3 ms·

It used to not be this way... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

by 0des 4y ago

housel 4y ago
Fairness doctrine made sense at the time because broadcast spectrum was a very scarce resource. When cable and Internet are available to disseminate a broad range of viewpoints, it's no longer necessary for the FCC to be involved in regulating speech.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- asdff 4y ago
  That brings in the assumption that there will be a perfectly heterogeneous and broad range of viewpoints and not perhaps just a handful of viewpoints that serve to enrich a few people. Looking at the world today we really don't have that broad of viewpoints despite all of our connectivity. Comment sections play out identically when a given topic comes up on different forums. You can predict what the positions will be without even opening the thread, and if you offer an opinion that runs counter expect to be snuffed out by the majority opinions that have real marketing dollars fueling them.
  - 0des 4y ago
    > we really don't have that broad of viewpoints despite all of our connectivity If anything, it is now easier to chop down any tall poppies or non conformists.
- 0des 4y ago
  > When cable and Internet are available to disseminate a broad range of viewpoints, it's no longer necessary for the FCC to be involved in regulating speech. This opinion is more modern than the legacy "ill listen to any news even if it offends me" FCC Fairness in boardcasting was not regulating speech by the way, it is closer to defining guidelines for the meaning of libel in the context of authoritative news broadcast on airwaves that at the time were federally regulated.
- munificent 4y ago
  Human attention is still a scarce resource.
drewcoo 4y ago
To be honest, the fairness doctrine mostly meant that: 1. Every issue had exactly two sides (same as current dogma). 2. Every "bad" take from the "wrong" side would be aired to nobody, in the middle of the night. It was a political weapon just as much as removing it was a political weapon. Way back then there tended to be the same news, more or less, on every channel. Sure, you might prefer or avoid Walter Cronkite's "unhinged" op-eds on Vietnam, but that was about as different as it got. Here's a liberal view of Cronkite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCdXVWsTpSM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCdXVWsTpSM

It used to not be this way... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

by 0des 4y ago

It used to not be this way... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

housel 4y ago

Fairness doctrine made sense at the time because broadcast spectrum was a very scarce resource. When cable and Internet are available to disseminate a broad range of viewpoints, it's no longer necessary for the FCC to be involved in regulating speech.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
asdff 4y ago
That brings in the assumption that there will be a perfectly heterogeneous and broad range of viewpoints and not perhaps just a handful of viewpoints that serve to enrich a few people. Looking at the world today we really don't have that broad of viewpoints despite all of our connectivity. Comment sections play out identically when a given topic comes up on different forums. You can predict what the positions will be without even opening the thread, and if you offer an opinion that runs counter expect to be snuffed out by the majority opinions that have real marketing dollars fueling them.
- 0des 4y ago
  > we really don't have that broad of viewpoints despite all of our connectivity If anything, it is now easier to chop down any tall poppies or non conformists.
0des 4y ago
> When cable and Internet are available to disseminate a broad range of viewpoints, it's no longer necessary for the FCC to be involved in regulating speech. This opinion is more modern than the legacy "ill listen to any news even if it offends me" FCC Fairness in boardcasting was not regulating speech by the way, it is closer to defining guidelines for the meaning of libel in the context of authoritative news broadcast on airwaves that at the time were federally regulated.
munificent 4y ago
Human attention is still a scarce resource.

drewcoo 4y ago

To be honest, the fairness doctrine mostly meant that: 1. Every issue had exactly two sides (same as current dogma). 2. Every "bad" take from the "wrong" side would be aired to nobody, in the middle of the night. It was a political weapon just as much as removing it was a political weapon. Way back then there tended to be the same news, more or less, on every channel. Sure, you might prefer or avoid Walter Cronkite's "unhinged" op-eds on Vietnam, but that was about as different as it got. Here's a liberal view of Cronkite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCdXVWsTpSM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCdXVWsTpSM