The Fairness Act had its own problems and the GQP used to be masters at wielding it to get fringe ideas/pundits on otherwise reasonable media platforms. It was only when non-conservative voices started saying “this cuts both ways” and elbowing their way onto conservative-dominated AM radio and rising shows on Fox that republicans tore it down.
This wasn’t a healthy media landscape and it contributed very heavily to the erroneous idea that there are always two equally valid sides which has morphed into “both sides.”
The Fairness Doctrine is a red herring in the conversation either way. Even if it hadn’t been rescinded, it would have eventually become irrelevant.
The Fairness Doctrine only ever applied to radio and TV broadcasters, i.e., broadcasters operating using the limited, publicly owned radio spectrum. It was only Constitutionally enforceable because it was intended to ensure equal access to what was essentially a public space.
Cable TV and the Internet turned that completely on its head. Attempting to regulate speech over a privately owned medium is a very, very different legal hill to climb. The most problematic sources of misinformation and bias today tend not to be AM radio but things like NewsMax or Libsoftiktok.
It’s a huge problem, but it’s not one the Fairness Doctrine would solve.
The Fairness Act had its own problems and the GQP used to be masters at wielding it to get fringe ideas/pundits on otherwise reasonable media platforms. It was only when non-conservative voices started saying “this cuts both ways” and elbowing their way onto conservative-dominated AM radio and rising shows on Fox that republicans tore it down.
This wasn’t a healthy media landscape and it contributed very heavily to the erroneous idea that there are always two equally valid sides which has morphed into “both sides.”
It wasn’t perfect, but it was WAY better than what we have now. They just lie openly about anything they want with zero oversight.
The Fairness Doctrine is a red herring in the conversation either way. Even if it hadn’t been rescinded, it would have eventually become irrelevant.
The Fairness Doctrine only ever applied to radio and TV broadcasters, i.e., broadcasters operating using the limited, publicly owned radio spectrum. It was only Constitutionally enforceable because it was intended to ensure equal access to what was essentially a public space.
Cable TV and the Internet turned that completely on its head. Attempting to regulate speech over a privately owned medium is a very, very different legal hill to climb. The most problematic sources of misinformation and bias today tend not to be AM radio but things like NewsMax or Libsoftiktok.
It’s a huge problem, but it’s not one the Fairness Doctrine would solve.
Fairness doctrine wouldn’t stop this