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 broadcas…
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.
“The report by the Congressional Research Service notes that broadcast is ‘distinct 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,’ it continues.”
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 it’s all interpreted to be facts, which leads to RFDP.
We have warnings on cigarettes and alcohol “if ur pregnant...”, and carcinogen warnings. It’s 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.
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:
“The report by the Congressional Research Service notes that broadcast is ‘distinct 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,’ it continues.”
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 it’s 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 “if ur pregnant...”, and carcinogen warnings. It’s 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 F’ing 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.