The Fairness Doctrine never required truth and constitutionally could not apply to cable.

Well, you're still wrong.

Show us the exact language in the FD that you believes makes it require "truth".

Jesus. What do you people have against the FD?

Near as I can tell, people mostly have a problem with others misrepresenting or misunderstanding what the FD did and then using that incorrect information to spur memes that are shared thousands of times, spreading misinformation like the white wing does all the time.

I think I'm right. However. If there is any chance that I am wrong. I don't want to misinform anyone. Therefore I will retract my earlier statement until I get all the facts. And that's all I want.

I will no longer post that.

A couple of things -Most people who support the "Fairness Doctrine" don't really know what it actually did. -People who insist it needs to return often believe it can grant FCC jurisdiction to override free speech / press -Government control of "truth" is in general a bad idea.

I agree. However. There needs to be accountability when it comes to reporting the actual news. Fact checking is a good thing. Opinion shows are just that option. But when it comes to the news. It should be reliable and free of bias.

"Accountability" is fine, but it has to come from the people, not a government that can (in in terms of the present admin, absolutely would), abuse it.

They are definitely abusing the power of the office to push their narrative. But how do you reset the idea that the news can be trusted again without some sort of legislation?

You don't. You educate people on media bias and motivation and hope they will not fall for propaganda. But the reality is some will, because people tend to like "news that backs up my narrative". And that's not good, but it's still better than handing gov more power to regulate "truth".

The government once locked up socialists for passing out flyers advising people to avoid the draft, and even got the Supreme Court to agree with it on the grounds of "clear and present danger", which stood for half a century A return to that should be actively avoided.

But what does that have to do with the FD? I agree that in a "free" society there are going to be aspects of said society that you do not like or agree with. However. There should be some accountability when it comes to what one says on the news. I. E. Yelling fire in a movie theater.

It's funny you use that "fire in a theater" phrase; that is dicta from the very same case that I mentioned a bit ago that was used to justify arresting and jailing socialists. The Fairness Doctrine itself isn't the problem: bringing it back is useless because it would have little present impact.

- Ongoing annoyance/anger at people who love to piously allege they care deeply, deeply about the truth while spewing lies and disinformation about the FD and related things.

Alright. Educate me. How do we fix the bias in the news? I'm willing to hear your thoughts.

You'd have to fix the culture that loves hearing the news they way they want to hear it, that corresponds to and reinforces what they already believe. In short, you'd have to change human biochemistry and psychology if you want to do so without creating some sort of easily abusable ministry of truth

News has *always* had bias of some sort. The idea that once this was a land of completely fair, balanced, nuanced and always honest for golly gee sure news is a fucking myth. There's a reason the phrase "yellow journalism" dates back a couple of centuries.

Good point. But when six corporations own 90% of the news companies in the country. Do you not see that as a problem?