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.
