General Discussion

brooklynite

(96,882 posts)

19. "We never had anything like, say, a fairness doctrine, that worked reasonably well"

Thu Aug 11, 2022, 10:30 AM

Aug 2022

No it didn't in the way you imagine it.

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to local broadcast TV and radio stations; not to networks and never to cable. And it never resulted in robust "alternative viewpoints" being presented to the audience at times they were listening.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

As we hear the volume of right-wing calls for violence in "defense" of tfg, I don't believe it is [View all] Atticus Aug 2022 OP

They really should be pre-emptive about this (I imagine they are) elias7 Aug 2022 #1

What kind of legislation? MarineCombatEngineer Aug 2022 #2

Disclaimers when non-news stations pass themselves off as news stations. Scrivener7 Aug 2022 #4

That's not true at all MarineCombatEngineer Aug 2022 #5

*Sigh.* I never said they DID say they were entertainment, now did I? Scrivener7 Aug 2022 #6

Sorry, I read your post wrong, MarineCombatEngineer Aug 2022 #7

That's nice for you. No one is suggesting any curtailment of their right to say anything. Scrivener7 Aug 2022 #8

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. MarineCombatEngineer Aug 2022 #9

Yes, but just to be clear, if your position is that this would violate the 1A and Scrivener7 Aug 2022 #10

There are exceptions, though, wnylib Aug 2022 #22

Yes, very narrow exceptions. MarineCombatEngineer Aug 2022 #23

The 1A is being used as cover for nationally broadcasted seditious propaganda. hadEnuf Aug 2022 #36

And that's even worse... brooklynite Aug 2022 #11

Thank you. MarineCombatEngineer Aug 2022 #14

Yes, just terrible. Because there is no way we could ever set it up to prevent that. Scrivener7 Aug 2022 #16

"We never had anything like, say, a fairness doctrine, that worked reasonably well" brooklynite Aug 2022 #19

LOL. A) It applied to broadcast licenses. Networks had broadcast licenses. Scrivener7 Aug 2022 #21

"Networks had broadcast licenses." brooklynite Aug 2022 #29

OK. So you ARE saying that we cannot label the destructive misinformation Scrivener7 Aug 2022 #31

Yes, I'm saying that, and that's a good thing. brooklynite Aug 2022 #32

OK. So we're back to this: I'm not suggesting anything that limits their Scrivener7 Aug 2022 #34

Here's another angle: Fox news pushed Ivermectin hard as a cure for Covid. Scrivener7 Aug 2022 #39

The networks each were allowed at the time 6 Owned & Operated stations. Gidney N Cloyd Aug 2022 #48

More likely that Timothy McVeigh types will do things Effete Snob Aug 2022 #3

they will scream and yell and demand... Javaman Aug 2022 #12

+100. nt MarineCombatEngineer Aug 2022 #15

I think that this view is either wnylib Aug 2022 #27

The hard right has never been so close to achieving dominating power in the government as they hadEnuf Aug 2022 #40

Agree. It is a grave mistake if we become complacent about them. wnylib Aug 2022 #45

As we hear LW calls for violence and "shoot to kill..." Hortensis Aug 2022 #13

Insurrectionists must be shot dead. dalton99a Aug 2022 #17

We can start by calling it terrorism IronLionZion Aug 2022 #18

I think we need to get serious about a domestic terrorism law, slightlv Aug 2022 #28

Perhaps a House Un-American Activities Committee? That worked well the last time. brooklynite Aug 2022 #33

Or perhaps a "There are fine people on both sides" committee so we don't offend Atticus Aug 2022 #37

In what way would having a law against domestic terrorism be like HUAC? Scrivener7 Aug 2022 #41

Because it gives the next Republican President the ability to tag opposition as "domestic terrorism" brooklynite Aug 2022 #42

All your arguments seem to be based on the notion that Scrivener7 Aug 2022 #44

I questioning WHY we have to "do something" brooklynite Aug 2022 #47

I thought "We don't have a domestic terrorism crisis---" was just misguided, but then you Atticus Aug 2022 #50

Wow. Again, that's bonkers. Scrivener7 Aug 2022 #51

But the January 6th committee is doing alright... DemocraticPatriot Aug 2022 #57

I expect no mobs. malthaussen Aug 2022 #20

So, you'd let them burn the Capitol as long as they evacuated the building first and no Atticus Aug 2022 #38

Oh, come on, I'm not playing false dichotomy hypothetical games. n/t malthaussen Aug 2022 #54

Really? nt Atticus Aug 2022 #55

WLW radio is reporting 71 is closed Aerator Aug 2022 #24

They got lucky on their first attack. Some of their ducks lined up for them cutroot Aug 2022 #25

The venn diagram for "reasonable viewers" Danascot Aug 2022 #26

The war on terror crud Aug 2022 #30

I approve this message Traildogbob Aug 2022 #35

You want the President to announce a crisis that doesn't exist. brooklynite Aug 2022 #43

Did not say Traildogbob Aug 2022 #49

The volume you hear Baggies Aug 2022 #46

Fair enough. It doesn't hurt to have a plan in place ecstatic Aug 2022 #52

We have a new sheriff in town. Deadly force will be authorized pwb Aug 2022 #53

1/6 BidenRocks Aug 2022 #56

I completely agree. BobTheSubgenius Aug 2022 #58