Bring back the Fairness Doctrine!! NOW nt

[joetheman]

[pressbox69]

1. From your lips

To the ears of the Gods of Fairness.

[tritsofme]

2. To watch it get struck down by SCOTUS?

[FBaggins]

5. Probably so

And likely for the very reasons that the OP wants it in the first place.

[abqtommy]

6. Maybe we should go ahead and Pack The Court first!

[Sherman A1]

3. Agreed

[melm00se]

4. Once again this foolish call raises its head

back in the hey day of the Fairness Doctrine (1960's to early 1980's), the electronic media landscape looked this this:

- The vast majority of television markets were ABC, NBC and CBS (and maybe PBS) only.
- The AM radio spectrum was on the decline due to the superior audio fidelity of FM.
- Despite this, the majority of radio outlets until the 1980's were music oriented which provided non-local network news (if they provided any news at all).
- Most stations discharged their "public service" programming requirement(s) through a series of mind numbing shows on Sunday mornings (most of which were religious in nature).

these factors, essentially, limited the audience to 3 (or 4) TV stations and an extremely limited number of news broadcasts over the radio. So, at this point in time, having Fairness Doctrine requirements made a certain amount of sense but they were not without consequences.

Many stations (mine included which catered to an audience that was later to become a prime all news demographic in later years) studiously avoided any kind of reporting that would trigger Fairness Doctrine requirements as the monitoring and documenting was time consuming and expensive.

Fast forward to today.

The electronic media landscape has never been broader:

Most TV markets have access to at least a dozen news outlets:
CNN
- CNN
- CNN HLN
FOX
MSNBC
RT America
BBC
CNBC
Bloomberg
FBC
ABC
CBS
NBC

Then when you factor in the internet: Traditional media outlets on the web, international (non-broadcast) sources (something the average person had zero access to in the 1980s), streaming services etc etc etc. The breadth of perspectives have made the need of Fairness Doctrine protections an unnecessary set of regulations.

In fact, in today's political environment a reconstituted Fairness Doctrine could have an incredibly chilling effect on free speech. Just watching some of the commentary here, I can quite easily see folks with stop watches, check lists and the FCC's Fairness Doctrine complaint form bookmarked and pre-prepared waiting with baited breath for their most hated media outlet(s) to stray from the Fair Doctrine path triggering an immediate flood of complaints which will then be forwarded to the "offending" outlets who will have to investigate and respond. Those investigations and responses will take time, effort and more importantly money.

It is not unreasonable to assume that these regulations will drive the affected outlets to take the path of least financial impact which, in my experience, would be to avoid controversial topics entirely, avoid opinion pieces and just report the facts with no analysis.

[-misanthroptimist]

7. Difficult or not, the Fairness Doctrine is needed.

Most of the "controversial topics" today are bullshit propaganda. (See: CRT) So, yeah, getting rid of the faux-controversy would be good.

We are in a situation where 1/4th - 1/3rd of our population has been radicalized -so much so that some stormed the Capitol to attempt to overturn an election that they lost. So, maybe a little quiet consideration is called for, even if it's forced and not the way we would like to see it happen in a perfect world.

Bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

[MichMan]

9. It never applied to cable outlets

[-misanthroptimist]

10. That doesn't mean it can't

Alternatively, I could support requiring a strict definition of what can be called "news." Along with a requirement that opinion programs are prominently labeled as such. Throw in robust enforcement and severe penalties for violation and ya got yourself something.

I could also get behind a law requiring all government office holders, appointees, and their staff to tell the truth when speaking in public or publishing anything. They can still give their opinions, but those statements must be labeled as opinion.

[MichMan]

11. I suppose one could also argue it should be applied to sites like DU too

[MarineCombatEngineer]

17. Those who advocate bringing back the FD,

don't seem to think ahead of the consequences this would have.

[melm00se]

26. Actually the basis for the power behind the

Fairness Doctrine came into being shortly after the Federal Radio Commission was established to allocate frequencies among competing applicants in the public interest.

So tell me, does the FCC (the follow on of the FRC) have licensing power over the internet? Does the internet have a scarcity of spectrum in alignment with the Supreme Court case that validated the constitutionality of the FD?

Furthermore, the regulatory compliance component of the the old FD in today's technological and hyper political environment would create a crippling burden upon any and all media outlets including places like DU.

[-misanthroptimist]

29. Despite the weaknesses of the FD

...re-instatement would send a signal to the non-broadcast news outlets.

Of course, the FD doesn't apply to the internet. Nowhere in this thread has it been argued that it does. That's why I propose a truth in labeling law to what can be called "news". And that news should be defined legally and confine itself to the facts. Opinion shows should be labeled "opinion." This is neither a burden nor regulation of Free Speech. It merely requires that Speech to be labeled appropriately so that citizens are informed in a way that is honest, useful, and helpful to public discourse.

