-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
FCC cracking down on liberal talk-shows not giving equal airtime to GOP guests
- Thread starter Valletta
- Start date
Hans Blaster
Area Meathead
- Mar 11, 2017
- 24,355
- 17,923
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 40,298
- 22,880
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 40,298
- 22,880
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 40,298
- 22,880
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
I watch it for entertainment. It does get old, after a while, lol
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 45,977
- 48,785
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
This probably doesn't affect local news, but rather the national programs like 60 Minutes and the CBS Evening News, now with Tony Dokoupil.
MAGA-Coded Anchor Scores Lowest Ratings of the Century for CBS News
Dokoupil, who had a subpar opening night, introduced himself to viewers on New Year’s Day by criticizing the “legacy media” for having “missed the story” for taking “into account the perspective of advocates and not the average American,” and for putting “too much weight in the analysis of academics or elites, and not enough on you.”Perhaps going after that 'average American' feel, he recently interviewed his mom.
Anchor Tony Dokoupil Mocked for ‘Hard-Hitting’ Segment With His Mom Amid CBS Crackdown on ‘Scoops’
--But perhaps his greatest work as a hardhitting journalist speaking truth to power was his interview with Secretary Rubio.
"Marco Rubio, we salute you. You’re the ultimate Florida man.”
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 40,298
- 22,880
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Interesting. I was under the impression that only Fox News was right leaning.
I must get with the times as they say…
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 40,298
- 22,880
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Some people can be moderate, none, or lean closer to the right or left.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 29,939
- 17,824
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
There was a solution in place for about 4 decades...but they let it expire in the late 80's.
en.wikipedia.org
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. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
While it didn't require equal time...it was still a decent system for the time.
The issue they'd have with it today, if re-introduced with no changes, would be figuring out some way to make sure it was being practiced in sincerity.
Pundits and Opinion-based outlets would be crafty enough in the modern environment to use that "contrasting viewpoint" requirement to sneakily actually bolster their own bias/arguments.
For example, if an outlet has an established bias, and they're legally required to give time to a contrasting viewpoint, there's nothing dictating that they can't "stack the deck". Meaning, do a segment where you get the smartest-sounding, best debater from your own side, and put them up against a random goofball from the other side.
For the fairness doctrine to be re-introduced, there would need to be some additional stipulations put in place so that it actually served its intent.
Otherwise, it'd end up being
Fox News: "In our next segment, we have Ben Shapiro vs. 19 year old Gender studies major from Berkely to discuss reparations"
MSNBC: "Up next, we have former labor Secretary Robert Reich to debate SNAP changes with Cletus from the Wheeling WV Liberty or Die chapter"
Fairness doctrine - Wikipedia
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. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
While it didn't require equal time...it was still a decent system for the time.
The issue they'd have with it today, if re-introduced with no changes, would be figuring out some way to make sure it was being practiced in sincerity.
Pundits and Opinion-based outlets would be crafty enough in the modern environment to use that "contrasting viewpoint" requirement to sneakily actually bolster their own bias/arguments.
For example, if an outlet has an established bias, and they're legally required to give time to a contrasting viewpoint, there's nothing dictating that they can't "stack the deck". Meaning, do a segment where you get the smartest-sounding, best debater from your own side, and put them up against a random goofball from the other side.
For the fairness doctrine to be re-introduced, there would need to be some additional stipulations put in place so that it actually served its intent.
Otherwise, it'd end up being
Fox News: "In our next segment, we have Ben Shapiro vs. 19 year old Gender studies major from Berkely to discuss reparations"
MSNBC: "Up next, we have former labor Secretary Robert Reich to debate SNAP changes with Cletus from the Wheeling WV Liberty or Die chapter"
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Area Meathead
- Mar 11, 2017
- 24,355
- 17,923
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
There are a couple of "new" cable channels that are right even to the right of Fox that started in the last decade.
(And "yet" is in the *future* tense.)
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Area Meathead
- Mar 11, 2017
- 24,355
- 17,923
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Fairness doctrine was about access to the public airwaves...There was a solution in place for about 4 decades...but they let it expire in the late 80's.
Fairness doctrine - Wikipedia
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. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
While it didn't require equal time...it was still a decent system for the time.
The issue they'd have with it today, if re-introduced with no changes, would be figuring out some way to make sure it was being practiced in sincerity.
Pundits and Opinion-based outlets would be crafty enough in the modern environment to use that "contrasting viewpoint" requirement to sneakily actually bolster their own bias/arguments.
For example, if an outlet has an established bias, and they're legally required to give time to a contrasting viewpoint, there's nothing dictating that they can't "stack the deck". Meaning, do a segment where you get the smartest-sounding, best debater from your own side, and put them up against a random goofball from the other side.
For the fairness doctrine to be re-introduced, there would need to be some additional stipulations put in place so that it actually served its intent.
Neither of these are (were) broadcast channels. Fairness doctrine NEVER applied to cable TV.
Upvote
0
- Feb 10, 2013
- 40,298
- 22,880
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ok! I don’t watch much cable anymore which explains why I’m not in the loop
I forgot about Newsmax, if they count
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 29,939
- 17,824
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
For it to have any effect in the modern environment, it would have to be applied to cable TV (as well as other mediums)
The Fairness doctrine (only applying to broadcast TV and nothing else) would only impact about a fifth of the market share.
"ABC World News Tonight, you have to present your 7 million quarterly viewers with contrasting viewpoints" accomplishes very little if there are podcasts and and other non-broadcasts mediums putting up those kinds of numbers in a week.
The other aspect I haven't touched on is the Overton Window, and how that would be viewed in terms of social responsibility.
The Fairness Doctrine, in it's previous state, would dictate that during covid, if ABC had Fauci on to discuss the importance of the covid vaccine, they would've needed to give Robert Malone time on their show to present a contrasting viewpoint...would people have been cool with that arrangement?
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Area Meathead
- Mar 11, 2017
- 24,355
- 17,923
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
And what would be the legal basis for that?
Remember the old fairness doctrine (and public service requirements, and public decency requirements) for broadcast TV and radio derived from the licenses being applied to the public airwaves.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
