One tool for deep gardening to get a measure of control over the deep roots of right wing terrorism is reinstatement of a Fairness Doctrine that includes social media. Anyone know of an updated version of HR 4401?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4401/summary
One tool for deep gardening to get a measure of control over the deep roots of right wing terrorism is reinstatement of a Fairness Doctrine that includes social media. Anyone know of an updated version of HR 4401?
Just a point or two. The Fairness Doctrine applied to over-the-air broadcasting, but not to cable TV networks like CNN or Fox News or OANN. And not to the Internet. And, less important these days, to print media. So reinstating it would not affect them at all.
But it might affect some public radio and TV stations, forcing them to broadcast non-factual counter opinions.
And, would you want an FCC run by a right-wing authoritarian to make decisions about the content distributed over any and all recognizable channels?
I have not heard of a carefully-thought-out replacement.
тАЬThe report by the Congressional Research Service notes that broadcast is тАШdistinct from cable, satellite, and the Internet, which are all services for which consumers must pay. It does not appear that the Fairness Doctrine may be applied constitutionally to cable or satellite service providers,тАЩ it continues.тАЭ
Can someone spell out the constitutional distinction between public versus paid media?
I read recently that the Fairness Doctrine was based on the now-obsolete limitation on the number of airwave channels then available for broadcasting, the reasoning being that since each viewpoint was unable to have its own channel, all the channels must represent each viewpoint. That the broadcasts must be "factual" was an added bonus, possibly included to cut down on the proliferation of viewpoints.
Now, when each person can potentially have their own individualized info feed, the rationale for the Fairness Doctrine is overtaken by technological advance. Frankly, I'm not sure how it would apply to such a distributed network such as the internet anyway. Sad, because we don't seem to be doing a good job, as a society, of maintaining anything resembling informational hygiene.
A key component of the fairness doctrine was to give equal time to opinion. Today, many can no longer distinguish fact, speculation, or opinion...so itтАЩs all interpreted to be facts, which leads to RFDP.
We have warnings on cigarettes and alcohol тАЬif ur pregnant...тАЭ, and carcinogen warnings. ItтАЩs not that hard to re imagine the fairness doctrine applied to all media consumption as well is it?
Surgeon general warnings deal with science. News and commentary deal with politics and public policy, which are much more subtle and subject to interpretation (spin).
The surgeon general ones that scientific study has proven the continued consumption of opinion disguised as FAX amplified by social media can leave the Civil War and death
I believe the key distinction lies in the fact that we the public "own" the airwaves just like we own those grazing lands leased to ranchers, and therefore we have the right to ask for rent (grazing fees) from them or insist (in case of airwaves) that they not be used for purposes inimical to the public wellbeing.
We need to get our collective heads together, to figure out what a Fairness Doctrine would look like on modern technology - cable stations, social media, etc - and how to base it legally so that the result is in fact fairness not a tool for propaganda.
We need to write/call our Congress people, regardless of who they are, to advance our views. This can be done even before there are clear ideas on how to proceed, especially if sympathetic congress people will help figure out how to do it. There might actually be a right-left coalition that could be built on this one, but the devil is in the details - we want real fairness, not more lies.
If our Congress people seem hopeless, find someone to run against them who understands the value of what we are proposing.
Once we have some clear ideas, we could form an organized advocacy group to promote them.
In a separate thread, HCR reader Kimberly Kennedy posted that the Washington Post settled a $250 million lawsuit by the student portrayed as verbally berating an Omaha tribal elder, in absence of a bigger context.
Yep, Dems create a government bureau to judge the factual basis of news and commentary, and then the Republicans win some elections, and crush opposing ideas.
If we have a government bureau deciding factual basis, that is what I meant by a vehicle for propaganda that we don't want. The original Fairness Doctrine worked very well, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Republicans canned it while Reagan was president, which cleared the way for wild unchallenged falsehoods on Fox News and the current problems where massive lying about the election is now believed by the majority of Republicans because they have never heard anything else, and a significant number of people assaulted the Capitol based, at least in part, on those beliefs.
