may use different technology than broadcast TV or radio, but they are no different in concept. They all produce news and opinion articles about current events. This will require revised laws expanding the FCC's authority from broadcast airwaves to internet/cable. This is now being intensely debated.

The FCC also regulated how many local TV or radio stations a single news media company (broadcast or print) could own. I'm not sure if this was part of the Fairness Doctrine or an independent FCC rule. It was aimed at preventing a news monopoly from forming. During the 1980s, this rule was also ended as part of right-wing conservatives effort to overturn federal regulations that they disliked. It allowed news media corporations, such as Faux News, to gobble up many local stations around the country – local newspapers too. While Republicans smiled approvingly, claiming they opposed all business regulations, this allowed such monsters as Faux News to become unregulated outlets of political propaganda and lies. Unsurprisingly, it was almost entirely GOP political propaganda and lies.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
My thinking was in a group setting they only put on the weak guest. The Five has their guy, can't remember his name. CNN had Rick Santorum on when Trump was in office, and that's a rather easy one especially in the Trump era where there's a whole lot examples to use.

About the only real way to have a two-sided debate is with a moderator and online in text only. That way hyperbole is limited, and you're asked specific questions. Even then I'm not sure as it's easy to drift off topic. Shows like Crossfire wouldn't cut it because it just becomes a shouting match.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
From the link, be interested in knowing why Reagan vetoed a proposal on it?
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top