3 ms·
Should we assume that "fake news" is anything where the opinion of the other side is not provided?
by AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
Should we assume that "fake news" is anything where the opinion of the other side is not provided?
- majormajor 6y agoFor historical context, this used to be regulated in the US under the Fairness Doctrine[0] until it was rolled back by the FCC as a violation of free speech. Reagan then vetoed a congressional attempt to bring it back. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
- AlexTWithBeard 6y agoDownvoting folks - please keep downvoting, but I'm sincerely curious to know what's wrong with including other's part comment?
- jfrunyon 6y agoWell... because there aren't only two sides? (Even if you only look at D&R, there can be a wide range of views expressed by the members of each party) Because they would pick whatever the worst option is to present from the 'other side'? What 'other side' should they present when reporting over "grab 'er by the p****" or *sniff sniff*?
- MereInterest 6y agoI didn't downvote, but my issue with your comment is that it assumes that all issues have two valid sides. Some issues don't. The earth is round, and the alternative view that it is flat should not be brought up in the discussion.