8 ms·

You can thank the Regan Administration for removing the FCC's Fairness Doctrine [0]. From 1949-1987 if you were broadcasting news you had to present both sides

You can thank the Regan Administration for removing the FCC's Fairness Doctrine [0]. From 1949-1987 if you were broadcasting news you had to present both sides of controversial issues. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

geoduck14 5y ago
>if you were broadcasting news you had to present both sides of controversial issues. Down here in Texas, we have a law where teachers have to teach both sides of controversial subjects. So, of course, someone is teaching both sides of The Holocaust. Because it is controversial. And that is the law.
- isoskeles 5y ago
  Optimistically, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with a law like this because when engaged with lies, kids should be able to figure this stuff out. It’s not like they’re incapable of critical thinking. They can look up if the claims are true and find that nothing backs them up. But I get that most children won’t do this, so overall, yeah, it seems like a terrible law. Ultimately, it comes down to what TX defines as “controversial.” Is this interpretation (teach Holocaust denial) legal or is it some rogue teacher who decided it means they get to teach whatever they want because all their opinions make their family angry at Thanksgiving dinner?
  - hairofadog 5y ago
    My understanding is that it’s a law designed to allow teaching of creationism, since, to their understanding, evolution is “just a theory”.
    - isoskeles 5y ago
      That makes sense. Guess they think Intelligent Design or whatever they call it now is due for another challenge since the SCOTUS leans more conservative.
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    What if they look up the lies and only find more misinformation and articles giving "both sides of the story".
  - lovecg 5y ago
    You’re asking a lot of children. Skilled people have been working on improving propaganda techniques for a very long time. It’s rarely just outright lies - there are more effective techniques. For example, it’s easy to find dozens of cherry picked examples and represent them as the thing that was common (instead of say something that happened only 0.001% of the time). Something like this is much harder to refute than an outright lie - you have to do a full blown study figuring out how common the thing really was, and before long you’re demanding everyone to do their own research and verifying everything (in an environment full of bad actors muddying the waters).
- webmaven 5y ago
  Is the Holocaust controversial? IS IT? I am reasonably certain that in the aftermath of Charlottesville we arrived, as a result of extensive public soul-searching, at the nuanced and bi-partisan conclusion that Nazis are Bad, so I am not sure where the controversy lies.
ch4s3 5y ago
The fairness doctrine in practice boxed out any opinions outside of the mainstream and allowed both major political parties to control public discourse. It was also compelled speech by the government which plainly violated the first amendment.
- samhw 5y ago
  Thank you. I hate this increasingly common attitude that free speech should be constrained because [political candidate or movement which I don't like] is in the ascendancy. You can really see someone's ideals in what they do under pressure, and apparently people's liberal ideals of free speech etc aren't very strongly held.
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    Unrestrained freedom to intentionally lie to the public and use social media to amplify propaganda is clearly a public health threat. The question is if there is any cure that doesn't destroy legitimate political speech. (Illegitimate speech being the calculated, coordinated distribution of false information).
    - ch4s3 5y ago
      > Unrestrained freedom to intentionally lie to the public You're presuming that TV and news media never lied to the public before the end of the fairness doctrine, and the giving equal time didn't give undue weight to some bullshit ideas. The controlled messaging around the war in Vietnam is a great counter point here.
    - samhw 5y ago
      I'm alarmed by anyone who can genuinely talk of 'legitimate speech' and not see the issues here.
      - unethical_ban 5y ago
        I'm alarmed that you don't see any danger of intentionally, factually false speech being spread to tens of millions of people a day. Or that you don't have any desire to at least brainstorm on a solution.

geoduck14 5y ago

>if you were broadcasting news you had to present both sides of controversial issues. Down here in Texas, we have a law where teachers have to teach both sides of controversial subjects. So, of course, someone is teaching both sides of The Holocaust. Because it is controversial. And that is the law.

isoskeles 5y ago
Optimistically, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with a law like this because when engaged with lies, kids should be able to figure this stuff out. It’s not like they’re incapable of critical thinking. They can look up if the claims are true and find that nothing backs them up. But I get that most children won’t do this, so overall, yeah, it seems like a terrible law. Ultimately, it comes down to what TX defines as “controversial.” Is this interpretation (teach Holocaust denial) legal or is it some rogue teacher who decided it means they get to teach whatever they want because all their opinions make their family angry at Thanksgiving dinner?
- hairofadog 5y ago
  My understanding is that it’s a law designed to allow teaching of creationism, since, to their understanding, evolution is “just a theory”.
  - isoskeles 5y ago
    That makes sense. Guess they think Intelligent Design or whatever they call it now is due for another challenge since the SCOTUS leans more conservative.
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  What if they look up the lies and only find more misinformation and articles giving "both sides of the story".
- lovecg 5y ago
  You’re asking a lot of children. Skilled people have been working on improving propaganda techniques for a very long time. It’s rarely just outright lies - there are more effective techniques. For example, it’s easy to find dozens of cherry picked examples and represent them as the thing that was common (instead of say something that happened only 0.001% of the time). Something like this is much harder to refute than an outright lie - you have to do a full blown study figuring out how common the thing really was, and before long you’re demanding everyone to do their own research and verifying everything (in an environment full of bad actors muddying the waters).
webmaven 5y ago
Is the Holocaust controversial? IS IT? I am reasonably certain that in the aftermath of Charlottesville we arrived, as a result of extensive public soul-searching, at the nuanced and bi-partisan conclusion that Nazis are Bad, so I am not sure where the controversy lies.

ch4s3 5y ago

The fairness doctrine in practice boxed out any opinions outside of the mainstream and allowed both major political parties to control public discourse. It was also compelled speech by the government which plainly violated the first amendment.

samhw 5y ago
Thank you. I hate this increasingly common attitude that free speech should be constrained because [political candidate or movement which I don't like] is in the ascendancy. You can really see someone's ideals in what they do under pressure, and apparently people's liberal ideals of free speech etc aren't very strongly held.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  Unrestrained freedom to intentionally lie to the public and use social media to amplify propaganda is clearly a public health threat. The question is if there is any cure that doesn't destroy legitimate political speech. (Illegitimate speech being the calculated, coordinated distribution of false information).
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    > Unrestrained freedom to intentionally lie to the public You're presuming that TV and news media never lied to the public before the end of the fairness doctrine, and the giving equal time didn't give undue weight to some bullshit ideas. The controlled messaging around the war in Vietnam is a great counter point here.
  - samhw 5y ago
    I'm alarmed by anyone who can genuinely talk of 'legitimate speech' and not see the issues here.
    - unethical_ban 5y ago
      I'm alarmed that you don't see any danger of intentionally, factually false speech being spread to tens of millions of people a day. Or that you don't have any desire to at least brainstorm on a solution.