4 ms·

> Some kind of fairness doctrine needs to be reintroduced. I recall learning about The Fairness Doctrine in college and being very confused about the existence

> Some kind of fairness doctrine needs to be reintroduced. I recall learning about The Fairness Doctrine in college and being very confused about the existence of Fox News only in the next few sentences to discover that it was *yet another* great policy dismantled by the Reagan administration... The birth of Fox News quickly followed. > CNN and MSNBC are at all time low viewership... Fox News started it and every other news source ended up copying them. I would love to read a study on this outcome for CNN and MSNBC. Folks to the left don't seem to get their information from television whereas folks to the right gobble up hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of TV news per year. Such an intriguing dichotomy.

jfengel 2y ago
Fox News would never be subject to the Fairness Doctrine. It applied only to over-the-air broadcasts. Fox News is a cable network. The timing isn't coincidental. They've both got the same cause -- a strategy of casting doubt on whether actual news is possible at all, and so propaganda is just as good as journalism. That strategy has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
- jsbisviewtiful 2y ago
  > It applied only to over-the-air broadcasts. Fox News is a cable network. Yes that's fair to point out. The Doctrine wasn't updated for developing tech and needed to be, but instead was revoked.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    It would have been hard to update it. It was possible only because it used public airwaves, which are a limited resource. The government could impose requirements as part of giving them a monopoly on the use of certain frequencies. The Fairness Doctrine might have saved us a lot of grief when it came to hate radio. But even that is less important now that we have social media. The First Amendment dramatically limits how much you can regulate that. A proper update would have required a Constitutional amendment. Personally, I'd love to see something like Germany's Basic Law: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." But a Constitutional amendment is an extremely high bar to clear.

jfengel 2y ago

Fox News would never be subject to the Fairness Doctrine. It applied only to over-the-air broadcasts. Fox News is a cable network. The timing isn't coincidental. They've both got the same cause -- a strategy of casting doubt on whether actual news is possible at all, and so propaganda is just as good as journalism. That strategy has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

jsbisviewtiful 2y ago
> It applied only to over-the-air broadcasts. Fox News is a cable network. Yes that's fair to point out. The Doctrine wasn't updated for developing tech and needed to be, but instead was revoked.
- jfengel 2y ago
  It would have been hard to update it. It was possible only because it used public airwaves, which are a limited resource. The government could impose requirements as part of giving them a monopoly on the use of certain frequencies. The Fairness Doctrine might have saved us a lot of grief when it came to hate radio. But even that is less important now that we have social media. The First Amendment dramatically limits how much you can regulate that. A proper update would have required a Constitutional amendment. Personally, I'd love to see something like Germany's Basic Law: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." But a Constitutional amendment is an extremely high bar to clear.