5 ms·
The FCC exists (in part) to enforce a certain morality on public broadcasters. Whatever we think about that today, that was a core responsibility of the FCC whe
by ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
The FCC exists (in part) to enforce a certain morality on public broadcasters. Whatever we think about that today, that was a core responsibility of the FCC when it started and that still exists today.
- gwd 1y agoI'd be all for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoYes please
- TacticalCoder 1y ago[dead]
- smegger001 1y agoproblem is who gets to decide that both sides are bing presented fairly? do you think that Fox Newsmax and OAN are going to be under the same pressure to give the liberal viewpoint as MSNBC and CNN will to show a righting viewpoint?
- koolba 1y ago> problem is who gets to decide that both sides are bing presented fairly? There’s also more than two sides to an issue. The supposed fairness doctrine was utter nonsense for many many reasons.
- imiric 1y agoThe fairness doctrine was a good thing, but it existed in a different time. Bringing it back today wouldn't address the main issue which is the internet. When everyone is given a loudspeaker, and the power to create an audience of millions; when "journalism" is equivalent to any random opinion; when anyone with the will and a negligible amount of resources can promote their agenda... No amount of oversight can bring back balanced discussion about actual facts. Reversing a post-truth society cannot happen without radical disruptions to the system that got us here in the first place.
- esseph 1y agoVery well said.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoI agree with you but a broadcasting license isn't the same as "everyone given a loudspeaker". The FCC couldn't have done anything to a "Jimmy Kimmel Youtube".
- cjensen 1y agoThe Fairness Doctrine has become an urban legend among the left with a regrettable amount of built-up legends of its power. Whatever you think it did, it almost certainly did not do that. In practice it meant that J. Random Crazypants would be allowed to give an editorial -- sometimes in the middle of the night, and sometimes as 60 second after the news. Additionally the Doctrine never applied to Cable TV for obvious First Amendment reasons.
- wakawaka28 1y agoThere are a number of problems with the Fairness Doctrine in principle. The intent of it is that nobody monopolizes the then-scarce licensed broadcast stations. This is not a problem today, as TV and radio broadcast stations are abundant and also compete with the Internet and thousands of cable channels. A more reasonable attempt at such a law today might provide oversight on the licensure of individual TV and radio stations to ensure that new stations can be started up easily. I'm not convinced it is a real problem today except on PBS and NPR, which are taxpayer-funded and seemingly biased.
- voxadam 1y ago> The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a “clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil” come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, “the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views.” This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive. Source: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/the_fcc_and_freedom_of_speech.pdf https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/the_fcc_and_freedom_... "Last Reviewed: 12/30/19" (Trump's first term)
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoHighly cherry-picked. The next paragraph says that FCC limits broadcast of indecent and profane material. As I said, the FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. It seems clear that the morality being enforced would fall in line with the ruling power of the day.
- voxadam 1y ago“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” What part of that sentence qualifies as either indecent or profane?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoI said that the FCC is allowed to enforce morality. The morality in question here is lying about someone being assassinated for their political views. The right sees Charlie Kirk as a political martyr (e.g. their MLK) and they don't want that taken away.
- add-sub-mul-div 1y agoAnd the Food and Drug Administration exists in part to supervise food safety but it can't use its power to shut down Olive Garden over a culture war. What are we doing here?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agonot a valid analogy
- ru552 1y ago*Please note, I'm not in favor of censorship, it's just that this analogy is inaccurate Olive Garden isn't given access to something it requires to operate at the pleasure of the government. Broadcast TV on the other hand... All of broadcast TV is allowed because the government says it is. ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX don't own the radio spectrum they are operating on, the government does and they grant the right to use it to those companies. There's a long list of things that the government requires them to do in order to keep this pleasure. One of them used to be the Saturday morning cartoons. I miss those.
- lenerdenator 1y agoHow is Jimmy's speech immoral? A list of words you can't say is about morality; it's a drag but at least it's objective. You either said the word or you didn't. This is far more subjective.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago[flagged]
- pupppet 1y agoLook at you straight-up parroting Trump's comments.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoI assure you Trump did not invent "jimmy Kimmel isn't funny"
- hamdingers 1y agoBeautiful motte you've got there.
- lenerdenator 1y agoOkay, then the person he lied about can file a defamation suit. That still doesn't fall within the FCC's regulatory authority, so far as I can tell. They're not the arbiters of what is and isn't a lie; a judge or jury during the defamation trial is.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoThe FCC is well enabled to make judgment calls. Yes a network can bring that judgement call in front of an actual judge in a court of law. That doesn't mean the FCC lacks the authority for such calls, only that the judge likely has higher authority.
- lokar 1y agoWhy does this need to be a federal concern? Other than the need to manage spectrum assignments at state borders, why can’t the states do all of this? Why do California and Mississippi have to follow the same standards?
- drdec 1y agoThere are plenty of locales where broadcasts cross state lines. I grew up in an area where we got Boston (Massachusetts) and Providence (Rhode Island) stations. NYC stations cover three states. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples (probably involving even more than three states). So the justification for federal intervention (interstate commerce) is there. Of course, that doesn't prevent the feds from letting the states handle it, but it does create an incentive for some states to want the feds to handle it.
- lokar 1y agoNew England and a few big metros that straddle the boarder are issues, but even there the states involved could manage it together. I think the New England states could manage this together fine. I agree, the constitution grants the authority to the federal government to. But more and more, I think we should just let the states deal with as much as possible. It seems pretty clear we are far from a national consensus on many basic issues, and the constant winner take all grab for power is making things worse.
- beej71 1y agoLook up "border blasters" to see how that plays out internationally. We'd have the same problem in the states, I'd bet.
- nitwit005 1y agoThe problem is that Trump made it clear the issue was criticism of him. For democracy to function, saying negative things about politicians has to be possible. If criticizing a sitting president isn't safe, you couldn't even safely air a presidential debate.
- mrandish 1y agoYes, but the FCC has existing procedures for communicating concerns and warnings to broadcasters about possible regulatory enforcement and an entire rule-making framework beyond that. The new FCC chair so directly addressing a specific incident off-the-cuff on a podcast and making threatening statements about FCC action against a specific broadcaster over a specific incident was extremely unusual and a troubling precedent. And, to be clear, I'd say the same thing if it were the Biden admin's FCC chair issuing semi-veiled threats against Fox News. We don't want federal agency chairs from either party using podcasts to conduct official business or as a conduit for plausibly deniable (but nonetheless real) specific threats. As a separate matter, it's long been clear the FCC was created to serve a very time, context and needs - most of which either no longer exist or have changed substantially. Most media no longer travels through the limited shared resource of "airwaves". The agency's whole charter is in need of a major rethink.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoInformation moves too fast and government moves too slow for me to buy into this "existing procedures and rule-making" line. Your next point about the FCC needing a major rethink is interesting. What are you thinking here? FCC also regulates internet-based communications (e.g. Youtube or podcasts)?
- aeternum 1y agoYes, sell the spectrum and get rid of the fairness doctrine. Few understand it.
- gamblor956 1y agoIf that were true, then Trump would be banned from the airwaves, and Fox News and News Nation would have been shuttered years ago.