> Both seem to ignore the fact that whatever worked in year X will not work in year X+50, because the society, technology and politics moved on. That's... lite

> Both seem to ignore the fact that whatever worked in year X will not work in year X+50, because the society, technology and politics moved on. That's... literally not a "fact". It's a situational thing. I mean, just to be glib: almost everything that "worked" in the 1980's works now. Most things haven't changed! As far as media balance: yes, clearly balance is a good thing. I think forcing Fox to hand over an hour of coverage every evening between Hannity and Tucker to someone like Chris Hayes can only be a net benefit. MSNBC can slot Ingraham in after Maddow. Both their audiences will win, because the networks will have to find a way to keep eyeballs without outrage. Fox only works as "Fox" because of the echo chamber effect. And that can absolutely be regulated.