4 ms·

The common theme here is that media outlets are not good at regulating their own hysteria for the public good, and we're all left as collateral damage. Maybe we

The common theme here is that media outlets are not good at regulating their own hysteria for the public good, and we're all left as collateral damage. Maybe we can bring back some orderly rules around broadcasting of controversial opinions. The FCC Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987 and there was an attempt to reintroduce it in 2019. Maybe it deserves reconsideration. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4401 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4401

ceejayoz 6y ago
Defining fairness is tough, there are serious free speech concerns, and I don’t want a Trump-esque administration’s FTC deciding what’s “fair”.
freeone3000 6y ago
A Fairness Doctrine would require mainstream media to present QAnon's side of things equally with anti-QAnon. This doesn't help the QAnon folks, since they're still mad they're being censored (that's part of the thing, they're always censored, and there's a thousand videos they can show you to prove it). And it exposes people who otherwise wouldn't be to their views, as if they were accepted. I don't anticipate a fairness doctrine making people less prone to conspiracy -- it worked in 1987 because TV was the main source of news, but most "news" is not on TV or in print, it's on YouTube.
- ploika 6y ago
  It would likely require proportionate rather than equal coverage. That's how it works in Ireland anyway (though not always uncontroversially - it's a hard thing to get right all the time). Fringe or extreme opinions don't automatically get credulous airtime.
  - booleanbetrayal 6y ago
    That's my understanding of how the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to work. Legitimized opinions are required for consideration. If they are not legitimized, then it will be a little harder for them to gain traction in the first place. Policies like these, while imperfect, can help to serve as a brake pump on the outlandish.
nradov 6y ago
The Fairness Doctrine was somewhat justifiable for broadcast TV because spectrum limits only allowed for a small number of channels. But with cable TV and the Internet that limit no longer applies.

ceejayoz 6y ago

Defining fairness is tough, there are serious free speech concerns, and I don’t want a Trump-esque administration’s FTC deciding what’s “fair”.

freeone3000 6y ago

A Fairness Doctrine would require mainstream media to present QAnon's side of things equally with anti-QAnon. This doesn't help the QAnon folks, since they're still mad they're being censored (that's part of the thing, they're always censored, and there's a thousand videos they can show you to prove it). And it exposes people who otherwise wouldn't be to their views, as if they were accepted. I don't anticipate a fairness doctrine making people less prone to conspiracy -- it worked in 1987 because TV was the main source of news, but most "news" is not on TV or in print, it's on YouTube.

ploika 6y ago
It would likely require proportionate rather than equal coverage. That's how it works in Ireland anyway (though not always uncontroversially - it's a hard thing to get right all the time). Fringe or extreme opinions don't automatically get credulous airtime.
- booleanbetrayal 6y ago
  That's my understanding of how the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to work. Legitimized opinions are required for consideration. If they are not legitimized, then it will be a little harder for them to gain traction in the first place. Policies like these, while imperfect, can help to serve as a brake pump on the outlandish.

nradov 6y ago

The Fairness Doctrine was somewhat justifiable for broadcast TV because spectrum limits only allowed for a small number of channels. But with cable TV and the Internet that limit no longer applies.