Hacker News Reader

Comment by ujkhsjkdhf234 | Hacker News Reader

If he actually cared about unbiased media, he would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which he won't do because that would kill Fox, Newsmax, and the rest of the Republican propaganda outlets.

View on HN

They are trying to reinstate it or create something sort of equivalent...but only for media they consider to be liberal.

The FCC for example has been threatening to revoke broadcast licenses of media it says are biased. No conservative media have received these threats.

They consider bias any reporting, no matter how factual, that contradicts anything the administration has said, now matter how objectively wrong it is.

That is my point. They do not care about bias in media just like they don't care about government inefficiency or illegal immigration. There are easy wins you could make towards fixing all of these things if you wanted to but they choose not to because they don't care. They want fear, authority, and control.

Agreed. This is the root of the rise of evil in our country. I'm mostly pissed that Democrats were so short sighted to not reinstate it during Clinton or Obama. Now it is too late.

Alas, I'm confident that, if they had reinstated it, it would have been struck down by the Supreme Court by now for violating the First Amendment.

The Fairness Doctrine doesn't prevent you from saying anything, it just says for certain topics, you must also present the opposing view.

Yes. That's compelled speech which is also disfavored under the First Amendment. (It would probably be fair to say "prohibited" -- but, as always, it's complicated.)

Of course, as I'm sure many here know, the Fairness Doctrine was previously upheld in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC. So it's not totally clear cut. But I expect the current Supreme Court would have a very different view.

all benefitted, dem aligned media benefitted even more in crusading against Trump as it brought headlines and attention to opinion pieces. Ironically this reinforced Trump and allowed him to present himself as a victim of a witch hunt

I think the problem with that is: who defines "fair"

Is it fair to criticize Trump? What if that criticism is based on "alternate facts" according to Trump?

You don't need to define fair because that is not what the Fairness Doctrine is about. The Fairness Doctrine says on some topics, you must give or allow someone else to give the opposing view as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com