this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
829 points (98.1% liked)
Political Memes
11977 readers
2022 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I know the Fairness Doctrine was a good thing but it kind of sounds like false balance to me. Of cause it's better to put a climate change expert next to a climate change denier instead of only listening to the latter but wouldn't the Fairness Doctrine also make it more difficult to only interview the former? Or would that fall under News? Maybe I'm missing something here.
The biggest detail I think you aren't seeing is that the fairness doctrine made 'Opinion Pieces' on air much less attractive as a host, as a producer, etc. So generally they just WOULDN'T present anything that wasn't just news unless it was a political debate and the two sided conversation would be natural.
So it was false balance but now it's worse? Is that a way to put it?
It was a real balance that was usually more trouble than it was worth, so they just didn't produce content that needed to be balanced. They did current events and breaking news, weather, stock markets, that sort of thing. Just facts.
Not so much of the commentary we have today. They just said what happened that day, they didn't suggest how you should feel about it. That's the worse part about now.
Ok, that makes a lot of sense. I don't consume too much US media but where I live, there is a lot of false balance so the fairness doctrine sounded like that. So, to come back to my example, a climate scientist would be science news, just facts.
Partly. From my understanding, a climate scientist simply reporting facts would be science news. Weighing in on what we should do in response to the facts would probably be considered a viewpoint that warrants equal time for the opposing view. But then the Fairness Doctrine predates me by a few decades, so idk.
The main reason it's overrated is that it only applied to broadcast networks. It wouldn't do anything to hold Fox News accountable, since Fox News is on cable.
It might have helped with the Sinclair style bullshit in local news but they've lost a huge amount influence to the internet anyway.
Exactly.
And who determines whether it's "news" or not when it's something seen as controversial? Oh, the corporations that own the channels/shows? What could go wrong?
Thats why you require due impartiality instead of equal time.
Yeah, it would make it so you had to legally put a climate change denier on.
So you do a segment that says "here's a scientist with noting to gain from deceiving you and, by legally required contrast, a climate change denying corporate shill whose profit motive in lying to you is jarringly obvious."
You still have the lunatic there to rile up the audience, but you don't ONLY have the audience riling lunatic on.
No you wouldn't. This is a common misconception. The law allowed for the reporting of facts without having to have a wacko on there denying them. Every time a journalist mentioned gravity, they didn't have to have someone come on and say that gravity didn't exist. They weren't constantly having to have people come on claiming that heliocentrism was false with every morning show.
Who determines what's "fact"?
Because climate change is pretty indisputable, but the corporations that own the news have a vested interest in continuing to dispute it.
that’s a pretty shit argument… you could say the same about almost any law… this is why we have the legal system. who determines what’s fact? judges and juries… and you have laws in place in order to sort things out before the courts need to get involved
libel and deceptive advertising are exactly the same: who determines what is fact? courts… and people tend to do the right thing to avoid prosecution for the most part
and then you have anti-SLAPP laws to protect against frivolous lawsuits
You have far more faith in our broken-ass system than I do then.
i have very little faith in your broken system… that doesn’t change the fact that what you have now is so much worse
So much worse than what? The thing you're picturing in your mind?
You have nothing to compare it to, this is all just based on guessing. I have no doubt that people would have found a way to make things just as bad, if not worse, had the fairness doctrine never been repealed.
it’s not really based on guessing… another comment here laid out exactly how the abolition of the fairness doctrine and rush limbaugh led to fox news and the conservative propaganda machine that you’ve got today
what we’re comparing against is the observed effects of, and changes since the repeal of the fairness doctrine. i agree its not a given that these things wouldn't have happened anyway, but there’s at least correlations to draw from. the comparison with no basis is literally “would have found a way regardless”: that has no basis in observation
is it an ideal solution? na… but it’s better than letting propaganda from vested interests run amok
never let perfect be the enemy of good enough, or better
Why would you do this when you yourself work for a massive corporation with vested interest in pretending it's not real?