Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: They keep talking to "Former Qanon", " Trump voter", "Proud Boy" [View all]SunSeeker
(58,297 posts)24. I was using "press" as a generic term. Fairness Doctrine did apply to TV & radio (broadcast media).
It applied to broadcast licensees. TV now can put a microphone to a RWNJ and is not required to give the other side (i.e. truth) equal time.
The demise of the Fairness Doctrine played a huge role in fomenting the rise of right wing radio and right wing propaganda in general.
A policy of the Federal Communications Commission beginning in 1949, the doctrine was based on the notion that the television networks were public trustees. Licensed by the federal government, they ought to serve the entire nation, the argument went, by airing competing perspectives on controversial issues. While the policy had been intended to foster a full and fair debate, in practice it led networks to avoid employing anchors or reporters with obvious biases and to play most issues down the middle.
Conservatives never liked the rule. As explained by historian Nicole Hemmer, who is also a co-editor of The Washington Posts historical analysis section, Made by History, an entire generation of conservatives believed that objectivity privileged the liberal establishment because the default views of most broadcasters aligned with those of the Democratic Party. Some local radio hosts flouted the rule by taking aggressively conservative stances on air, only to find the courts forcing their stations to provide equal time to the other side of the debate. When one right-wing radio host in Pennsylvania tried to discredit journalist Fred Crook by describing him as a potential communist, among other things, Crook asked for equal airtime. The Red Lion Broadcast Co. denied the request, but Crook took his case all the way to the Supreme Court and prevailed.
...
In 1987, the FCC announced that it would no longer enforce the Fairness Doctrine. The commission deemed that the expansion of cable television technology made old arguments about the scarcity of airtime irrelevant and that the doctrine inhibited broadcasters from tackling controversial issues. Reagans FCC promptly killed it. The Democratic Congress tried to restore the doctrine, but Reagan vetoed the bill.
Almost overnight, the media landscape was transformed. The driving force was talk radio. In 1960, there were only two all-talk radio stations in America; by 1995, there were 1,130. While television news on the old networks and the cable upstart CNN still adhered to the standard of objectivity, radio emerged as a wide-open landscape.
Conservatives never liked the rule. As explained by historian Nicole Hemmer, who is also a co-editor of The Washington Posts historical analysis section, Made by History, an entire generation of conservatives believed that objectivity privileged the liberal establishment because the default views of most broadcasters aligned with those of the Democratic Party. Some local radio hosts flouted the rule by taking aggressively conservative stances on air, only to find the courts forcing their stations to provide equal time to the other side of the debate. When one right-wing radio host in Pennsylvania tried to discredit journalist Fred Crook by describing him as a potential communist, among other things, Crook asked for equal airtime. The Red Lion Broadcast Co. denied the request, but Crook took his case all the way to the Supreme Court and prevailed.
...
In 1987, the FCC announced that it would no longer enforce the Fairness Doctrine. The commission deemed that the expansion of cable television technology made old arguments about the scarcity of airtime irrelevant and that the doctrine inhibited broadcasters from tackling controversial issues. Reagans FCC promptly killed it. The Democratic Congress tried to restore the doctrine, but Reagan vetoed the bill.
Almost overnight, the media landscape was transformed. The driving force was talk radio. In 1960, there were only two all-talk radio stations in America; by 1995, there were 1,130. While television news on the old networks and the cable upstart CNN still adhered to the standard of objectivity, radio emerged as a wide-open landscape.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/17/how-policy-decisions-spawned-todays-hyperpolarized-media/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
68 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
They can't resist the freak show and are acting as a twitter substitute for trump now
PSPS
Jan 2021
#3
Crazy gets the clicks and eyeballs, normal doesn't. That's the problem with a for-profit press/med.
SunSeeker
Jan 2021
#6
I was using "press" as a generic term. Fairness Doctrine did apply to TV & radio (broadcast media).
SunSeeker
Jan 2021
#24
It's the "crazies" who have benefited from the demise of the Fairness Doctrine.
SunSeeker
Jan 2021
#67
Camera crews show up for car fires, not for people who are good at parallel parking
hatrack
Jan 2021
#9
Yeah, despite the presidential outcome we're inundated w/Gaetz, Cruz, Hawley and McCarthy
Cozmo
Jan 2021
#46
They did the same thing with Trump v. Hillary voters...they're slow learners!
Karadeniz
Jan 2021
#12
On CNN and MSNBC, it seems to be the daytime programmers who keep bombarding us with
Karadeniz
Jan 2021
#26
And that's how we get a Trump Presidency: low information voters soaked in piles of marginal ...
marble falls
Jan 2021
#13
The spoiled brat-child RepubliCONs are throwing tantrums and the media says "Ooo shiny!" . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Jan 2021
#20
I agree, I get sick of interviews of the whackos who keep us from having nice things. Or just a
Nitram
Jan 2021
#34
We who read newspapers already know the answer to that. Intelligent informed people
Nitram
Jan 2021
#43
They shape the narrative for each other. Are they doing that via the Washington Post? When you read
Nitram
Jan 2021
#47
yep this confirms my contention that the media always talks to the conservate
AllaN01Bear
Jan 2021
#53