Since BlueSky is a web site, and not a network, it's irrelevant. But the two other networks you mention would fall under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, if it still existed. So, no, in a Fairness Doctrine world, MSNBC could not exist in its present form.

So you dislike free speech and want government control on what can be said, published, written and produced, and you want to decide what sort of medium that applies to, based on some 40 year old metric. Got it.

But the Fairness Doctrine didn't limit what you could say. It recognized the reach of mass media and limited what you could say unopposed. So you don't want someone to be able to disagree with you on the airwaves. You want a propaganda machine.

I want free speech. I don't want one media telling me an orange is purple & the opposition media telling me the orange is black based on "fairness". The orange is orange...if morons want to think otherwise, having government demand opposing sides state otherwise, does me, nor anyone else, any good.

Well, Vanessa, you say it doesn't do any good. But for decades the FA kept us from having echo chambers that could basically act as the propaganda wing for one party. Am I impeding your free speech by disagreeing with you?

The world has changed. Where people get information from has changed. Rules and methods that applied in the 40s, 70s and 90s, no longer do. If 90% of people get news online, what is regulating TV news going to accomplish? Nothing. I agree it's messed up, but can boneheads from gov. "fix it"? Nah.