On March 3, as Russian military forces bombed Ukrainian cities as part of Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of his neighbor, the Kremlin sent out talking points to state-friendly media outlets with a request: Use more Tucker Carlson.
“It is essential to use as much as possible fragments of broadcasts of the popular Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who sharply criticizes the actions of the United States [and] NATO, their negative role in unleashing the conflict in Ukraine, [and] the defiantly provocative behavior from the leadership of the Western countries and NATO towards the Russian Federation and towards President Putin, personally,” advises the 12-page document written in Russian. It sums up Carlson’s position: “Russia is only protecting its interests and security.” The memo includes a quote from Carlson: “And how would the US behave if such a situation developed in neighboring Mexico or Canada?”
The document—titled “For Media and Commentators (recommendations for coverage of events as of 03.03)”—was produced, according to its metadata, at a Russian government agency called the Department of Information and Telecommunications Support, which is part of the Russian security apparatus.
To a degree. The regulations under the communications act were still divided into those that applied to broadcast vs non-broadcast. Public interest (the basis for the fairness act) rules were limited to broadcast, while non-broadcast rules were focused on common carrier and access.
The internet, streaming services, and the slow death of broadcast television have made reintroducing something like the fairness doctrine difficult without introducing a lot of first amendment issues. It relied on the idea that a public resource - exclusive use of a section of public spectrum - came with an obligation to operate, to some degree, in the ublic interest.
The current situation that we are in is much more like the situation around newspapers, which were never subject to anything other than the very minimal limits on first amendment speech.
I just don’t see how you do something like the fairness doctrine, which was based on limited broadcast capacity, now that the tools for creating content and the means of distribution are available to everyone.
I did say “part of”. The Reagan administration was the point at which conservatives were able to implement their long held desire to get rid of the fairness doctrine, but there were a lot of contributing factors that allowed them to justify it, including, as I mentioned, a media landscape that was vastly different that under which it was implemented originally. In the years since the landscape has continued changing to the point that I don’t know how you bring it back. The only thing I can really think of is that we have to stop considering corporations people and restrict their ability to spread misinformation while hiding behind the first amendment, but it seems like that ship has sailed
Unfortunately the buttons I could find only stop them at my end, which lets me hide from their dishonesty but not stop it from shredding America. If you can find the button that stops the source please do press it soon.
In 2004 every host was angrily shouting that it was treason to question the president (Bush II) while the US was at war (Iraq/Afghanistan and the never-ending “war on terror.”)
Now for them “treason” is democratically elected senators finalizing a fair election.
Wait, what? Fucker Carlson is whining about people on social meeja using the Ukrainian flag to show their support?
I’d hope that someone manages to discover an ocean chasm deeper than the Challenger Deep, just so it can be named after this miserable, snot-gobbling little shit, as acknowledgement of his plumbing even greater depths than anyone who came before.