1. I don't believe Fox News was ever hampered by the Fairness Doctrine, because Fox News was always a cable and satellite channel--never an over-the-air broadcast station. Think AM and FM radio, and TV channels coming in to TV sets over rabbit ears, or rooftop antennas.
2. A counterexample: "Pravda" means "Truth" in Russian. And, Pravda was the official house organ (mouthpiece) of the government of the Soviet Union.
"As the names of the main Communist newspaper and the main Soviet newspaper, Pravda and Izvestia, meant "the truth" and "the news" respectively, a popular saying was "there's no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia".[22] However, though not highly appreciated as an objective and unbiased news source, Pravda was regarded тАУ both by Soviet citizens and by the outside world тАУ as a government mouthpiece and therefore a reliable reflection of the Soviet government's positions on various issues. The publication of an article in Pravda could be taken as indication of a change in Soviet policy or the result of a power struggle in the Soviet leadership, and Western Sovietologists were regularly reading Pravda and paying attention to the most minute details and nuances."
The UK has Ofcom, a licensing bureau that requires news be factual. Though the BBC is far from perfect and has been pushed into contorted shapes since the advent of Brexit-based discourse toxicity, it remains more reliable than nearly anything available in the US.
All right. Do you think the use of social media to flood the country with lies is just fine and dandy? If not, do you like the default condition of it being up to media CEO's to decide what is acceptable? They coddled trump's dangerous lies for a long time, only stopping after the assault on the Capitol. If you think some kind of updated Fairness Doctrine - which worked quite well in its day - is impossible to achieve in a good way, what do you think is the best way to pull this country out of its divided silos?
Both cable news and social media, along with their virtues, have been instruments of pushing this country into extreme ideas and political tribalism. It's a real problem. The point of updating the Fairness Doctrine would be to address that. Do you have some other ideas on how to do it?
The assumption that there is only one opposing viewpoint to any broadcast or piece of published information is misleading. I was on the debate team in high school. Each year there was a single proposition to be debated in the entire league. Debate teams did not find out whether they would debate the positive or the negative in a round of debating until five minutes before the round began. Consequently each team prepared a case supporting the affirmative as well as several cases for the negative, each of these exploring a different point of view on the proposition and offering a different alternative in place of it.
Thank you. ItтАЩs useful too have something concrete. Perhaps the herd, or some members thereof, can get organized around this and press their representatives to get this rule reinstated.
OK, go ahead. Re-regulate over-the-air broadcasters. Won't affect Fox News or OANN or any of many, many Internet outlets. And it might force public radio or PBS to broadcast right-wing talking points, keeping us mindful of some disastrous ideas.
A consummation devoutly to be wished. But Very Complicated, especially given that there's money to be made in "customer engagement" -- keeping eyeballs and minds connected to your brand so that you can sell advertising -- and personal data -- at higher rates.
Nowadays my information "fix" has to do with checking Twitter -- I have carefully selected who I follow -- as well as many of the more-respected national and local newspapers. And The Bulwark, and Axios, and on and on. Lucky thing I'm retired. <grin>
The problem of trumpers violence based on disinformation is clearly escalating, and their information тАЬfixтАЭ is consuming disinformation sources like Fox News & Entertainment and QAnonтАФexclusively, and for some, all day long. We know the more a falsehood is repeated, the more likely it is to be believed. So thinking out loud, drying up the source of their тАЬdrugтАЭ would be the intention of a new Fairness Doctrine.
But addressing the problem of drug and alcohol addiction has shifted from prohibition to prevention through consumer education. Food for thought.
In part, I hope that "deplatforming" their views will slow the spread of falsehoods. The other part, of course, is that they will seek other, clandestine, avenues of spreading misinformation.
My hope is that good people (there are plenty of us left, alive and kicking) will continue to find and "out" these clandestine networks. I think of the Twitter account @Parlertakes -- still active after Parler itself has been taken down.
