I am just not sure what you are getting at..... FOX can make the claim the election was stolen but they were refuted in the court of public opinion and they STOPPED reporting on it. The SYSTEM worked. Then Dominion sued to reall hammer it home. That is what the legal system is for, not the FCC.
The fairness doctrine required honest, equitable, and balanced news reporting
- Thread starter userque
- Start date
Protections are [not] attached based on the name/category of the show/segment. Regardless of that, it only matters about the actual speech itself.
You can still purport something as being fact (not merely an opinion), regardless the show.
Last edited:
ok I admit I came in late to the conversation so maybe I missed something and I apologize for jumping in but you raise interesting points.
Lot of commentary shows report flasehoods as fact but at the time they don't believe they are false. Like FOX pushing the Obama birther theory. Their people pushed it and pushed it and when they were shown to be false, they simply moved on. sadly that is how it works. You can push an opinion as fact if you believe it and public opinion gets to vet you out. If it proceeds to a severe level the person can sue the station and shut it down (a la Dominion and how Dobbs was shut down).
The system worked too slowly. That's obviously the opinion the FCC had in 1949. Even they also had defamation laws at their disposal.
Every dictator knows the power of the media. After someone is brainwashed, waiting months or years later for a redaction may be too late.
The election is over already, but the lawsuits are only just beginning. Those false narratives could have actually changed the results of the election.
The point in 1949, and my point now, is that we must have a more efficient way to combat disinformation campaigns.
How many more tragic examples do we need of brainwashed ignoramuses lashing out before this becomes obvious ... again ... like it was in 1949?
Last edited:
Honestly regulating reporting is a much steeper uphill battle than proving money isn't speech. It's a moot point to even argue w/the way SCOTUS is stacked anyway.
That's why there is a duty to know, especially for the press.
They can be held accountable if they know, or should have known, the allegation was not factual.
Even so, the proposed regulations would provide incentive for outlets to properly vet, and report, such matters.
Opinions vary.
Im sorry but there isn’t much accountability in news here in America beyond libel and slander.
The nighttime cable channels often mimic their opinion shows as news programs and I think that’s what needs to be more clear to the viewing public.
Also, the fairness doctrine was good policy and it’s not so much about left and right as about fact checking. Just having a real time counter to some of these outlandish lies that have permeated our national conversation would make a difference.
So you're talking about actual journalism? That died decades ago, especially political journalism. Doesn't really exist in mainstream media, left or right. You might find some in smaller venues, but then the extremists will call that fake news if it counters their narrative. Let's just face the facts, politics is nearly 100% bullshit. Which brand you buy is up to you.
Fairness is not the same as fact checking so those are two different issues....
Also all nightly news is populated by commentary shows....commentary = opinion.
When did CNN or FOX actual report any FACTS alone.. never.... always within commentary.
If an idiot believes it well that is the bad with the good of a free press.