That's what the fairness doctrine rotted into: both sidesism. They started platforming deniers to pretend to be balanced, ignoring the fact that there is only one side to a fact, and that is the fact. 2+2=4 is a fact, but legacy media would look for someone willing to claim that 2+2=6 to show
"balance" but ignore the fact that the 2+2=6 guy can't back up its claim, but is very sure that 2+2=4 guy is just saying that because he's getting paid by Soros.
The Doctrine wasn't about "facts." It was about providing opposing "viewpoints" which are literally opinions. Each of the "opposing viewpoints" aired could express lies and the Doctrine required no look into whether the viewpoint was based on credible or reliable data or not.
You're talking about a different doctrine, not the news distortion doctrine. That said, airing lies under the pretense of fairness is still lying, which is by definition news distortion. Opinions remain protected even for journalists, as should be the case.
Yes, I was talking about the Fairness Doctrine in reply to your skeet about the Fairness Doctrine and what it was about, as shown below. In that skeet, you weren't talking about the news distortion policy at all.
Question: according to the FaIrness Doctrine, if a viewpoint was presented on a program, when was the TV station required to present a different viewpoint?
The Fairness Doctrine was about assuring equal access time to both sides, not about the content. Once it was repealed the Reich Wing moneybags bought up everything and changed the content to 24/7/365 bullshit and lies. Killing the Fairness Doctrine was not a good thing, that's why they did it.
The Doctrine did NOT assure equal access. The Doctrine itself rejected such an suggestion.
You are confusing the Equal Time Rule, still in effect, with the Fairness Doctrine. And neither of those has anything to do with "moneybags buying up everything". You are babbling.
The Equal Time Rule applies to political candidates only, not political subjects/topics. Eliminating it allowed the denial of access for differing viewpoints. Rush Limbaugh says "Hi!" from the grave...lol! Get an education, Bozo. Clown academy isn't cutting it.
"Denial of access" is not hte same as saying that stations and especially programs like Limbaugh's had to provide "equal access" to differing viewpoints. Which is what you claimed: bsky.app/profile/odie...
FFS, your skeet expressly used “time” with regard to “equal access” so you DID confuse it with the Equal Time Rule even if you knew they dealt with different types of speech. The fact is that the Doctrine did NOT require equal time from opposing viewpoints.
Also, the Doctrine could only be applied to "broadcast stations" as that term is defined in the Communications Act, as SCOTUS made clear in Red Lion v. FCC and Miami Herald v. Tornillo, when Florida tried to apply the same requirement in Red Lion to newspapers.
And last summer, SCOTUS in an opinion written by Justice Kagan ruled that social media sites also have a 1A right to choose what viewpoints they wished to air and those they did not.
Two final points: 1) Even "broadcast stations," the Doctrine is likely unconstitutional today. As stated, SCOTUS permitted it due to the "scarcity" of the "broadcasting medium." In donig so, they noted that if that "scarcity" issue went away, then so would the justification ...
for the Doctrine. Given the dwindling use of that medium and the increasingly exponential increase in avenues for viewpoint expression on cable channels, social media sites, and podcasts, it's likely SCOTUS would rule differently today. Some courts were even suggesting it in the 1990's ...
with regard to the "personal attack" rule which was the rule at issue in Red Lion and was not repealed with the rest of the Doctrine but ended in 2000. transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass...
You’re half correct. The Equal Time Rule applies to political candidates, yees. But the Fairness Doctrine never mandated equal time for political subjects. It simply said that over the course of all programming, not per-show, some differing viewpoints be heard.
There was no mandate for side-by-side debate, or having identical audiences or timeslots. Depending on circumstances, simply having call-in segments where the public could rant on-air would meet FD requirements.
As long as a viewer/listener could hypothetically hear more than one PoV on a topic if they stayed tuned long enough, requirements were met.
If the FD still existed, and if it *could* apply to cable, FNC would easily meet or exceed the requirements, as their shows are full of people yelling that the other guy is wrong. There was no requirement that there be polite, formal, debate.
Rush Limbaugh was literally on the air during that policy. The policy never inhibited his content nor did it require equal time devoted to political topics. It was very narrow for local broadcast. Insulting people who are educated and giving you more context is not a good flex.
That policy had nothing to do with cable channels.
True, only the public airwaves.
And it didn’t do what you pretend.
The Fairness Doctrine never mandated "equal time". The statute only says "and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints". It said NOTHING about "equal time" for differing viewpoints
It didn't work out as intended though; the media were so desperate to find differing viewpoints that they failed to recognize that facts have only one viewpoint. Anthropogenic climate change is real, for example. Claiming otherwise is lying, not a viewpoint.
There is debate about the best ways to curb anthropogenic climate change, though; is nuclear power a good solution is a point of debate because there are reasonable arguments for and against, but the fact that climate change is happening isn't up for debate any more than is the earth a spheroid?
Which is totally irrelevant to this discussion since the FD didn't require facts or prohibit lies. So if some station only ever said climate change is real then they would indeed have to give some (minimal) time to groups who want to say otherwise.
The FCC news distortion edict does however require truth, and giving screen or radio time to liars isn't news no matter how you slice it. Not that the FCC ever actually enforced much of anything, which is a major part of the problem.
Well, if it’s not news then the news distortion rule (even if it actually did what you’re claiming it did) wouldn’t apply in the first place.
According to the FCC it applies to news and requires truth, while allowing opinion. That's pretty clear from the regulation itself. But like most laws in the Idiocracy, that law is almost never enforced, even when faux hosts used their platforms to incite violence.
They didn't "incite violence" legally under the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard. Further, I assume you are referring to Fox News, other cable channels, and maybe social media. However, the FCC doesn't regulate those mediums and can't apply that policy which applies to "broadcast stations."
Actually, some faux hosts did, and probably other extreme right wing media as well. Not that they'd ever be held accountable in the Idiocracy in any case, because the best outcome is that they buy their way out of it.
Per my other posts re: Red Lion v. FCC, Miami Herald v. Tornillo, and Netchoice v. Moody, Congress cannot give FCC such authority to regulate cable channels as they are protected by 1A and aren't subject to the "unique" issues that led SCOTUS to allow the Doctrine for "broadcast stations."
The rule is about things like intentionally misleadingly editing footage of an event, doctoring quotes, and so forth. Not making bogus statements like "climate change is a lie".
And that bogus statement is still an opinion. An irrational opinion that is based on ignorance and/or misunderstanding of the findings, but its' still an opinion and would be protected.
Truth is not a regulation, as it would be in violation of the First Amendment. Show me where it says TRUTH is required
It doesn't violate the first amendment at all, because it's limited to NEWS media, not everyone else. That's the difference that the brainless deniers who clearly can't read invariably choose to ignore in their zeal to deny that news media are news media.
Again, the Fairness Doctrine never applied to the media. The FD only applied to **local broadcast stations**, and it was the broadcaster who chose the topics of discussion, and rarely was it ever media topics of the day.