Example: Not one of those right-wing advocates and defenders of TFG's whines about the last election would be threatened. All that would happen is that the word "Opinion" would have to be prominently displayed so people watching would know that that is not a news program. End of story. They get to say whatever they want, as vehemently, breathless, and hyperbolic as they can please. They just can't call it news and must label it correctly.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

12. A resounding NO.

Not only would it be struck down by SCOTUS, but it isn't needed in this age, there are untold numbers of ways to get the news today.

[-misanthroptimist]

19. Telling the truth doesn't limit anyone's 1st Amendment Rights

The untold numbers of ways to get news is meaningless. The underlying assumption is that people have the time and practical ability to explore fact, opinion, and fiction. They don't, mostly.

For instance, I wonder how many people here have read the actual scientific papers demonstrating the mechanisms for Global Warming and Climate Change? I'd bet substantially less than 5%.

Requiring the government and those seeking to be in government to differentiate fact from opinion from lie is far from a violation of anyone's Constitutional or human rights. It is a necessity in a complex society that aspires to be self-governing.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

20. You do realize that this would apply to DU as well don't you?

Do you want RW talking points on DU?
Again, a resounding NO on the FD and you know as well as I do that the SCOTUS would strike this down as an infringement on the 1A.

[-misanthroptimist]

22. Is DU a news agency? Nope!

Does DU work for any particular candidate? Nope. The closest it comes is accepting advertising.

So, no, it wouldn't apply to DU.

However, even if it did, I would have no problem being asked to state whether my post was fact or opinion. I generally source factual posts, anyway. Everything else may be regarded as opinion. I'm not seeing a problem.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

23. So you're telling me that a future repuke admin.

wouldn't apply this to liberal/progressive sites also?
That's naive at best, and you don't think SCOTUS would strike this down in a heartbeat as unconstitutional under the 1A?

Ok.

[-misanthroptimist]

24. That is your opinion, of course. :)

But no one is required to run for office. Those that volunteer already give up some rights -and rightly so. But they wouldn't even be giving up a right. They could still say whatever they wanted. They would merely be required to state that what they said is opinion or factual. It's not a big imposition.

Likewise with news. There is nothing wrong with having a legal definition of the product known as "news." That definition would require the news to be factual. Hannity could still rant and rave; Tucker could still lie will looking perplexed. The only difference is their shows would have to plainly labeled "Opinion." Again, that's hardly any kind of imposition or draconian requirement. It neither stifles Free Speech nor inhibits it. It merely requires a fair labeling for the consumer.

Political sites like DU -whether left or right- do not, and should not, purport to be news sources. So, the "news" requirements wouldn't (and shouldn't) apply to them. And unless they are receiving direct contributions or directly collaborating with a candidate or campaign, they would not run afoul of the proposed law by one-sided commentary.

I'm not trying to regulate Free Speech. I'm trying to impose penalties for theft. Lying is theft of belief. That theft is used by politicians to steal the belief (and more importantly, the votes) of millions of Americans. I believe that theft is wrong, whether it's taking someone's wallet at gunpoint or telling people that 1/6 was a normal tour. (In point of fact, the guy with the gun is slightly more honest since he's not making believe that he's entitled to your wallet -merely that he can take it.)

[MarineCombatEngineer]

25. ...

I'm not trying to regulate Free Speech. I'm trying to impose penalties for theft. Lying is theft of belief. That theft is used by politicians to steal the belief (and more importantly, the votes) of millions of Americans. I believe that theft is wrong, whether it's taking someone's wallet at gunpoint or telling people that 1/6 was a normal tour. (In point of fact, the guy with the gun is slightly more honest since he's not making believe that he's entitled to your wallet -merely that he can take it.)

You most certainly are trying to regulate Free Speech.

Try taking your proposal to the courts and see just how fast you're laughed out of court.

This is all moot anyways, nobody in Congress is expressing any desire to re-instate the FD, probably because they're smart enough to know that it wouldn't survive a court challenge.

[-misanthroptimist]

28. Your baseless opinions are noted.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

30. As are yours. nt

[-misanthroptimist]

34. WRT the Fairness Doctrine...

...I do have a unanimous Supreme Court decision upholding it. I think that's a reasonable basis for my opinion.

As for the rest of the discussion, no one has yet explained how requiring news to be labeled news is an infringement on Free Speech.

[Polybius]

38. You think it would be 9-0 upheld?

Thomas and Alito would be out of their mind to upheld a more intrusive unFairness Doctrine.