We get your point, Bob. Many of us just wish for a way to have a common base of fact and we at least look for ways to get there. And we need to remember unintended consequences of our dreams.
I fear that the right-wingers don't want a common basis in fact. Facts are hard. Unyielding, and tricky. (Example: The days get shorter in November, but due to some oddity in the universe, sunrise is earlier for a time.) It's much more comfortable to believe that you have a More True (if unverifiable) Grasp of "Reality." That you and yours are "smarter than the average bear." That you have special knowledge. Unassailable Verities.
Contempt for others is an easy feeling. Makes people feel superior.
And, getting down to brass tacks and actually striving with someone (a Quaker term, there) to come to a common understanding can take hours, days, weeks, or longer. (Quakers seek guidance from a higher power to do this)
Thanks for your link! IтАЩm wondering if HCR may help to lead a charge? I know that other members of this community have expressed interest in moving some version of the Fairness Doctrine forward.
Including the social media would, i would think, necessarily include making them responsible for their content. You thereby open them up for prosecution should the content break the law as well as imposing "fairness" on them. To "be faire" they would need to respond to comments presenting different points of view and denounce "fake facts". Interesting.
The social media would fade out of existence as public forums and force them to change their business model. Not a bad thing!
One tool for deep gardening to get a measure of control over the deep roots of right wing terrorism is reinstatement of a Fairness Doctrine that includes social media. Anyone know of an updated version of HR 4401?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4401/summary
Just a point or two. The Fairness Doctrine applied to over-the-air broadcasting, but not to cable TV networks like CNN or Fox News or OANN. And not to the Internet. And, less important these days, to print media. So reinstating it would not affect them at all.
But it might affect some public radio and TV stations, forcing them to broadcast non-factual counter opinions.
And, would you want an FCC run by a right-wing authoritarian to make decisions about the content distributed over any and all recognizable channels?
I have not heard of a carefully-thought-out replacement.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/28/fact-check-fairness-doctrine-applied-broadcast-licenses-not-cable/6439197002/
From the USA Today article:
тАЬThe report by the Congressional Research Service notes that broadcast is тАШdistinct from cable, satellite, and the Internet, which are all services for which consumers must pay. It does not appear that the Fairness Doctrine may be applied constitutionally to cable or satellite service providers,тАЩ it continues.тАЭ
Can someone spell out the constitutional distinction between public versus paid media?
I read recently that the Fairness Doctrine was based on the now-obsolete limitation on the number of airwave channels then available for broadcasting, the reasoning being that since each viewpoint was unable to have its own channel, all the channels must represent each viewpoint. That the broadcasts must be "factual" was an added bonus, possibly included to cut down on the proliferation of viewpoints.
Now, when each person can potentially have their own individualized info feed, the rationale for the Fairness Doctrine is overtaken by technological advance. Frankly, I'm not sure how it would apply to such a distributed network such as the internet anyway. Sad, because we don't seem to be doing a good job, as a society, of maintaining anything resembling informational hygiene.
I don't know if "informational hygiene" is original from you or not but I don't care: I LOVE it!
A key component of the fairness doctrine was to give equal time to opinion. Today, many can no longer distinguish fact, speculation, or opinion...so itтАЩs all interpreted to be facts, which leads to RFDP.
RFDP = ?
Not: Request for Detailed Proposals, Rejected Firearm Deer Permit, or Recreational Fisheries Development Plan!
We have warnings on cigarettes and alcohol тАЬif ur pregnant...тАЭ, and carcinogen warnings. ItтАЩs not that hard to re imagine the fairness doctrine applied to all media consumption as well is it?
Surgeon general warnings deal with science. News and commentary deal with politics and public policy, which are much more subtle and subject to interpretation (spin).
Perhaps the times dictate a new Postion, the surgeon general of psychology /mental health/public mental health?
The surgeon general ones that scientific study has proven the continued consumption of opinion disguised as FAX amplified by social media can leave the Civil War and death
Something like that? (Leads not leave)
Really FтАЩing dumb people
LOL thanks!
