The Fairness Doctrine would stop Trumps planned "News Network" in its tracks

[warrprayer]

If you think Fox news screwed the country up, creating what is now known as "Donald Trumps base", wait till you see what the proposed "Orange Network" will do....




"Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is also a right-wing media entrepreneur. During the campaign, Bannon is on leave as the CEO of Breitbart News, an organization whose unabashedly nativist and pro-Trump coverage might provide a blueprint for the Trump network’s sensibility. Kushner is a member of Trump’s trusted inner circle–Kushner’s handpicked Observer editor Ken Kurson helped write at least one Trump campaign speech this year–and would likely be involved in any post-election effort in the media industry."

http://www.spin.com/2016/10/the-donald-trump-news-network-might-be-inching-closer-to-reality/


Restoring the fairness doctrine would prevent this disaster.


There are some who argue "why give right wing talking heads equal time with Maddow and other liberal voices?

The answer is that by the way corporate controls these voices, the right already has MORE than equal time, by a long shot

Any "liberal voice" who does too much truth telling gets canned, to start.

How many times has it happened now, not just on MSNBC, but others? I've actually lost count.

And when the "news" turns into an endless loop beating the dead horse of Hillarys emails, endless attention to every shitty remark Trump makes, and on and on, the "liberal voices" are drowned out in the howling foul wind of right wing propaganda.

I don't see why any democrat would oppose the fairness doctrine.

That is, unless, they are heavily invested in media conglomerates.

[Beartracks]

1. Simce it's apparently legal to peddle opinion as "news"....

... it only stands to reason that the Fairness Doctrine should be re-established.

==============

[PoliticAverse]

2. The "fairness doctrine" didn't apply to cable-TV channels nor would it apply to the Internet. n/t

[warrprayer]

3. I'm sure

It could be worked out.

That's what I pay my elected democratic officials for!

[JRLeft]

24. So you want censorship. What his network will pedal is bullshit but he should have the right

to convey his bullshit on a cable network.

[Captain Stern]

4. ^This.

It seems that a lot of the folks that think the Fairness Doctrine would solve some problems, don't really understand what it was, and what it did.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. It didn't do much...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

But, here's one voice arguing for it again:

http://fair.org/extra/the-fairness-doctrine/

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Yes, because it only applies to those with broadcast licenses, but not only that...

it really tended to be unenforceable. If you didn't like a segment, just claim it's "unfair" and demand an alternative viewpoing.

Should we let the FCC, itself subject to political forces, decide what arguments or presented facts are "fair"?

Do we set up another body to decide? One that includes other media? That pesky 1st Amendment could get in the way.

[meow2u3]

17. So there ought to be a law prohibiting false and misleading content

Not only on broadcast, but also on cable programming. Conservatives can still broadcast their radio programs, but they won't be able to lie like rugs, slander, or stereotype people and hide behind the excuse of opinion. But I doubt Fox Noise would survive the proposed new rules.

I'd call it the Anti-Propaganda Doctrine.

[Dr. Strange]

19. If we're going to have a law prohibiting false and misleading content...

it should start with politicians, not media. Once politicians start being truthful, we can focus on media and others.

Just a reminder, though: although Hillary is the "most truthful", she's still dishonest 28% of the time. So your Anti-Propaganda Doctrine will be targeting her a lot.

Careful what you wish for!

[warrprayer]

30. Point taken

And perhaps I should say I am not suggesting a return to the exact letter of the fairness doctrine.

I'm sure a workable way of ensuring some token of fair play in the media could be hammered out.

[TreasonousBastard]

32. That's called censorship, and quite a few of us think it is better to have a few...

liars floating around than to have the government "approve" our speech.

[warrprayer]

31. So, then

If, hypotheticaly, CNN's management goes nuts and decides to air nothing but Trump 27/7, there should be no type of regulation?

[emulatorloo]

5. Can we drop the 'evil democrats' meme?

Great post until the gratuitous smear of Democrats.

[warrprayer]

6. The words "evil democrats"

Appear nowhere in my post.

[emulatorloo]

7. Uh-huh

"I don't see why any democrat would oppose the fairness doctrine. That is, unless, they are heavily invested in media conglomerates."

Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.

[warrprayer]

21. There may well be democrats

Who are invested iin MSNBC, for example who see that as a good thing, and they have a point to be considered.

I do not consider them "evil", like, say, Breitbart.

Hope that clarifies!

[anoNY42]

10. As other commenters have already pointed out

on this OP and on your other one, the Fairness Doctrine applied only to broadcast networks. Indeed, the whole rationalization of the doctrine, that it was needed for scare, "publicly owned" bandwidth, implies that it could not be extended to cable news networks of the type that Trump News certainly would be.

Why must you persist in clogging my "Latest Threads" page with this nonsense?

[warrprayer]

23. Perhaps we have hit the root of the problem

It is not "your" Latest Threads" page.

It is OUR Latest Threads page.

Thank you very much.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. You forgot to include a rebuttal of equal length from a RW source in your OP.

Please correct the oversight within the hour or self-delete.

[anamandujano]

12. The Trump name is mud to everyone except those who frequent Fox. Trump can't get money.

If Fox and Trump have to share an audience, they won't take in enough cash to make either of them profitable. Trump will be tied up in court, bleeding whatever resources he has left to pay his lawyers at the stalling game. His foundation/slush fund has been shut down so he can't use that money. I suppose he can use whatever he has squirreled away from his campaign, saved by not paying staff or vendors. Trump will be in prison after awhile.

There will be no Trump TV.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Boy, Have You Missed The Obvious Solution To That Problem

Trump and Faux just need to make a day last 48 hours, and the people can watch both Faux and the new clown network 24/7.

Obviously you didn't think through your criticism!

[anamandujano]

15. They might try considering they know the level of intelligence they attract.

[meow2u3]

18. Or alternatively, RT can change its name to tRump News

Still the same false content, only with the Orange Jackass' name on it.

[warrprayer]

26. ...

[warrprayer]

28. I enjoy the humor

And look forward to the Axis Sally and Lord Haw Haw reruns.

[warrprayer]

29. Trump may be out

But Steve Bannon may not be.

And from what I've read, Fox takes the threat of a Trump network quite seriously.

If they do, perhaps it would behoove us to be proactive.

[anamandujano]

33. If Bannon does a network it won't be called Trump TV, nor will the con man be able to chip in funds.

I haven't watched Faux News for years and still get upset stomachs when I read their names. I do have to read their lies on other websites I frequent. I doubt there is any way to stop these nuts. We just have to wait for them to die.

[warrprayer]

34. Perhaps

And perhaps not.

[TeamPooka]

14. FD won't apply to Trump's webstreams from his bunker.

[anamandujano]

16. The bestest reality show in the whole wide world!

[tritsofme]

20. This authoritarian impulse on the left to ban unfriendly press is highly disturbing

This is hardly the first time I've seen it. No concept of free speech or the First Amendment whatsoever, very sad.

Only a coward wins a debate by taking away his opponent's microphone.

[JRLeft]

25. It's been in development for a while. I don't know what the hell

is going on bit it needs to stop.

[warrprayer]

27. Not advocating banning anything.

Advocating equal time for sanity as opposed to batshit crazy.

[brooklynite]

22. You know that the Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast channels with FCC licenses?

Cable TV, webcasts etc. are not under FCC jurisdiction, nor should they be.