Kalendae

You can read it here: www.fcc.gov/document/edi...

The Fairness Doctrine did not apply to news - it required diverse viewpoints, which did not have to be aired during the same program or on the same day.

The news was “respectable” because the audience demanded it.

If you want respectable news again, you have to demand it and be willing to support it.

Fox News exists because of the audience.

Do you think the courts always get it right?

Do you believe OJ was actually innocent?

Do you believe the Innocence Project is wrong to take up cases of those who have been convicted of crimes?

There is no such thing in the U.S. as “entertainment only” media.

The Fairness Doctrine constitutionally could not apply to cable, internet, or print.

And chances are it did not do what you think it did anyway.

Limbaugh existed while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.

The Fairness Doctrine could not constitutionally apply to cable, internet, or print.

The end of the Fairness Doctrine changed very little.

Limbaugh existed while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.

The Fairness Doctrine could not constitutionally apply to cable, internet, or print.

The end of the Fairness Doctrine changed very little.

Limbaugh was on air while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.

And the Fairness Doctrine constitutionally could not apply to cable, internet, or print.

The Fairness Doctrine never applied to news.

It required diverse viewpoints which did not have to be aired during the same program or even on the same day.

The Fairness Doctrine never prevented bias or lies and constitutionally could not apply to cable.

Its continuation would have changed nothing.

The definition of news absolutely includes opinions about events.

And who determines what is or is not a lie?

And where in the First Amendment does it give Congress the authority to regulate the press if Congress thinks they are lying?

So just trash the First Amendment?

Reagan did a lot of bad shit, but the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine changed nothing.

The Fairness Doctrine never prevented lies (and actually created the situation where lies carry as much weight as the truth) and it constitutionally could not have applied to cable.

The timeline giveth:

Did AI also tell you that the Fairness Doctrine constitutionally could not apply to cable, internet, or print?

So why do you want to give the government power over speech and the press?

The continuation of the Fairness Doctrine would have changed nothing.

What allowed Trump to stomp all over the Constitution is the failure of Congress to hold him to account.

Any regulations and guardrails would depend on some level of responsibility from those tasked with holding the line.

And we see how well that is working out.

And can you guarantee we will never have someone like Trump in office again?

Any authority you want to give to a “perfect” administration will also belong to administrations like this one.

Lying about election results is absolutely harmful - which is why Trump wants to shut down the ability of the press to do that.

Or is that not what you think will happen?

And yes, republicans started attacking education long before they started attacking anything else.

Who decides what is “harmful disinformation”?

The solution to bad speech is good speech and proper education so people know the difference.

The Fairness Doctrine never prevented lies and constitutionally could not apply to cable, internet, or print.

Its continuation would have changed nothing.

Te continuation of the Fairness Doctrine would have changed nothing.

Do you think ownership regulations apply to cable channels or newspapers?

And that is audience demand - nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

Probably not. It really wasn’t enforced.

The personal attack rule didn’t go away until Obama.

And the station had to provide the time for free if the attacked person couldn’t pay for the rebuttal time.

I wish Congress would do their job.

The only time there was a requirement for a “timely” response during a similar time is if it triggered the personal attack rule.