Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(25,401 posts)
21. "could have been made to apply to cable "
Mon Nov 27, 2023, 10:42 AM
Nov 2023

But it wasn't and was unlikely to ever be because of the FCC's limited regulatory abilities. The fairness doctrine as some magic wand was always a bit of a myth. Because enforcement was optional, it was more often used as a political tool to shut down content rather than expand it. It also had unintended consequences, like allowing Big Tobacco to counter news reports that smoking caused cancer with propaganda.

"Social media already has a type of fairness doctrine built in because it goes both ways. "

That's not even remotely true, because the platforms aren't regulated and people like Musk can shape them in pretty much any way they wish. Suppressing opposing viewpoints and promoting bigotry and ignorance, as Musk is quite clearly doing, are the opposite of balanced. You think X/Twitter is "fair" at the moment? Facebook during the 2016 or 2020 campaigns or when they were collecting data and selling it to the GOP?

"The Fairness Doctrine wasn't designed to stop guys like Limbaugh"

Again, enforcement was optional, so as far as people like Limbaugh go, it was mostly useless. The stations could be required to provide counter-programming, but there were usually no strings attached. They could broadcast a counter-point at 2:00am and technically meet the requirements, but often weren't even required to do that.

If it couldn't address cable news and couldn't address social media and couldn't deal with people like Limbaugh, it didn't really matter if it was in place or not once all of those proliferated. An entirely new regulatory framework would need to be created to address those, with much tougher regulations and media requirements.

Lessons for social media from the Fairness Doctrine from the Columbia Journalism Review:


Immaterial to some. czarjak Nov 2023 #1
Add "Nixon" to the last paragraph..... lastlib Nov 2023 #2
Nixon most likely excluded because he created the EPA, which doesn't fit the social good only by Dems narrative. Freethinker65 Nov 2023 #3
I think it's a very true meme. Elessar Zappa Nov 2023 #4
It was suggested Nixon be added to the list, I was responding as to why, perhaps he was excluded. Freethinker65 Nov 2023 #5
Your point about Nixon creating the Environmental Protection Agency is well taken, but... sop Nov 2023 #6
Thanks for making my point! Comparing policies to policies (or people to people) is much more effective Freethinker65 Nov 2023 #7
I've asked this same question to conservatives I know & I've asked here as well ... aggiesal Nov 2023 #9
Today's GOP might support the Interstate Highway Act, but certainly not the other two. sop Nov 2023 #10
... ShazzieB Nov 2023 #17
IIRC Bush 2 was concerned about pandemics & added to & strengthened the pandemic programs that Bill Clinton started. CrispyQ Nov 2023 #11
Bush 2... druidity33 Nov 2023 #12
I knew that GW McIdiot had given money to countries in Africa ... aggiesal Nov 2023 #13
If Nixon were the worst thing ever to come outta the GOP ... Kennah Nov 2023 #15
Republicans are also responsible for getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting Ohioboy Nov 2023 #8
It wouldn't have made much difference once cable news took off. TwilightZone Nov 2023 #16
Yes and no Ohioboy Nov 2023 #18
"could have been made to apply to cable " TwilightZone Nov 2023 #21
I can see your point Ohioboy Nov 2023 #22
When you combine the end of the Fairness Doctrine and its ability to propagandize endlessly. . . PTL_Mancuso Nov 2023 #20
The country was liberal, as was congress, a lot tirebiter Nov 2023 #14
You're selling rethugs short redqueen Nov 2023 #19
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If you put it that way, I...»Reply #21