4 ms·

> rules that demand to always provide both sides perspective Not sure what country you're referring to, but there's certainly no such rule in the US, Australia

> rules that demand to always provide both sides perspective Not sure what country you're referring to, but there's certainly no such rule in the US, Australia, or the UK. In the US it would be unconstitutional.

vmind 5y ago
The UK at least has legislation which applies during elections and referendums (https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-six-elections-referendums https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-co...).
- jlokier 5y ago
  Good point. That doesn't force covering "both sides" of every issue though, in the way people often mean by "fair and balanced" in these discussions, where every issue needs to have a counterpoint aired. The UK election rules are more about ensuring all the candidates for election get some representative airtime, and that overtly political advertisements are labelled as such during the election period, so a channel is not allowed to promote one party and completely block out another, or be monopolised by advertising funds. (There's also a very short quiet period just before the voting takes place.) If all parties generally agree on something, the opposing view to that is unlikely to get much airtime, even if someone not running for office would really like to talk about it.
simion314 5y ago
>Not sure what country you're referring to, but there's certainly no such rule in the US, Australia, or the UK. In the US it would be unconstitutional. So in US you can say on newspaper or TV things like "Bob did X" and Bob can do nothing about it? I thought the at least justice can demand Bob to be paid damages and the newspaper/TV to show a retraction. I mean are you free to denigrate people in US with no consequences? If yes, let's ignore US and focus on countries where we demand media to act like professionals, to have a code and rules and to pay if they broke it, pay damages if they damage people etc.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  In the US, there are slander and libel laws that you can be sued for if you print something that is untrue. But if you are a public figure or entity, you have to prove not just that an untruth was printed but also that it was done with "actual malice". Which country were you referring to specifically? I don't know any that require presenting both sides of a political issue as a general rule.
  - simion314 5y ago
    I am from Romania, our constitution is mostly based on France if I am not mistaken, maybe you can translate this https://www.lighthousecommunications.ro/blog/tot-ce-trebuie-sa-stii-despre-dreptul-la-replica https://www.lighthousecommunications.ro/blog/tot-ce-trebuie-... there is the obligation that if you presented false acuzations(not opinions) about someone you are forced to give this person the right to present his defense, also the editors of the news are responsible for the things they published. So you are not forced to invite both sides when presenting general news, this is the journalist code though, to always ask the other side for a comment. I remember about this TV channel that was a pile of shit and got tons of fines and finally was closed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTV_(Romanian_TV_channel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTV_(Romanian_TV_channel)
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      At least going by the Google translation of the article you cited, I doubt that any of these broadcasters would be required to carry RT under this law. This is more about slander and libel, not about giving every political viewpoint equal airtime. So I guess the answer to your original question is, "no, we did not allow new media to ignore our laws." Because there are no laws enforcing the mechanisms you contemplated in your original comment. As far as giving the other side the opportunity to comment, the news networks are falling all over themselves to give Russia the opportunity to comment. They would all love to have frank, on the record discussions of this issue with Russian officials. That's different than broadcasting Russian propaganda though.
kube-system 5y ago
The US actually does have regulations that requires that, although it’s fairly weak: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule This rule has actually had a notable effect in the current election cycle: https://www.newsweek.com/fccs-equal-time-rules-prompt-stations-take-dr-oz-show-off-air-1655188 https://www.newsweek.com/fccs-equal-time-rules-prompt-statio...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  The regulation requires equal access for political candidates during an election, which is substantially different and weaker than the claim I was rebutting.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    It is certainly weak, but I think it meets the above-quoted description. It only applies in certain cases, and only guarantees access to a minimal degree, but it is more than nothing.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      The quote was: > rules that demand to always provide both sides perspective This regulation does not satisfy the "always" part of the quoted description. In fact the regulation does not even reach the standards of "most of the time" or "often." If the description had been, "in certain rare cases," then this regulation would have satisfied it, but then the whole comment would have made no sense w.r.t. the banning of RT.

vmind 5y ago

The UK at least has legislation which applies during elections and referendums (https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-six-elections-referendums https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-co...).

jlokier 5y ago
Good point. That doesn't force covering "both sides" of every issue though, in the way people often mean by "fair and balanced" in these discussions, where every issue needs to have a counterpoint aired. The UK election rules are more about ensuring all the candidates for election get some representative airtime, and that overtly political advertisements are labelled as such during the election period, so a channel is not allowed to promote one party and completely block out another, or be monopolised by advertising funds. (There's also a very short quiet period just before the voting takes place.) If all parties generally agree on something, the opposing view to that is unlikely to get much airtime, even if someone not running for office would really like to talk about it.

simion314 5y ago

>Not sure what country you're referring to, but there's certainly no such rule in the US, Australia, or the UK. In the US it would be unconstitutional. So in US you can say on newspaper or TV things like "Bob did X" and Bob can do nothing about it? I thought the at least justice can demand Bob to be paid damages and the newspaper/TV to show a retraction. I mean are you free to denigrate people in US with no consequences? If yes, let's ignore US and focus on countries where we demand media to act like professionals, to have a code and rules and to pay if they broke it, pay damages if they damage people etc.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
In the US, there are slander and libel laws that you can be sued for if you print something that is untrue. But if you are a public figure or entity, you have to prove not just that an untruth was printed but also that it was done with "actual malice". Which country were you referring to specifically? I don't know any that require presenting both sides of a political issue as a general rule.
- simion314 5y ago
  I am from Romania, our constitution is mostly based on France if I am not mistaken, maybe you can translate this https://www.lighthousecommunications.ro/blog/tot-ce-trebuie-sa-stii-despre-dreptul-la-replica https://www.lighthousecommunications.ro/blog/tot-ce-trebuie-... there is the obligation that if you presented false acuzations(not opinions) about someone you are forced to give this person the right to present his defense, also the editors of the news are responsible for the things they published. So you are not forced to invite both sides when presenting general news, this is the journalist code though, to always ask the other side for a comment. I remember about this TV channel that was a pile of shit and got tons of fines and finally was closed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTV_(Romanian_TV_channel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTV_(Romanian_TV_channel)
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    At least going by the Google translation of the article you cited, I doubt that any of these broadcasters would be required to carry RT under this law. This is more about slander and libel, not about giving every political viewpoint equal airtime. So I guess the answer to your original question is, "no, we did not allow new media to ignore our laws." Because there are no laws enforcing the mechanisms you contemplated in your original comment. As far as giving the other side the opportunity to comment, the news networks are falling all over themselves to give Russia the opportunity to comment. They would all love to have frank, on the record discussions of this issue with Russian officials. That's different than broadcasting Russian propaganda though.

kube-system 5y ago

The US actually does have regulations that requires that, although it’s fairly weak: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule This rule has actually had a notable effect in the current election cycle: https://www.newsweek.com/fccs-equal-time-rules-prompt-stations-take-dr-oz-show-off-air-1655188 https://www.newsweek.com/fccs-equal-time-rules-prompt-statio...

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
The regulation requires equal access for political candidates during an election, which is substantially different and weaker than the claim I was rebutting.
- kube-system 5y ago
  It is certainly weak, but I think it meets the above-quoted description. It only applies in certain cases, and only guarantees access to a minimal degree, but it is more than nothing.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    The quote was: > rules that demand to always provide both sides perspective This regulation does not satisfy the "always" part of the quoted description. In fact the regulation does not even reach the standards of "most of the time" or "often." If the description had been, "in certain rare cases," then this regulation would have satisfied it, but then the whole comment would have made no sense w.r.t. the banning of RT.