Surely social media and cable are interstate commerce, and that gets regulated.
I believe the key distinction lies in the fact that we the public "own" the airwaves just like we own those grazing lands leased to ranchers, and therefore we have the right to ask for rent (grazing fees) from them or insist (in case of airwaves) that they not be used for purposes inimical to the public wellbeing.
Did you hear about the tRump administration's replacement of the Voice of America radio system leadership? Replaced with his minions I think. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/michael-pack-voice-america-biden-transition/2020/12/08/8212f630-38e7-11eb-9276-ae0ca72729be_story.html
Yes. Infuriating and sickening, like so much of his reign.
Looks like one focus for the Herd is getting the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. What are the actions we need to take? P.S. Great job this afternoon.
We need to get our collective heads together, to figure out what a Fairness Doctrine would look like on modern technology - cable stations, social media, etc - and how to base it legally so that the result is in fact fairness not a tool for propaganda.
We need to write/call our Congress people, regardless of who they are, to advance our views. This can be done even before there are clear ideas on how to proceed, especially if sympathetic congress people will help figure out how to do it. There might actually be a right-left coalition that could be built on this one, but the devil is in the details - we want real fairness, not more lies.
If our Congress people seem hopeless, find someone to run against them who understands the value of what we are proposing.
Once we have some clear ideas, we could form an organized advocacy group to promote them.
Also include what the reprisals for non compliance will be.
Joan, with u 100%
And follow the money.
In a separate thread, HCR reader Kimberly Kennedy posted that the Washington Post settled a $250 million lawsuit by the student portrayed as verbally berating an Omaha tribal elder, in absence of a bigger context.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/washington-post-sandmann-settlement-lawsuit/index.html
Yep, Dems create a government bureau to judge the factual basis of news and commentary, and then the Republicans win some elections, and crush opposing ideas.
If we have a government bureau deciding factual basis, that is what I meant by a vehicle for propaganda that we don't want. The original Fairness Doctrine worked very well, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Republicans canned it while Reagan was president, which cleared the way for wild unchallenged falsehoods on Fox News and the current problems where massive lying about the election is now believed by the majority of Republicans because they have never heard anything else, and a significant number of people assaulted the Capitol based, at least in part, on those beliefs.
1. I don't believe Fox News was ever hampered by the Fairness Doctrine, because Fox News was always a cable and satellite channel--never an over-the-air broadcast station. Think AM and FM radio, and TV channels coming in to TV sets over rabbit ears, or rooftop antennas.
Source: "The Fox News Channel (FNC) is an American basic cable and satellite news television channel...." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Fox_News)
2. A counterexample: "Pravda" means "Truth" in Russian. And, Pravda was the official house organ (mouthpiece) of the government of the Soviet Union.
"As the names of the main Communist newspaper and the main Soviet newspaper, Pravda and Izvestia, meant "the truth" and "the news" respectively, a popular saying was "there's no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia".[22] However, though not highly appreciated as an objective and unbiased news source, Pravda was regarded тАУ both by Soviet citizens and by the outside world тАУ as a government mouthpiece and therefore a reliable reflection of the Soviet government's positions on various issues. The publication of an article in Pravda could be taken as indication of a change in Soviet policy or the result of a power struggle in the Soviet leadership, and Western Sovietologists were regularly reading Pravda and paying attention to the most minute details and nuances."
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda#Soviet_period
I for one do not want a government bureaucrat deciding what things we can say, and, in particular, saying that if we say X we must also say Y.
The UK has Ofcom, a licensing bureau that requires news be factual. Though the BBC is far from perfect and has been pushed into contorted shapes since the advent of Brexit-based discourse toxicity, it remains more reliable than nearly anything available in the US.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom
All right. Do you think the use of social media to flood the country with lies is just fine and dandy? If not, do you like the default condition of it being up to media CEO's to decide what is acceptable? They coddled trump's dangerous lies for a long time, only stopping after the assault on the Capitol. If you think some kind of updated Fairness Doctrine - which worked quite well in its day - is impossible to achieve in a good way, what do you think is the best way to pull this country out of its divided silos?
