It provided a path for anyone who witnessed misinformation being spread on a media outlet (which many folks today get ALL their info from) to be allowed time on that media outlet to bring that uninformed audience info they were not aware of.
Replies
It also forced stations to allow airtime for misinformation - stations were not allowed to limit the diverse viewpoints based on content. And it did not apply to “media outlets” - it applied to holders of broadcast licenses. It constitutionally could not apply to any other media.
sep 2, 2025, 11:50 am • 0 0 • view
And what do you mean “… media outlet (which many folks today get ALL their info from) …” Where else would you get info from?
sep 2, 2025, 11:51 am • 0 0 • view
OTHER (multiple and diverse) media outlets.
sep 2, 2025, 2:09 pm • 0 0 • view
So you do not know the definition of “media”? Again, yikes. Broadcast radio and TV, cable, satellite, internet, print - those are all media.
sep 2, 2025, 2:29 pm • 1 0 • view
All I’m talking about is keeping folks from the silo’d info from a Fox Entertainment.
sep 2, 2025, 4:44 pm • 0 0 • view
What are you going to do? Glue their eyes open and prohibit them from changing the channel?
sep 2, 2025, 5:03 pm • 0 0 • view
Many Fox Entertainment viewers wouldn’t change the channel. They’d SEE and HEAR news they never view on that channel. Introduction to EXTRA INFO is the key to destroying this Propagandistic Universe we’ve been living in since Reagan stopped the FD.
sep 2, 2025, 5:34 pm • 0 0 • view
Fox News already meets the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine by having talking heads that scream at each other and the occasional appearance by people like Buttigieg.
sep 2, 2025, 6:27 pm • 0 0 • view
Only on a few programs. And even those like Jessica on The Five NEVER gets her complete point across (thus informing the audience) because jackweeds like Gutfeld and Watters always always always cut her off. When she threatens the general Fox Entertainment message, they cut her off.
sep 2, 2025, 10:09 pm • 0 0 • view
Guess what? That’s all the Fairness Doctrine ever required.
sep 2, 2025, 11:34 pm • 1 0 • view
You can't force people to consume content and information they don't wish to consume.
sep 2, 2025, 6:22 pm • 2 0 • view
Here he is, being presented with facts that *prove him wrong* and he cherry picks parts of it or changes the definition of words so he can continue to believe he is right. But sure - Fox News viewers are more open minded than he is. 🙄
sep 2, 2025, 6:29 pm • 0 0 • view
Nothing about the fairness doctrine concept forces ANYBODY to “consume content.” What its focus is is the media outlet that PROVIDES the content, that is it forces the outlet to provide a full spectrum of content. Not just its audience wants to hear, which is precisely the behavior that cost FN $$$.
sep 2, 2025, 10:03 pm • 0 0 • view
The Fairness Doctrine didn't do that, either.
sep 2, 2025, 10:14 pm • 1 0 • view
It appears as if you're just looking for ways to shutter FoxNews, honestly.
sep 2, 2025, 10:15 pm • 1 0 • view
Also, if you're referring to the FoxNews / Dominion settlement, that's also not related to the Fairness Doctrine, which had nothing to do with defamation.
sep 2, 2025, 10:19 pm • 1 0 • view
Yes, it did.
sep 2, 2025, 10:19 pm • 0 0 • view
Would you be interested in reading it? www.fcc.gov/document/edi...
sep 2, 2025, 11:31 pm • 2 0 • view
No, it didn't. "A full spectrum of content" was never a requirement. It didn't have to be remotely balanced. Maybe stop pretending to be an expert here....or even a novice. You're clowning yourself.
sep 2, 2025, 10:28 pm • 1 0 • view
Sure, if you think 5:30 Sunday AM community voices programs "bring that uninformed audience info they were not aware of". I typically don't. Also, as it applied to stations and not shows, having a show with a call-in program. It really wasn't overly effective & by the mid 70s was barely enforced.
sep 2, 2025, 2:18 pm • 1 0 • view