this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
521 points (99.8% liked)

politics

28625 readers
2863 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Concerns are mounting about the state of the US media landscape now that it looks increasingly likely that Paramount Skydance—a company controlled by the son of billionaire Larry Ellison, a donor to President Donald Trump—will succeed in its bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.

One day after Netflix announced that it was dropping its previously accepted bid to buy Warner, many critics demanded that antitrust laws be invoked to block the Paramount-Warner merger from going through.

Alvaro Bedoya, former commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission, warned that the Ellison family could soon use their control over vast swaths of US media properties to engage in mass censorship, and he pointed to their decisions to cancel Stephen Colbert’s program and to refuse to air an interview with Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 99 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Know the history.

Back when radio/TV were just getting started, the FCC created a set of rules to make sure that the public would be well informed. One company could only own two radio stations [AM and FM] and one TV station in a town. Even the Big Three netowrks were limited to six stations across the country.

Another rule was that if a station broadcast any editorial they had to offer equal time for opposing views.

After Watergate, the Right think tanks realized that the reason Nixon went down was that there was a robust news gathering media that was beyond their control. As soon as Reagan took office he started 'deregulating' the media. By 1996, the Fairness Doctrine was dead.

For those who are about to start crying about cable TV not being the same as broadcast; the FCC covers cable. The GOP made sure that Fox News could be as terrible as it is.

[–] waddle_dee@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago

not exactly, while Fairness did provide equal time for political views, it also kept anchors from just outright lying, or obfuscating the truth for a story. once that was killed under Reagan, conservative talk radio blew up. and then that brings us to today.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Back when radio/TV were just getting started, the FCC created a set of rules to make sure that the public would be well informed.

This is revisionist.

The FCC created a set of rules to manage a broadcasting cartel. Changes in technology shifted the domain of ownership from the production companies to the telecommunication companies and eventually the data center companies.

But we started as a cartel. We're still a cartel. The FCC has done nothing to change that (and made many moves to entrench it - the forced sale of TikTok being only the latest).

As soon as Reagan took office he started ‘deregulating’ the media. By 1996, the Fairness Doctrine was dead.

The Fairness Doctrine was an enrichment of the two party system. Reagan simply took the next logical step and made it a one party system.

[–] beelzebum@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

FCC did not force the sale of TikTok, Congress did

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr labeled TikTok a "clear and present danger" to US national security, urging its removal from app stores due to concerns over data access by China. Citing reports of ByteDance personnel in Beijing accessing sensitive American user data, Carr argued the app acts as a surveillance tool

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

This is revisionist

The forced sale of Tiktok was passed by Congress and pushed by Biden who kept reiterating it was a threat

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Clinton's Telecom reform act did more damage than removing the fairness doctrine