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.
No, they did not under the Brandenburg standard, which is a very high standard that requires that it was the intent of the speaker to incite imminent (i.e. immediate) harm and that speech was likely to cause such imminent harm. SCOTUS has interpreted that very narrowly over the years.
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."
Yes, cable media have been abusing that loophole to become propaganda machines. Given how corrupt the supreme court is, having given permission to politicians to accept bribes from anyone they feel like taking money from, that loophole is not surprising. Neither are the results.
It's not a "loophole." As I've shown, regulation of the media has ALWAYS been prohibited under 1A. Regulation of "broadcast stations" was a limited exception based on the "unique" nature of that medium. AND it's the liberal Justices that have made this clear. Red Lion and Miami Herald ...
were decided unanimously when SCOTUS was at its most liberal. And the Moody decision was led by the liberal Justices, including Kagan, who wrote the opinion. The most corrupt Justices, Alito and Thomas, did not sign on to that opinion. You are misinformed on the legal aspects here.
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.
Yes, it would. The NEWS media has the same rights as everyone else. It's why SCOTUS has struck down application of the Fairness Doctrine (or similar laws) to every other medium except for "broadcast stations." Further, the only reason the Doctrine (which did not apply to the "news") was ...
permitted on "broadcast stations" was due to the "unique" scarcity problems plaguing that medium which required the gov't to determine who could broadcast and who couldn't. As a result of receiving that "frequency monopoly," the stations were required to provide airtime to opposing viewpoints.
As SCOTUS said in Miami Herald v. Tornillo, the press (in that case newspapers) do lie, but 1A prohibits gov't regulation of the press.
The news distortion rule doesn't apply to "news media", whatever that even is. It applies to the broadcast of news events by individual stations. And only applies to "deliberate distortion" of a "significant event".
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.