[-misanthroptimist]

44. It doesn't matter what either of us believe.

And even if it did matter, 5-4 has precisely the same effect. If the decision in the Appeals Court upheld the prior SC ruling, then it's entirely possible that the SC might refuse to even take the case.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

39. Really?

And what year was that?
And do you really believe that this SC would rule the same?

[-misanthroptimist]

43. Belief is of no relevance.

[melm00se]

42. Yes, there is an 8-0

Supreme Court decision supporting the FD BUT...

Have you read it?

One of the key underpinnings of this decision is what Justice White termed the "spectrum scarcity" of the airwaves. This scarcity has all but disappeared. All one has to do it look at the TV listings and compare the number of OTA stations (FCC regulated) and the amount of time devoted to news to the number of cable/internet/streaming/on demand news sources and the amount of time they devoted to news/current events.

Additionally, the Court also made one of their more boneheaded contentions when they said that the FD "enhance(s), rather than abridge(s), the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment". Think on that a little bit: restrictions make you free. Does that make any logical sense to you?

Back to this scarcity, it coupled with the the public interest in the FCC's mandate, allowed the the FD to flourish. But, as I mentioned above, the media landscape and its delivery mechanisms had changed so dramatically from the Red Lion decision (1969) to the soft deletion of the FD (1980s). If anything the technological changes that, in part, drove the elimination of the FD have widened by several orders of magnitude so that the FD has become the 1st Amendment equivalent of the buggy whip manufacturer.

Keep reflecting on the "good ol' days" and someone might confuse and label you as a conservative. : :

[-misanthroptimist]

45. The scarcity still exists for broadcast wavelengths.

And since the FD applies to broadcast news, there's no reason to believe that that would be a factor in any decision.

[melm00se]

46. So there is no alternative

way of broadcasting news?

From the 1930s to the 1980s that was the case but as cable, then internet, grew as a delivery method that fell to the wayside.

Also bear in mind the major conservative players: FoxNews, OAN, Newsmax, The Blaze and Infowars. None of these are over the air news outlets thus outside the purview of the Fairness Doctrine as it was originally written. If, as some have suggested, the FD's scope is widened to encompass these sources, that expansion can (and almost certainly will) be twisted to include a lot of news/current event outlets.

Furthermore, as mentioned before, the likelihood of the FD surviving a constitutional challenge on 1st Amendment grounds is almost zero as the landscape in which Red Lion was adjudicated is just a distant memory.

The Fairness Doctrine is dusted off and paraded around as a way to combat "misinformation" but, in reality, is nothing more than an ideological weapon with the hoped for ability and impact to silence political opponents and speech from the other side of the spectrum.

Like I said upthread: the Supreme Court's assertion that somehow, someway, regulations to limit free speech does not protect or enhance free speech. For an institution who, historically, has come down on expanding free speech rights, this can be viewed as nothing but a shocker and a precedent awaiting the right case to be buried as a poor ruling.

[-misanthroptimist]

49. And that's why I included other means.

Legally defining what can be called "news" is a necessary first-step. Then strict enforcement of that definition should occur.

Fox, and the rest of the propaganda outfits, can put out whatever they want. They just won't be able to call it news.

[melm00se]

50. Already done

under 47 CFR § 0.466.

Paragraph 7 states

The term representative of the news media refers to any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. In this clause, the term news means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public.

[onenote]

48. Exactly right.

A few other points that those who think that the FD is a magic bullet.

First, the rule had three components: a generally stated requirement that broadcasters cover issues of importance to the public and that fair coverage be given to opposing views on those issues and two specifically codified corollary components--the "personal attack" rule (under which broadcasters must give the target of a personal attack notice and the opportunity to respond) and the political editorializing rule (under which a station that editorializes in favor of a particular candidate must give the other candidate notice and an opportunity to respond). While the Court's opinion discusses the general FD principle, the Red Lion case itself arose from two instances involving application of personal attack rule. Consequently the actual "holding" of the case is not a blanket approval of the FD: "Believing that the specific application of the fairness doctrine in Red Lion, and the promulgation of the regulations in RTNDA, are both authorized by Congress and enhance, rather than abridge, the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment, we hold them valid and constitutional, reversing the judgment below in RTNDA and affirming the judgment below in Red Lion." Notably, the Court also acknowledged that "We need not approve every aspect of the fairness doctrine to decide these cases..."

Second, the FD came into being in the early days of broadcasting. It's existence didn't prevent right wing messaging from radio broadcasters such as Paul Harvey or hate-filled rants from the likes of Joe Pyne. It's existence didn't end Jim Crow, keep the US out of Vietnam, or prevent Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan from getting elected. Compliance with it often took the form of broadcasts of "roundtable" discussions of an issue aired at ungodly hours on a Sunday morning when there was no audience. In short, the FD wouldn't necessarily be the panacea some apparently think it would be. In fact, one might not notice much of a change in the content of programming.

