←back to thread

Rand Paul: FCC chair had "no business" intervening in ABC/Kimmel controversy

(arstechnica.com)
125 points voxadam | 9 comments | 22 Sep 25 20:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.453s | source | bottom
Show context
ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[22 Sep 25 21:05 UTC] No.45339423[source]▶
The FCC exists (in part) to enforce a certain morality on public broadcasters. Whatever we think about that today, that was a core responsibility of the FCC when it started and that still exists today.
replies(9): >>45339461 #>>45339475 #>>45339529 #>>45339534 #>>45339574 #>>45339951 #>>45340085 #>>45340187 #>>45340473 #
1. gwd ◴[22 Sep 25 21:09 UTC] No.45339461[source]▶
I'd be all for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine

replies(6): >>45339491 #>>45339681 #>>45339745 #>>45339752 #>>45339786 #>>45341166 #
2. ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[22 Sep 25 21:11 UTC] No.45339491[source]▶
Yes please
3. smegger001 ◴[22 Sep 25 21:31 UTC] No.45339745[source]▶
problem is who gets to decide that both sides are bing presented fairly? do you think that Fox Newsmax and OAN are going to be under the same pressure to give the liberal viewpoint as MSNBC and CNN will to show a righting viewpoint?
replies(1): >>45339957 #
4. imiric ◴[22 Sep 25 21:32 UTC] No.45339752[source]▶
The fairness doctrine was a good thing, but it existed in a different time. Bringing it back today wouldn't address the main issue which is the internet.

When everyone is given a loudspeaker, and the power to create an audience of millions; when "journalism" is equivalent to any random opinion; when anyone with the will and a negligible amount of resources can promote their agenda... No amount of oversight can bring back balanced discussion about actual facts. Reversing a post-truth society cannot happen without radical disruptions to the system that got us here in the first place.

replies(2): >>45340562 #>>45340586 #
5. cjensen ◴[22 Sep 25 21:35 UTC] No.45339786[source]▶
The Fairness Doctrine has become an urban legend among the left with a regrettable amount of built-up legends of its power.

Whatever you think it did, it almost certainly did not do that. In practice it meant that J. Random Crazypants would be allowed to give an editorial -- sometimes in the middle of the night, and sometimes as 60 second after the news. Additionally the Doctrine never applied to Cable TV for obvious First Amendment reasons.

6. koolba ◴[22 Sep 25 21:47 UTC] No.45339957[source]▶
> problem is who gets to decide that both sides are bing presented fairly?

There’s also more than two sides to an issue.

The supposed fairness doctrine was utter nonsense for many many reasons.

7. esseph ◴[22 Sep 25 22:46 UTC] No.45340562[source]▶
Very well said.
8. ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[22 Sep 25 22:49 UTC] No.45340586[source]▶
I agree with you but a broadcasting license isn't the same as "everyone given a loudspeaker". The FCC couldn't have done anything to a "Jimmy Kimmel Youtube".
9. wakawaka28 ◴[22 Sep 25 23:57 UTC] No.45341166[source]▶
There are a number of problems with the Fairness Doctrine in principle. The intent of it is that nobody monopolizes the then-scarce licensed broadcast stations. This is not a problem today, as TV and radio broadcast stations are abundant and also compete with the Internet and thousands of cable channels. A more reasonable attempt at such a law today might provide oversight on the licensure of individual TV and radio stations to ensure that new stations can be started up easily. I'm not convinced it is a real problem today except on PBS and NPR, which are taxpayer-funded and seemingly biased.