Correct. If they had cared about the First Amendment, they would have sued the government over the Fairness Doctrine and gotten a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court that it violated the First Amendment. They did not do that. In fact, a broadcaster did sue the FCC over the Fairness Doctrine back in the 1960s, and in 1969, the Supreme Court upheld it as Constitutional. Would today’s Court reach the same conclusion? I don’t know, probably not, but with Thomas, Alito, et al on the Court, I don’t really put much stock in how they would decide things. Assuming Harris wins in November, I think we’ll start heading down a road where a lot of the current Court’s decisions will get overturned over the next 5-15 years. I hope, anyway. I will say, because, as you pointed out, the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable networks, it probably wouldn’t have much impact if it were still in place today. That being said, we have to find some way to prevent disinformation from being so freely propagated. And keep in mind, the ring wing media sphere we live with today began with talk radio in the 1980s, after the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned. And that doctrine absolutely applied to radio. Rush Limbaugh could not have become what he did in a world with the Fairness Doctrine in place. We have to find a way to prevent disinformation. I don’t know how, but right now, it’s way too easy to intentionally spread false information as if it is news, and way too many people have no idea how to tell the falsehoods apart from the truth. So they pick a side and choose to believe that. I think there must be a way to do this without violating the First Amendment, and I think the path to do that involves this being a really critical public interest. You can’t make it illegal to lie, but maybe we can enact a law that says if you are marketing yourself as news, either in explicit words or in how people perceive your content, you are bound to something like the Fairness Doctrine. So even though Fox News says, “Oh, we’re news entertainment so no reasonable person would think what our hosts like Sean Hannity are saying is factual news,” the FCC could say, “No, it’s right there in the name of your network: Fox News. You are putting yourself out there as news. So 85% of your content must be impartial news, with equal time given to opposing views, and the remaining 15% must be clearly and unambiguously identified as opinion, and the opinion of the host, not the network.” And the same goes for CNN, MSNBC, NewsMax, etc. And another agency could enact similar rules for podcasts and social media content creators.
9 Likes
