“Regulators invited public comment on whether the US broadcast license for Fox Corp.’s TV station in Philadelphia should be renewed after a grassroots organization asked that it be denied, saying Fox knowingly broadcast false news about the 2020 election.”
There used to be. It was called the fairness doctrine. It was introduced in 1949 and was abolished in 1987. It required news broadcasters to present controversial issues to fairly reflect differing viewpoints - in other words, you can’t have overt, blatant, “This will cause liberals to eat your babies” propaganda.
There are some issues with it, but it’s clearly better than what we’re allowing now. The crux, though, is that it only matters for FCC-aligned issues, so actual broadcasting. Cable and internet sources would still be able to lie with impunity, and they make up a huge portion of our disinformation compared to what existed even in the early 2000s.
When anything bad is introduced, 90% of the time the dates and data will point to The Reagan Administration. Truly the downfall of politics, environmentalism, and representation of the citizens in america.
So, if one of the viewpoints of a controversial issue is based on falsehoods, would they be forced to present it as equal to the other viewpoint? Because if so, I don’t really see that as better.
Not exactly. The fairness would include allowing the other side it’s refutation on the facts.
News companies have never been required to report falsehoods just because someone famous said them. They’ve chosen to do that since the fairness doctrine was upended, because it aligns with their corporate interests.
If the viewpoints are based on blatant falsehoods, then they really shouldn’t be presented at all IMO. That is to say, ideally that’s how it would be. It doesn’t really work like that IRL
Seems like now more than ever is a good time to bring back something to regulate these companies. At the very least, there should be a strong penalty to companies spreading misinformation.
The article pointed out that there was a defamation lawsuit caused over lying about voting machine rigging. That should honestly be criminal, especially knowing what happened after that election.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
There used to be. It was called the fairness doctrine. It was introduced in 1949 and was abolished in 1987. It required news broadcasters to present controversial issues to fairly reflect differing viewpoints - in other words, you can’t have overt, blatant, “This will cause liberals to eat your babies” propaganda.
There are some issues with it, but it’s clearly better than what we’re allowing now. The crux, though, is that it only matters for FCC-aligned issues, so actual broadcasting. Cable and internet sources would still be able to lie with impunity, and they make up a huge portion of our disinformation compared to what existed even in the early 2000s.
When anything bad is introduced, 90% of the time the dates and data will point to The Reagan Administration. Truly the downfall of politics, environmentalism, and representation of the citizens in america.
He’s the answer to the question in Mad Max: Fury Road. Obviously he had and has a lot of help, but so much comes back to him.
For anyone who doesn’t remember, the question was, “who killed the world?”
The fairness doctrine never applied to cable news organizations.
The linked story is about a broadcast channel, so …
So, if one of the viewpoints of a controversial issue is based on falsehoods, would they be forced to present it as equal to the other viewpoint? Because if so, I don’t really see that as better.
Not exactly. The fairness would include allowing the other side it’s refutation on the facts.
News companies have never been required to report falsehoods just because someone famous said them. They’ve chosen to do that since the fairness doctrine was upended, because it aligns with their corporate interests.
If the viewpoints are based on blatant falsehoods, then they really shouldn’t be presented at all IMO. That is to say, ideally that’s how it would be. It doesn’t really work like that IRL
Seems like now more than ever is a good time to bring back something to regulate these companies. At the very least, there should be a strong penalty to companies spreading misinformation.
The article pointed out that there was a defamation lawsuit caused over lying about voting machine rigging. That should honestly be criminal, especially knowing what happened after that election.