Trump is never right, but his warped logic can be used to bring back the fairness doctrine. Which doesn't mean that anyone has to post anything nice about him, it means that Fox needs to show all sides.

Nope. The Fairness Doctrine constitutionally could not apply to cable channels and yes, Trump would absolutely use it to force broadcast stations to say nice things about him and what he is doing. You should google how it was abused by Kennedy.

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.

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 ...

that was at issue in Red Lion v. FCC.

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.

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...

Let’s say we do that. Who do you think would be responsible for enforcement?

Well it doesn't matter when there's a dictator in the whitehouse. What do you propose instead?

I’d propose we recognize the US is wildly divergent politically and culturally, and therefore our current free speech dumpster fire of a situation is the least bad option. Don’t give the state any type of censorship power.

So much this. Too many people think giving the government authority over the press would resolve the political divide. And I suppose they may be somewhat right - look at China, Russia, and North Korea just to name a few.

LOL You literally just suggested Congress bring it back.

😂😂😂😂...yes

So if Trump keeps ignoring Congress and doesn't enforce it, what, exactly, would bringing it back do?

I propose the only solution to the "Fox Problem" is the hard choice. You. You (hypothetical, writ large) have to stop not-engaging when Uncle MAGA says the Jewish Space Lasers are activating the 5G nanobots so the Soros Zombie Army mail-in-vote frauds. You say "Bullshit" every time. Every time.

Exactly. When my dad started watching Fox News I had conversations with him about what they said and how he taught me to question things that were printed in the paper or said on TV. He stopped watching. And when he was around others who watched, he had that conversation with them.

My stepfather was a socially liberal fiscally conservative type in the late 80s and early 90s and by Obama's administration he, a lifelong pacifist who was extremely leery of guns, had a pistol, a concealed carry permit, and his new wife did too all bc Fox convinced them Dems were comin' for guns.

And I'm being really kind and censorious of what Fox actually convinced them of. Maybe read between the white piano keys to see what who was "coming for your guns."

Fox also isn’t the problem. The real issue is the conspiracy-loving fake patriot audience. They exist irrespective of whether Fox News does, and they vote. They need to be offered, persuaded, or convinced to think different. Not all of them, obviously, but enough.

Rt wing media (aka Fox) was a huge part of the Tea Party. There tactic was to take hold of AM broadcasting because the knew they had a captive audience that would listen to Rush Limbaugh all day long without any alternate viewpoints. Those areas still depend on these AM stations for information.

You know how Limbaugh had a call in portion of his show? That fully met the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine. Even if every viewpoint agreed with him, they were still providing airtime for diverse viewpoints. And it met the requirements for the *station* - not just his program.

Also, who the fuck had their minds changed by Limbaugh anyway? His callers would open up with “megadittos” and tell him how they agreed with him 100% on everything. Does anyone think if a Proud Boy hears Maddow they become ANTIFA?

Right? Supposedly if they hear the “truth” from the right person, in the right tone, at that right time they will change their minds! But obviously family members are not the “right people”.

There were knobs on the radio. Nobody was captive, and more importantly if there was content that would have sold better, it would have replaced Rush. People wanted what he was selling.

What do you think would happen if an AM station broadcast ACLU-hosted talk shows or documentary on 17th century opera?

You’re mixing up cause and effect. Rural folks trend red and, like everyone, like content that reinforces their beliefs.

You meanif I start a radio station and play 17th Century opera non-stop it is unlikely to convert my local area into giant Monteverdi fans? Damn. There goes my new venture for 2026!

People like to ignore that the Fox News audience has always existed.

They always existed but Fox *absolutely* mainstreamed that shit vs shady poor quality handpress "newsletters" and "newspapers". And gave it polish and glamour and a veneer of legitimacy and a huuuuuge budget.

Oh yeah. But radio and in person events also contributed. Hell, we had whole wars about issues long before cable came along.

Yes. FNC, and their followers, did not create their audience. No one is "brainwashed" or "mind-controlled". They simply found, and served, an audience, and if the audience kept gravitating to more extreme content, the content providers followed the audience.

IOW, right-wing media didn't make your family racist. They always were. Stop giving them excuses.

That's why the solution is you. Not policy, regulation, or law. Those things can and will be used against you. But you? You can call out bullshit when you see it. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." They weren't kidding.