Media Fairness Doctrine

[DKG]

It's repeal was a mistake.

[Oliver the Second]

Whenever the media tells me something I believe the opposite to be true.

[Reggie Essent]

No.  The Fairness Doctrine was imposed in the US at a time when there were three major radio and television networks and two or three wire services, like AP and Reuters, that most newsprint outlets garnered content from.

It was argued when it was imposed and remains true today that the Fairness Doctrine is blatantly unconstitutional.  "Regulating" content of any media is outside of the pervue of any government, federal, state or local in the United States.  At least, that's how I read the 1st Amendment.

RFK is just an old Leftist shitbag who longs for the days when the Left had total control of the public narrative.

We are better off without it.

[Herman]

No.  The Fairness Doctrine was imposed in the US at a time when there were three major radio and television networks and two or three wire services, like AP and Reuters, that most newsprint outlets garnered content from.

It was argued when it was imposed and remains true today that the Fairness Doctrine is blatantly unconstitutional.  "Regulating" content of any media is outside of the pervue of any government, federal, state or local in the United States.  At least, that's how I read the 1st Amendment.

RFK is just an old Leftist shitbag who longs for the days when the Left had total control of the public narrative.

We are better off without it.

It sounds good in theory. Reporting both sides.

[Lokmar]

Fuk that fairness doctrine bullshit. I dont need my news from some hard leftist and milque toast RINO.

[DKG]

Fuk that fairness doctrine bullshit. I dont need my news from some hard leftist and milque toast RINO.

It seems needed today when the media is an extension of the Dem party.

[Lokmar]

It seems needed today when the media is an extension of the Dem party.

Maybe I'm psychic, but it wont play out how you think it will. Mark my words.

[DKG]

Maybe I'm psychic, but it wont play out how you think it will. Mark my words.

It's irrelevant now, since the Media Fairness Doctrine is history.

[Lokmar]

It's irrelevant now, since the Media Fairness Doctrine is history.

I always get paranoid and fearful when the subject gets brought up I guess. I can see CONs getting suckered into thinking they're gonna get Hannity and Colmes only to wind up with The View.

[DKG]

I always get paranoid and fearful when the subject gets brought up I guess. I can see CONs getting suckered into thinking they're gonna get Hannity and Colmes only to wind up with The View.

Both are op eds, not news reporting.

[Lokmar]

Both are op eds, not news reporting.

The news should never have a slant, period so theoretically, the fairness doctrine should be moot. However, we see the news agencies regularly slant shit in a multitude of ways, including through omission.

Now when CNN has something that could fall under the perview of the fairness doctrine, we get stupid assed shit like this which is deconstructed by Nate The Lawyer:

Pseudo-con and gaytheist, S.E. Cupp is a lazy bitch and doesnt even do enough homework to push back on the liberal lies being spewed by both the host and the leftist dingbat guest. This exact example is what bringing back the fairness doctrine will increase.

All they have to do is invite a "CON". There aint nothing in it about which CON they have to invite.

[DKG]

The news should never have a slant, period so theoretically, the fairness doctrine should be moot. However, we see the news agencies regularly slant shit in a multitude of ways, including through omission.

Now when CNN has something that could fall under the perview of the fairness doctrine, we get stupid assed shit like this which is deconstructed by Nate The Lawyer:

Pseudo-con and gaytheist, S.E. Cupp is a lazy bitch and doesnt even do enough homework to push back on the liberal lies being spewed by both the host and the leftist dingbat guest. This exact example is what bringing back the fairness doctrine will increase.

All they have to do is invite a "CON". There aint nothing in it about which CON they have to invite.

In a perfect world, journalism would be bias free.

[Oerdin]

This is one area where Ronald Reagan got it wrong.

[Adolf Oliver Bush]

In a perfect world, journalism would be bias free.

Right... but for the most part it isn't.

Quick qualifier; I've worked in radio (commercial and public) and have a reasonably comprehensive first hand experience with that area of the media to draw upon. The one truth that you can take away from this post is that radio and indeed most dinosaur media (print, television) is that they are not providing you any content out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it to make money.

This truth manifests itself in two ways. One is to sell space (in this case it is airtime) to whoever guarantees payment to them. That much is clear in the form of advertising, sure, but it also manifests itself in the content they provide. What music gets played, what stories get told, spun or spiked, everything. This package is then marketed to the consumer.

Which is where the second part of the truth is realised. The consumers, the listening audience, is then used as a lure to drive the generation of more revenue (see previous paragraph). You would be the part of the equation "getting sold", and if you and enough others are being influenced by the curated message, then it becomes a quite profitable venture for both the media outlet and those who pay to employ it. You... not so much. You are part of the product. You only count because you can be sold. Your desire to be properly informed doesn't enter into it.

Don't worry, I hear your call for a more egalitarian arrangement, I think it would be a grand idea too. But until you are in a position to channel the billions of dollars into the venture, paying off the advertisers, government legislators and whoever else might consider themselves to have a vested interest in the current arrangement, you'll be reduced to wistfully thinking your attention and loyalty to any particular outlet is a currency that ought hold sway. It doesn't, not even with Fox. Not until you and enough like you switch off the stream of paid for commentary in preference for anything else, making it necessary for the leviathans to fold their tents and figure out some other way to yoke you into your way of thinking.

And yes, getting the government to overrule your constitutional provisions of free speech is a bad idea, but it's also a stupid one. They already regulate these fuckers, they are partnered with them. Any attempt at further regulation is only ever an attempt to "pull up the ladder behind them" so no Johnny-come-latelies get any bright ideas about fucking with the status quo.