- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 55
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I think it is time to update and reinstate the FCC fairness doctrine ... warts and all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
Update it how?I think it is time to update and reinstate the FCC fairness doctrine ... warts and all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
Good point ... not sure. But without it the nation is spiraling into the same McCarthyism like Mania which caused the birth of the Fairness Doctrine to begin with....Update it how?
I hope you are wrong, but you may be right. We need it back!There's no point.
Conservatives and Republicans screamed bloody murder when the FD was in place.
Now that it's gone, they are still screaming bloody murder. Even the media outlets that back Republicans 99% of the time aren't sufficiently loyal enough, as we saw after the 2020 election.
Okay.Good point ... not sure. But without it the nation is spiraling into the same McCarthyism like Mania which caused the birth of the Fairness Doctrine to begin with....
Of course. Your side can't win arguments so you need the government to use force against your opponents.I think it is time to update and reinstate the FCC fairness doctrine ... warts and all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
Liberals are ideologically much more diverse than American conservatives and do not really like talk radio, so what is the point of the fairness doctrine? Talk radio is dominated by the right because there is a market for it.I think it is time to update and reinstate the FCC fairness doctrine ... warts and all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
No need? I'd say the country tearing itself apart creates an imperative ... maybe this: "Media reform organizations such as Free Press feel that a return to the Fairness Doctrine is not as important as setting stronger station ownership caps and stronger "public interest" standards enforcement (with funding from fines given to public broadcasting)" - quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrineThere is no need
I should add better antitrust enforcement too. Fairness doctrine will just get their loonies on sane broadcasts.No need? I'd say the country tearing itself apart creates an imperative ... maybe this: "Media reform organizations such as Free Press feel that a return to the Fairness Doctrine is not as important as setting stronger station ownership caps and stronger "public interest" standards enforcement (with funding from fines given to public broadcasting)" - quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
Update so you can’t talk about elections until 4 months before the election.
What nonsense.I think the main problem now is that conservatives don't want balance and view it as part of the loony left.
Anything Left of Hannity is now loony left and the centre doesn't exist any more.
The only news they accept has a hard right slant and even just reporting facts as they happen is suspect if it doesn't come with right wing talking points.
It's how they can complain about someone simply reporting the events of the day as part of the hated MSM and not to be trusted. Remember you shouldn't trust your eyes, just what Fox or Trump tells you what's happening.
Okay.
I disagree with you.
Back in the 80's, people were limited in their sources of news and opinion. Broadcast and print media. Nowadays, those limits are gone. Cable and the internet essentially makes anyone in the world a news source. There is no need for the government to declare any source must abide by "fairness standards". Consumers can pick the standards they want for themselves.
And that's why it's a good thing that there are so many choices.But surely there is a difference between what people want to hear and actual information. Sometimes information is not something people want to hear or deal with, and they will just switch to a channel that entertains them more and tells them what they want to hear instead. Truth is not always popular or even entertaining. In fact, it seldom is. Sometimes it’s just boring and can’t get the ratings.
Okay. You seems to now be talking about something different. There's a difference between "the news" and "history". The Fairness Doctrine doesn't apply to history.I remember a few decades ago the history channel had all sorts of very interesting (at least to me) shows on the history of everything from the Roman Republic and Alexander the Great to the English Civil War to the Persian Empire and the Han dynasty in China. It was incredibly educational to listen to it. But I guess it was not getting the ratings. So what do they have now? It’s almost all about UFO hunters, for crying out loud- because that’s what people want to hear.
History is just the news of yesterday.And that's why it's a good thing that there are so many choices.
Okay. You seems to now be talking about something different. There's a difference between "the news" and "history". The Fairness Doctrine doesn't apply to history.
That’s exactly what a propagandist would say!Okay.
I disagree with you.
Back in the 80's, people were limited in their sources of news and opinion. Broadcast and print media. Nowadays, those limits are gone. Cable and the internet essentially makes anyone in the world a news source. There is no need for the government to declare any source must abide by "fairness standards". Consumers can pick the standards they want for themselves.
Or manipulative narratives. That’s what they’re protecting. That’s why they scream when someone gets booted off some social media site. They want their vectors, especially the free ones that turn into distribution networks.History is just the news of yesterday.
The distinction is between the popularity of facts vs entertainment. Entertainment will win in the ratings- every time.
But if you want a well-informed public, which is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, there has to be some reason for places that call themselves “the news” to offer the public something other than just what they want to hear or entertainment.
Not it's not, if people don't study history, they will repeat itHistory is just the news of yesterday.
The distinction is between the popularity of facts vs entertainment. Entertainment will win in the ratings- every time.
But if you want a well-informed public, which is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, there has to be some reason for places that call themselves “the news” to offer the public something other than just what they want to hear or entertainment.
The left's application of the left's idea of fairness doctrine to history the left generates inaccurate 'history' such as the 1619 Project.And that's why it's a good thing that there are so many choices.
Okay. You seems to now be talking about something different. There's a difference between "the news" and "history". The Fairness Doctrine doesn't apply to history.
They miss the good old days when they controlled the media 100%,The left's application of the left's idea of fairness doctrine to history the left generates inaccurate 'history' such as the 1619 Project.
Everything is propaganda. But having choices of news sources minimizes the effects of the propaganda. That's called freedom of speech.That’s exactly what a propagandist would say!
We must be free to manipulate unchallenged!
They do miss it, and they still do,but their death grip on the media is, thankfully, slipping.They miss the good old days when they controlled the media 100%,
Fairness doctrine did on paper, but what they don't want to tell you, stations would just drop them, everyone knows the left doesn’t listen to news and politics on the radio, they like 15 second sound bites and headlines to form an opinionEverything is propaganda. But having choices of news sources minimizes the effects of the propaganda. That's called freedom of speech.
It's against the Constitution to have the government step in and demand that news sources provide specific points of view.