The Fairness Doctrine only survived the 1st Amendment because the airwaves are a public resource: each area only has one electromagnetic spectrum, and the sections of it that are useful for broadcasting are limited enough that not everyone can have a useful slice of the pie. As such, if you’re lucky enough to get a slice, the government gets to have a lot more control than they normally do over how you use it. You’re using something that belongs to all of us but only a few people get permission to use, so you have to do your part to serve the public good in addition to the programming you want to broadcast.
Cable has none of that scarcity, since we can have effectively as many cables in an area as we want, and each cable can be stuffed with more signal than the airwaves can, since you don’t have to worry about whether any given frequency can pass through walls or buildings, just copper. Without that, the government can no longer justify dictating content.
The fairness doctrine was introduced to stop the mistake made in print media, where newspapers were nothing more than political party mouth pieces.
The political parties hated that.
And them getting it revoked was a return to the shit “news” of the pre-doctrine days.
The first amendment was written to protect individuals, it has been used as a method to shield organisations and allow disinformation to flourish in the USA.
In case you’re in a hurry here’s the jist of the linked article
The article criticizes the media for its ongoing coverage of Donald Trump despite his criminal indictments and anti-democratic behavior. It argues the press ignores Trump’s calls for violence and fails to consistently mention his fraud charges and impeachments. While Biden made progress with labor unions, the media focused more on an outlier poll favoring Trump. The author claims both political parties and the press lack courage and fail to hold Trump fully accountable for his lies and attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Unless the facts about Trump’s legal troubles and history of falsehoods are prominently addressed in all reporting, the media is not doing its job of informing the public, the article contends.
This comment was generated by a bot. Send comments and complaints via private message.
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.
Because since the Reagan administration repealed the fairness doctrine in 1987, US news has more in common with reality tv than it does with the US news in the days of Walter Cronkite.
The truth is not important, what will garner ratings and eyeballs is.
The Fairness Doctrine only covered public airwaves.
Currently, it’d get rid of AM talk radio bullshit, but that’s it.
And with the rise of cable the fairness doctrine should have been extended not repealed.
The Fairness Doctrine only survived the 1st Amendment because the airwaves are a public resource: each area only has one electromagnetic spectrum, and the sections of it that are useful for broadcasting are limited enough that not everyone can have a useful slice of the pie. As such, if you’re lucky enough to get a slice, the government gets to have a lot more control than they normally do over how you use it. You’re using something that belongs to all of us but only a few people get permission to use, so you have to do your part to serve the public good in addition to the programming you want to broadcast.
Cable has none of that scarcity, since we can have effectively as many cables in an area as we want, and each cable can be stuffed with more signal than the airwaves can, since you don’t have to worry about whether any given frequency can pass through walls or buildings, just copper. Without that, the government can no longer justify dictating content.
The fairness doctrine was introduced to stop the mistake made in print media, where newspapers were nothing more than political party mouth pieces.
The political parties hated that.
And them getting it revoked was a return to the shit “news” of the pre-doctrine days.
The first amendment was written to protect individuals, it has been used as a method to shield organisations and allow disinformation to flourish in the USA.
In case you’re in a hurry here’s the jist of the linked article
This comment was generated by a bot. Send comments and complaints via private message.
I’m always in a hurry. Good bot.
For fucking real? The salon? Against the media?? Fuck off. (I hate him too, I hate pandering bs as well)
“But the media refuses to let go”
-the media
People are causing climate change
-people
"ben tlhIngan SuvwI’pu’ "
-Klingon
Excellent read