[appalachiablue]

37. +++ The Fairness Doctrine can be adapted

and updated. Sick of that lame point.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

40. Not going to happen,

the SC would strike it down in a heartbeat and this isn't a lame point, despite your saying it is.

Again, it's all moot anyway, no one in Congress is proposing bringing back the FD, because they are smart enough to know that it most likely won't survive a court challenge.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

41. If your sick of it,

then there's a very simple solution, don't read it.
You're welcome.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

15. Spot on!!!

I suspect this is how the SCOTUS would look at it also and strike it down as unconstitutional under the 1A.

[melm00se]

27. The precedent that supported the

Fairness Doctrine (Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC) was that the FCC licensed the limited/scarce spectrum that broadcasters operated in.

As outlets like Fox News, MSNBC, OAN, Newsmax and the like operate outside the FCC's licensure capabilities, the FCC would have no regulatory basis for control.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

31. +100. nt

[Walleye]

8. This is like the call for term limits. Never going to happen. Couldn't happen. Empty talking point

[MarineCombatEngineer]

13. +100. nt

[joetheman]

16. So it was the first time...but it passed. A well-crafted one on public, civic issues is not empty.

The fact that GOP Presidents vetoed the legislation (Reagan and Bush) tells you almost all you need to know why it should be brought back. The fact that no one has to LISTEN to or READ both sides of an issue is all the freedom of speech needed.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

18. You do realize that this would apply to DU as well don't you?

Would you want RW talking points on DU?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

14. NO!!!

That is all.

[gulliver]

21. I don't think you can make it a public law because of the Constitution

But you could make it some kind of industry standard with some sort of consortium I would think. For example, journalism would get a credibility boost if they formalized standard practices about sourcing, fact checking, corrections, etc. We'd see legitimate journalists proudly displaying the "Quality Journalism Consortium" brand at WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc. But a Fox News fact checking team? Not gonna be a good fit for their "journalism."

[melm00se]

32. Already exists

here are some examples

Radio Television Digital News Association

Society of Professional Journalists

You can google more.

The issue here is that the internet has swept these away as anyone can produce any "news" (or news appearing) content and publish it in the blink of an eye (Alex Jones anyone? Glenn Beck? James O'Keefe?).

Additionally, there is no way that the government can legislate limits on folks like this without running roughshod over the 1st Amendment. Justice Robert Jackson stated it so clearly in West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

Political opinion, regardless if you agree with it or not, is damn near inviolate from government interference as it should be. Taking a contrarian position to this or advocating regulatory limits to the 1st Amendment is far more dangerous than any of these journalists (faux or not) and their commentary.

[gulliver]

33. Thanks. Very interesting info.

Things like this can make journalism more like medicine and law where the discipline polices its own product. Tucker Carlson could, for example, be kicked out of the Society of Professional Journalists just as I hope Sidney Powell is disbarred.

I completely agree that the government shouldn't have the ability to regulate journalism.

[melm00se]

35. How could not being part of some society

limit one's ability to be a journalist without some sort of regulatory power?

Furthermore, how do you stop someone from issuing an opinion? Especially with the ubiquitous penetration of the internet?

[gulliver]

36. It could work like a cross between the BBB and bar associations

The idea is that you're not stopping someone from issuing an opinion, but you're providing them an opportunity to be recognized as credible by an organization of their peers. If they join the organization, they would be entitled to add a reference to their membership to anything they write or in bio information about themselves online. In addition to their degrees, for example, member journalists could include their memberships in organizations dedicated to journalistic trustworthiness.

Consumers, as with the BBB and other ratings organizations, could look up the original author of a piece and check to see whether the author was part of a credentialing organization that verifies ethics.

So, for example, Tucker Carlson might say something deceptive. His critics could note that he's not affiliated with any journalistic ethics organizations and is therefore, not credible. If he were to be a member of an organization like that, then they could review what he says and discipline him using whatever powers the organization has over its members, including expulsion. If he were not a member of the organization yet called himself a journalist, the organization could issue judgements on his work nonetheless.

It can be similar to what's happening with Sidney Powell and Rudolph Giuliani now. They both face possible disbarment. The government doesn't enforce that. Fellow lawyers, who have an interest in their profession being trusted, enforce it.

[brooklynite]

47. And if I choose not to join the RTDGA or SPJ?

I don't think the folks at OAN are going to to lose sleep about not not being "approved" journalists...and neither will their audience.