“Regulators invited public comment on whether the US broadcast license for Fox Corp.’s TV station in Philadelphia should be renewed after a grassroots organization asked that it be denied, saying Fox knowingly broadcast false news about the 2020 election.”

  • flipht@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    There used to be. It was called the fairness doctrine. It was introduced in 1949 and was abolished in 1987. It required news broadcasters to present controversial issues to fairly reflect differing viewpoints - in other words, you can’t have overt, blatant, “This will cause liberals to eat your babies” propaganda.

    There are some issues with it, but it’s clearly better than what we’re allowing now. The crux, though, is that it only matters for FCC-aligned issues, so actual broadcasting. Cable and internet sources would still be able to lie with impunity, and they make up a huge portion of our disinformation compared to what existed even in the early 2000s.

    • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      When anything bad is introduced, 90% of the time the dates and data will point to The Reagan Administration. Truly the downfall of politics, environmentalism, and representation of the citizens in america.

      • TQuid@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        He’s the answer to the question in Mad Max: Fury Road. Obviously he had and has a lot of help, but so much comes back to him.

    • Omegamanthethird@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So, if one of the viewpoints of a controversial issue is based on falsehoods, would they be forced to present it as equal to the other viewpoint? Because if so, I don’t really see that as better.

      • flipht@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not exactly. The fairness would include allowing the other side it’s refutation on the facts.

        News companies have never been required to report falsehoods just because someone famous said them. They’ve chosen to do that since the fairness doctrine was upended, because it aligns with their corporate interests.

      • ArtZuron@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If the viewpoints are based on blatant falsehoods, then they really shouldn’t be presented at all IMO. That is to say, ideally that’s how it would be. It doesn’t really work like that IRL

    • TehPers@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Seems like now more than ever is a good time to bring back something to regulate these companies. At the very least, there should be a strong penalty to companies spreading misinformation.

      The article pointed out that there was a defamation lawsuit caused over lying about voting machine rigging. That should honestly be criminal, especially knowing what happened after that election.