No, it doesn't. The Doctrine would never apply to cable channels. The FCC has no authority to regulate cable channels as seen by many things but most especially by the fact that the Equal Time Rule, which requires "broadcast stations" to give equal air time to political candidates, is ...
You do realize that rural America (which is who desperately could benefit more from the doctrine) still depends heavily on AM radio, which is 100% under FCC jurisdiction.
So nothing mentioned in the OP?
Well my comment isn't directly to the OP's post. It was towards Trump. There's plenty of right wing media saying nice things about him. So bring back the fairness doctrine so both sides can be represented on all media. I was mostly saying it tongue in cheek, but a healthy discussion on it is fine.
bsky.app/profile/kale...
Except that it can't be applied to "all media." SCOTUS made that clear in Miami Herald v. Tornillo (an attempt to apply the rule in Red Lion to newspapers) and last year's Netchoice v. Moody that made clear that social media sites have a 1A right to display only viewpoints they wish.
Yes, I understand that very clearly. However, it could apply to regulated FCC airwaves such as AM radio. A very large portion of the US, mostly red states, still get their news from AM stations. The GOP invested in these stations and to this day aren't fans of rural areas getting high speed internet
And how many of those people are awake at 2 a.m. listening to their AM radio?
As I have demonstrated, the Doctrine did not work the way you think it did. Further, as I explained, it’s very likely that with the expansion of multiple avenues of viewpoints (especially podcasts) destroying the scarcity identified in 1969 by SCOTUS, the Doctrine would likely be held …
unconstitutional by SCOTUS like it has held for other mediums, including social media That day has passed long ago.
And those areas have high speed internet, just not in the manner the Dems wished to bring. I'm originally from a very, VERY rural town in central Minnesota. They have had internet access there which they have used to post Trump BS on Facebook and the like for 15 years or more.
They also have cable channels and satellite radio, all of which increased the number avenues for people to express, hear, or watch varying viewpoints. If they have access to Fox News, they certainly have access to MSNBC, C-SPAN, CNN, etc.
You seem to have a highly-inflated idea of what the FD required on "regulated FCC airwaves". It was pretty minimal. Do you really think some call-in show at 2am on Sunday mornings made any difference? That's the sort of thing that stations could do to be in compliance.
If you think the FD forced there to be any kind of on-show rebuttal/counterpoint you are very very mistaken.
Correct. The screenshots of the Fairness Doctrine policy proved that.
None of those AM stations plays Fox News, which is only on cable/interner/streaming.
Actually, some Fox News programming is available on OTA radio. I was shocked when I learned that.
I've never heard that. I know that Fox News personalities have radio shows; I've never heard of actual Fox News content being aired. 🤔
Yep. radio.foxnews.com/listen/
The stations that carry FNR or that air content from the programs would be in compliance regardless. (There’s far worse stuff on AM Radio than FN.)
Yep.
And? The Doctrine doesn't require that AM stations be unbiased nor does it require that the shows be programmed without bias. It's up to the discretion of the station as two when an opposing viewpoint be aired and for whatever amount of time they choose. They can air a television show ...
on Sunday mornings that provides the opposing views that were aired during the week. Or provide a call-in show at midnight each night when people can call-in to address what was aired earlier in the day. That's if SCOTUS would even allow the Doctrine today. In Red Lion, SCOTUS noted that ....
their rationale and decision could change if the scarcity issue was no longer an issue. With the exponential increase in avenues for viewpoints available to even rural America, through cable channels and the internet, the scarcity argument is arguably no longer viable. Indeed, courts in ....
the 1990's expressed as much when the "personal attack rule" which was not repealed in 1987 with the rest of the Doctrine was challenged in court. The FCC stopped enforcing that rule due to the court requirements to justify the rule. And that's huge because it was the personal attack rule ...
Also, note that Trump in his way is calling for the Doctrine as it is misunderstood and would apply it ever broader. He would claim that the Doctrine required NBC to air a conservative Saturday Night Live or conservative late night hosts. He'd never win in a protracted lawsuit, but even the ...
presence of a Doctrine would give him enough to get past the motion to dismiss stage and incur high legal costs for stations. They'd do what CBS did with Colbert (for different reasons) for all their shows: neuter them completely.
That is, indeed, an irony -- Trump is demanding laws that would act as people falsely *believe* the Fairness Doctrine acted, but, for *some* reason, they aren't happy when Trump does it.
Yep. One additional thing that just occurred to me. The existence of podcasts which can be downloaded to a phone automatically and listened to offline is probably the death of any type of Doctrine coming back to radio stations. Almost everyone has a smart phone and podcasts are largely ...
free through various streaming platforms. And there as many, many podcasts representing a myriad of viepwpoints. You'll find for more left/liberal content on podcasts that can be found on AM radio, even on stations that are open to such shows.
The idea that anything like the FD could exist in an age when most media is asynchronous and user-selected is ridiculous. As it was, most "responses" or "divergent viewpoints" were dumped at odd times, but if people WERE watching at those times, they'd sit through them.
not applied to cable channels or any medium other than "broadcast stations" which, statutorily does not include cable channels. bsky.app/profile/bwke...
Further, when SCOTUS permitted the Fairness Doctrine as a 1A exception in Red Lion v. FCC, the Court made it clear that Doctrine was only permitted due to the "unique" issues faces by that medium which required gov't licensing. Were it not for those issues, the Doctrine would not have been allowed
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
