What would it take to restore the Fairness Doctrine?
Would Dems in the House support that?
As we hope for a takeover of the Senate in 2020, would there be enough support?
FOX has nearly destroyed the country. Something must be done to demand truth on the people's airwaves.
= new reply since forum marked as read
When we only had three networks it was doable.
Don't know how we could expect publicly held companies -- especially since news is now under the entertainment umbrella -- to NOT pander to the audiences that will bring in the most viewers so they cn charge more for commercial time.
As a freshman congresswoman said, it's all about the Benjamins, baby.
I wish we could go back to the hour of nightly news with no sponsors, no agendas, but I honestly don't know how that could be done. 
regardless of type of medium? A new Fairness Doctrine shouldn't be expected to be just like the last any more than news consumers can be expected to consume it in spoken form from 6 to 7 every evening in their living rooms.
On the plus side, today's problems are typically very complex. Nothing new about dealing with complexity.
From this SCOTUS, increasingly dominated by very conservative, increasingly political-activist non-ideology, it would be expected to be. No thanks from me to them, though.
You mis-read though. It wouldn't be all media, but only those parts considered to be news product. Which is actually typically a very small part of the whole. MSNBC has very little news, but those "breaking stories" would be news (which might mean a lot less phoniness in that respect).
Anyway, how do you imagine the Fairness Doctrine worked except to require inclusion of certain content, i.e., "change to the message" that would have been without it?
The Cosby Show displacing half of ABC's World News Tonight, and the other half STILL today's carefully edited thin peanut butter "news" sandwiched between the thick, commercials bread of today's broadcast news?
Broadcast news today isn't even nutty peanut butter because that would cut the size of the audience, and the last of those don't-blink-or-you'll-miss-them segments is always an adorable story like three-year-olds playing with puppies to "send them away happy."
The Fairness Doctrine required a certain amount of time devoted to reporting real news, not whatever cleverly crafted mixture would cause the greatest number of people to sit through the commercials without clicking away.
of what is arguably the greatest freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. That you would so blithely dispose of such a freedom is genuinely disturbing to me.
Once you give the government the freedom to label media, to declare it valid or invalid based on political and ideological whim, you’ve basically ceded any concept of a free and independent press. All this because you imagine that a news source has so much power that it represents an obstacle that cannot be overcome by education and countervailing speech. 
Imagine tuning into Tucker Carlson's show, for example, and being greeted by a disclaimer at the beginning of the show that states:"Everything this guy is about to say is complete and utter bullsh*t".
Yeah, I know no disclaimer would actually say such a thing, but it's funny thinking about it just the same. 
breaking up US media conglomerates and reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would involve the FCC and Sherman Anti Trust Act and is probably not going to happen. Even after decades of propaganda media saturating the US for thirty years.
The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949 as partly a response to the propaganda influence of new radio media broadcasting utilized by reactionaries, 'grandfathers of hate radio'- in America Father John Coughlin, the 'Radio Priest' who broadcast from Michigan during the 1930s and was an extremist, racist and anti Semite. In Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, the influence of Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister was lethal to the entire world. Following efforts by Joe Kennedy Sr., FDR and others, Father Coughlin was taken off the airwaves in the early 1940s as WWII started.
- Father John Coughlin, https://spartacus-educational.com/USAcoughlinE.htm
- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister
(Wiki). FCC Fairness Doctrine. The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
The fairness doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
it’s pretty clearly unconstitutional?
We need some kind of regulation badly. Fux is so goddamn destructive..... 
That’s a winning platform. 