politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Those of us possibly even older may point to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in '87. From Wikipedia, the fairness doctrine "required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints." In short, it's repeal paved the way for Fox News and led all the way to CBS under Weiss.
But to your point, there are 3 things on my platform that I tell anyone who wants to hear it. 3 actionable items:
I didn't say it would be easy.
Well, fascism in America, like fascism in Germany and Italy, like any disease, is a spectrum. You're running a mild fever one day, the next day your neck feels stiff and the third day you call your boss to tell them you're staying home with the flu - and the official day your flu starts is day 3.
America in the 80's was all kinds of messed up but it wasn't fascist. It had fascistic traits, which wasn't really obvious if you didn't pay attention (I admit I didn't) and are really obvious now with the benefit of hindsight, now that we're all stuck in bed with a full-blown fascist fever.
You need to add:
I usually think of the corporate usurpation of our property rights in terms of "technofeudalism" rather than "fascism," but it can easily be the latter too.
I'm not convinced the Fairness Doctrine is all that relevant. France still has something akin to it, and the French Republic is also about to fall to a fascist takeover. Social media, where the bulk of fascist and malicious propaganda thrives, is mostly unregulated.
It always bothered me how Fox News had such low viewing numbers, but its stories were always disseminated exponentially beyond their immediate viewers. Facebook knows how this happened
Fairness doctrine never applied to newspapers, magazines, cable television, podcasts, youtube channels, twitch streamers, and so on.
It literally only ever applied to broadcast television and broadcast radio. In other words, anyone using radio spectrum to broadcast their message. It applied exclusively to broadcast because businesses pay licensing fees for exclusive use of specific bands of the publicly available radio spectrum (naturally public I might add, literally anyone with the knowledge and tools can set up a radio tower which is why the spectrum is tightly controlled). Cable Internet is private infrastructure, the internet in general is hosted on private infrastructure, newspapers are built on private infrastructure, and so on. Under what arguments could we even use to regulate modern media in the same way?
It was abolished 9 years before FOX News (a cable tv station) existed.
I'm sorry but I get tired of this canard that if only we had kept it somehow things would be better. We live in a world where it got repealed, so I have a hard time believing that if it had been kept around that it would have been sufficiently updated to cover other forms of media. I mean look at the fight over Net Neutrality, it's a similar idea as the Fairness Doctrine, that all data should be treated neutrally and equally, ISPs shouldn't have the ability to pick winners and losers in media reach and access. It has been gutted and no longer exists.
With all that in mind I find it so hard to believe it being kept around would have changed much about what is happening now. Hardly anybody even watches antenna driven over the air television anymore.
The Fairness Doctrine seems kind of pointless now that traditional OTA TV and radio are dying off. I could see companies like Fox News just divesting from licenced broadcasting entirely and sticking with only cable and streaming to avoid getting regulated. The media ecosystem exists mostly outside of licensed spectrum now so it wouldn't be much of a loss for them. The end of the Fairness Doctrine was definitely fundamental to how we got here, but I don't think bringing it back will change anything significant about how the system functions now.
Amend the fairness doctrine to any (Insert better language here) interstate commerce. Last time I checked a subscription is service, and monetizing advertising is still selling something.
Also you could probably set up some way to enforce based off of subscription numbers, employee count, or revenue. Perhaps even mandate what revenue sources they are allowed to take, mostly because I am utterly convinced that a lot of bigger right wing groups would implode if you cut off their rich donors.
i like because right wing groups implode. how do we balance with freedom of press?
You don't, freedom of press does not mean freedom to misinform.
Simple they can publish or say whatever they want, but they wouldn't be able to take direct cash from rich assholes. I'd also probably ban people over a certain level of wealth from owning news publications or at least mandate that they have to put it in trust or something. Basically I want to prevent Prager and Fox from existing while stopping rich pissants from buying up legacy media to control the narrative.
i guess, how do we provide a framework that ensures that happens while we still get sesame street
Goo question to which you'd need a lawyer and a financial expert. I have ideas but nothing solid enough to talk about.