The FCC's actions in this space over the past few decades have already largely destroyed the broadcast media landscape. I'm unsurprised that they're preparing to deal the death blow.
Or … the FCC could reinstate the Fairness Doctrine so that everyone would be exposed to a wider range of views, some of which would challenge their current beliefs and thinking, such that a variety of ideas would battle it out in the arena public discourse and better, more-accurate, and more-beneficial ones would tend to prevail and hold sway.
The Fairness Doctrine did not accomplish that, either in theory or practice.
> The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. [0]
Modern Fox News often satisfies the letter of the fairness doctrine when they invite allegedly nonpartisan figures on to interview. For example, when Andrew Ngo mischaracterizes left-wing protests in Seattle, that’s a contrasting view.
Since enforcement was left up to the ruling party’s FCC, the effects were predictable:
> While the original purpose of the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints, it was used by the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations to combat political opponents operating on talk radio and television. [0]
It’s very unclear how a Fairness Doctrine-like could function in today’s legal environment. SCOTUS has made it nearly impossible for any federal agency to levy fines or adjudicate rule-breaking.
The FCC's actions in this space over the past few decades have already largely destroyed the broadcast media landscape. I'm unsurprised that they're preparing to deal the death blow.
Is there an example where a merger which was a good result for consumers? Reducing competition from four companies seems destined to be a bad outcome.
Or … the FCC could reinstate the Fairness Doctrine so that everyone would be exposed to a wider range of views, some of which would challenge their current beliefs and thinking, such that a variety of ideas would battle it out in the arena public discourse and better, more-accurate, and more-beneficial ones would tend to prevail and hold sway.
The Fairness Doctrine did not accomplish that, either in theory or practice.
> The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. [0]
Modern Fox News often satisfies the letter of the fairness doctrine when they invite allegedly nonpartisan figures on to interview. For example, when Andrew Ngo mischaracterizes left-wing protests in Seattle, that’s a contrasting view.
Since enforcement was left up to the ruling party’s FCC, the effects were predictable:
> While the original purpose of the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints, it was used by the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations to combat political opponents operating on talk radio and television. [0]
It’s very unclear how a Fairness Doctrine-like could function in today’s legal environment. SCOTUS has made it nearly impossible for any federal agency to levy fines or adjudicate rule-breaking.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine