2 ms·

I'm sure it's a symptom of something but my point was Fox News (which was established in 1996 according to Wikipedia) could never have been born prior to 1987.

I'm sure it's a symptom of something but my point was Fox News (which was established in 1996 according to Wikipedia) could never have been born prior to 1987. What happened yesterday in Washington, DC may prove a counterpoint to 1st amendment claims that all speech should be allowed, regardless of consequences. Edit: I see I was wrong about Fox as it is a cable network and not broadcast over public airwaves. I still think their viewers are insulated from opposing viewpoints and that's part of the problem.

roywiggins 6y ago
The fairness doctrine never applied to cable channels. The only reason it was plausibly Constitutional was the use of the airways, which are considered a public resource. Private cables strung by private companies into private homes were never regulated by the fairness doctrine.
- klondike_ 6y ago
  Fox is broadcast over the air in many areas
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    The programming on Fox broadcast channels is different than Fox News, which is specifically transmitted via cable or satellite and, legally, not via public airwaves. Fox broadcast channels are subject to the same laws as other broadcast channels.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    Yes, but the stuff that people find most objectionable- the Fox opinion shows, Hannity etc- have their home on Fox-the-cable-channel. They might get picked up on some Fox affiliates (though I doubt it, they're the special sauce that gets people to pay for cable), but the engine of the thing is the cable channel.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company is different than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News which is not available on any terrestrial OTA channels
- technofiend 6y ago
  I stand corrected about cable networks. But my thesis that allowing one-sided broadcasting of views still stands: it insulates people from contrasting views and makes them uncomfortable with having those views challenged. I'm not suggesting we go the route of state run media, but state regulation of media may come about thanks to what happened yesterday.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    Seems to me, at least on cable, people are only as insulated as they want to be. They can always change the channel to one of any of several hundred others. There are more views being expressed on cable than were ever allowed on the airwaves during the fairness doctrine era. Some of those channels are spewing hateful horseshit, but with dozens of channels to choose from, you can't blame the medium for people being insulated. They keep the dial tuned to Fox News because they like it.
    - cle 6y ago
      Unfortunately I don't think it's that black-and-white. Fox News is a small part of the information bubble, which includes other sources like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. And there's evidence that social media addiction is real. So the content is feeding into a positive feedback loop that prevents people from regulating their ability to tune into something else. This doesn't absolve the viewers from responsibility, but it also doesn't place it entirely on their shoulders.

roywiggins 6y ago

The fairness doctrine never applied to cable channels. The only reason it was plausibly Constitutional was the use of the airways, which are considered a public resource. Private cables strung by private companies into private homes were never regulated by the fairness doctrine.

klondike_ 6y ago
Fox is broadcast over the air in many areas
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  The programming on Fox broadcast channels is different than Fox News, which is specifically transmitted via cable or satellite and, legally, not via public airwaves. Fox broadcast channels are subject to the same laws as other broadcast channels.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  Yes, but the stuff that people find most objectionable- the Fox opinion shows, Hannity etc- have their home on Fox-the-cable-channel. They might get picked up on some Fox affiliates (though I doubt it, they're the special sauce that gets people to pay for cable), but the engine of the thing is the cable channel.
- kube-system 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company is different than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News which is not available on any terrestrial OTA channels
technofiend 6y ago
I stand corrected about cable networks. But my thesis that allowing one-sided broadcasting of views still stands: it insulates people from contrasting views and makes them uncomfortable with having those views challenged. I'm not suggesting we go the route of state run media, but state regulation of media may come about thanks to what happened yesterday.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  Seems to me, at least on cable, people are only as insulated as they want to be. They can always change the channel to one of any of several hundred others. There are more views being expressed on cable than were ever allowed on the airwaves during the fairness doctrine era. Some of those channels are spewing hateful horseshit, but with dozens of channels to choose from, you can't blame the medium for people being insulated. They keep the dial tuned to Fox News because they like it.
  - cle 6y ago
    Unfortunately I don't think it's that black-and-white. Fox News is a small part of the information bubble, which includes other sources like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. And there's evidence that social media addiction is real. So the content is feeding into a positive feedback loop that prevents people from regulating their ability to tune into something else. This doesn't absolve the viewers from responsibility, but it also doesn't place it entirely on their shoulders.