So you do not know the definition of “media”? Again, yikes. Broadcast radio and TV, cable, satellite, internet, print - those are all media.

All I’m talking about is keeping folks from the silo’d info from a Fox Entertainment.

What are you going to do? Glue their eyes open and prohibit them from changing the channel?

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.

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.

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.

Guess what? That’s all the Fairness Doctrine ever required.

Nope. The FD required that another voice would UNINTERRUPTED be able to express other viewpoints.

No. It did not.

I want some of the amazing weed you’re smoking. Alternatively you can post some primary sources that back up that bit of unhinged hilarity.

You can't force people to consume content and information they don't wish to consume.

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. 🙄

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 $$$.

The Fairness Doctrine didn't do that, either.

It appears as if you're just looking for ways to shutter FoxNews, honestly.

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.

Lolololololol. Really? Are you not familiar with the Dominion court docs (upon which the settlement was made) that showed EXACTLY what I said, that being Fox N… Entertainment hosts admitted in internal comms that they were just telling their audiences what they wanted to hear, not the truth.

I have read the decision (which you have not). How do I know. you haven't? Because "We're just entertainment telling folks what they want to hear" isn't a defense for defamation. You just keep getting wronger and wronger.

I said Dominion **court docs** not “decision.” Unfortunately, our laws allow those who defame someone to SETTLE but not admit they actually defamed them. The decision does not contain the internal text messages and emails that SHOW Fox Entertainment told what its audience wanted to hear. Not TRUTH.

Yes, it did.

Would you be interested in reading it? www.fcc.gov/document/edi...

He likes to cherry pick the words that support him while ignoring the rest of the words.

I noticed that.

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.

FD allowed the possibility of a full spectrum of content. That’s all …

“…allowed the possibility…” is not the same thing as requiring it.

Requiring time and space for other voices allows the possibility. Without that requirement, the audience will never have that possibility afforded them.

You said "forces", not "allowed". You were wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about.