4 ms·
Before 1988 in the U.S. we had "equal time" laws that required that broadcast media present both sides of political debates with "equal time" for each side. Th
by cryptonector 6y ago
Before 1988 in the U.S. we had "equal time" laws that required that broadcast media present both sides of political debates with "equal time" for each side. That's because for decades there were three sources of content: ABC, CBS, and NBC. Then cable and alternative radio ended that oligopoly for a while and those laws were removed.
Now we have just a few mass media content producers and a few mass social media outlets. The situation is beginning to resemble that which existed for decades, from the 20s to the 80s, in broadcast media.
- CamperBob2 6y agoEvery individual is a "side," so the equal-time concept in broadcasting doesn't scale. It never really did, and this would only be more apparent if we tried to re-institute such a doctrine today.
- akersten 6y agoThose "equal time" laws, more collectively the Fairness Doctrine, was struck down as unconstitutional because it forced broadcasters to host speech they did not agree with. Why would we expect to be able to force Google to host speech they disagree with?
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago> "Why would we expect to be able to force Google to host speech they disagree with?" So what Google is doing with this particular epithet is fine is what you're saying? Sure hope there's no other cause that you champion that Google decides they disagree with someday.
- bosswipe 6y agoThe Fairness Doctrine was not struck down as unconstitutional by the courts, the supreme court upheld it several times. It was Reagan's FCC that unilaterally struck it down. And that led directly to the rise in prominence of right-wing talk starting with Rush Limbaugh which became the template for other right-wing broadcasts including Fox News.
- akersten 6y agoMy mistake, it was indeed undone by the FCC rather than the courts. I could have sworn it was undone by SCOTUS, but I guess a refresher is needed every once in a while. Regardless, I think the main point from the proceedings is: it was only found constitutional because of limited airwaves available (i.e. physical constraint of the medium, or exclusive government licensing). The same rule would not be constitutional if it applied broadly to "the press."[0] In that sense, my point remains: there's nothing intrinsically exclusive about the medium of Google's websites that would prevent another from competing for the same "airwaves" (other than their perceived popularity), so a requirement that Google shares its "airtime" with others would not be supported by the precedent. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Decisions_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Decision...
- root_axis 6y agoI think the fairness doctrine is a great litmus test for intellectual honestly on this topic. Anyone who is in favor of regulating Google and Facebook's speech should also be in favor of regulating Fox News and other platforms that are dominated by conservative politics.
- burfog 6y agoNo. I'll classify Fox News with other media, like Vox and Slate and Buzzfeed. (for the articles and shows at least, not necessarily the paid advertisements) I'll classify Google and Facebook with other communication platforms, like T-Mobile and FedEx. Paid advertisements probably go in this category too, even if appearing within the other category.
- root_axis 6y agoWhy would you classify Google and Facebook in the same category as T-Mobile?
- 6y ago