If the UK can do it....why the hell can't we?

[melm00se]

121. That would be no for many reasons...

The days of the Fairness Doctrine are long gone and any attempt to reinstate it will not survive a Supreme Court challenge.

Way back when the Fairness Doctrine existed, the media landscape was so very different. With the exception of major markets, there were really only 3 TV networks (ABC, NBC and CBS), radio was limited to AM only which meant maybe a dozen or so stations and that...was...it.

It was this environment (the "scarcity of...frequencies" ) that allowed the Fairness Doctrine to pass Constitutional muster.

Now, let's fast forward to today:

The average American consumer has access to not only ABC, NBC and CBS (as well as local Fox affiliates) but also to a myriad of other news outlets from cable/satellite TV. On top of that, there are countless podcasts, blogs, streaming only services plus even more newspapers and magazines from around the globe with just as many differing points of view. Because of this, the "scarcity of...frequencies" justification no longer exists.

Furthermore, the FCC has zero licensure power over non-over-the-air outlets (which includes Fox News) so what is the FCC going to do? Say "Stop...or I shall say "Stop" again"?

Now, of course there could be an attempt to expand the FCC's scope but that could very easily blow up in supporters' faces. Take DU as an example. DU could be categorized as a news outlet which would mean that this new "Fairness Doctrine" would be applied. Do you really want to see Freepers having a legal right to be able to post here?

I have thought quite a bit on this topic and come to the conclusion that the only real solution would be to rollback the media ownership rules back to the days of 7-7-7 ownership rules but that would have some serious hurdles.