Both cable news and social media, along with their virtues, have been instruments of pushing this country into extreme ideas and political tribalism. It's a real problem. The point of updating the Fairness Doctrine would be to address that. Do you have some other ideas on how to do it?
The assumption that there is only one opposing viewpoint to any broadcast or piece of published information is misleading. I was on the debate team in high school. Each year there was a single proposition to be debated in the entire league. Debate teams did not find out whether they would debate the positive or the negative in a round of debating until five minutes before the round began. Consequently each team prepared a case supporting the affirmative as well as several cases for the negative, each of these exploring a different point of view on the proposition and offering a different alternative in place of it.
Thank you. ItтАЩs useful too have something concrete. Perhaps the herd, or some members thereof, can get organized around this and press their representatives to get this rule reinstated.
OK, go ahead. Re-regulate over-the-air broadcasters. Won't affect Fox News or OANN or any of many, many Internet outlets. And it might force public radio or PBS to broadcast right-wing talking points, keeping us mindful of some disastrous ideas.
The point would be to bring the FD up to date. A difficult task to be sure, but, in good faith, doable.
A consummation devoutly to be wished. But Very Complicated, especially given that there's money to be made in "customer engagement" -- keeping eyeballs and minds connected to your brand so that you can sell advertising -- and personal data -- at higher rates.
Nowadays my information "fix" has to do with checking Twitter -- I have carefully selected who I follow -- as well as many of the more-respected national and local newspapers. And The Bulwark, and Axios, and on and on. Lucky thing I'm retired. <grin>
The problem of trumpers violence based on disinformation is clearly escalating, and their information тАЬfixтАЭ is consuming disinformation sources like Fox News & Entertainment and QAnonтАФexclusively, and for some, all day long. We know the more a falsehood is repeated, the more likely it is to be believed. So thinking out loud, drying up the source of their тАЬdrugтАЭ would be the intention of a new Fairness Doctrine.
But addressing the problem of drug and alcohol addiction has shifted from prohibition to prevention through consumer education. Food for thought.
In part, I hope that "deplatforming" their views will slow the spread of falsehoods. The other part, of course, is that they will seek other, clandestine, avenues of spreading misinformation.
My hope is that good people (there are plenty of us left, alive and kicking) will continue to find and "out" these clandestine networks. I think of the Twitter account @Parlertakes -- still active after Parler itself has been taken down.
More power to them!
We get your point, Bob. Many of us just wish for a way to have a common base of fact and we at least look for ways to get there. And we need to remember unintended consequences of our dreams.
I fear that the right-wingers don't want a common basis in fact. Facts are hard. Unyielding, and tricky. (Example: The days get shorter in November, but due to some oddity in the universe, sunrise is earlier for a time.) It's much more comfortable to believe that you have a More True (if unverifiable) Grasp of "Reality." That you and yours are "smarter than the average bear." That you have special knowledge. Unassailable Verities.
Contempt for others is an easy feeling. Makes people feel superior.
And, getting down to brass tacks and actually striving with someone (a Quaker term, there) to come to a common understanding can take hours, days, weeks, or longer. (Quakers seek guidance from a higher power to do this)
Thanks for your link! IтАЩm wondering if HCR may help to lead a charge? I know that other members of this community have expressed interest in moving some version of the Fairness Doctrine forward.
The next 2 years may be the right time.
Between HCRтАЩs day job and moonlighting, she might be otherwise engaged. But we can lead the charge for moving a new Fairness Doctrine forward.
Thank you to Angela Marie on Facebook for finding HR 4401.
Including the social media would, i would think, necessarily include making them responsible for their content. You thereby open them up for prosecution should the content break the law as well as imposing "fairness" on them. To "be faire" they would need to respond to comments presenting different points of view and denounce "fake facts". Interesting.
The social media would fade out of existence as public forums and force them to change their business model. Not a bad thing!