The Fairness Doctrine is a red herring in the conversation either way. Even if it hadn’t been rescinded, it would have eventually become irrelevant.
The Fairness Doctrine only ever applied to radio and TV broadcasters, i.e., broadcasters operating using the limited, publicly owned radio spectrum. It was only Constitutionally enforceable because it was intended to ensure equal access to what was essentially a public space.
Cable TV and the Internet turned that completely on its head. Attempting to regulate speech over a privately owned medium is a very, very different legal hill to climb. The most problematic sources of misinformation and bias today tend not to be AM radio but things like NewsMax or Libsoftiktok.
It’s a huge problem, but it’s not one the Fairness Doctrine would solve.
The Fairness Doctrine is a red herring in the conversation either way. Even if it hadn’t been rescinded, it would have eventually become irrelevant.
The Fairness Doctrine only ever applied to radio and TV broadcasters, i.e., broadcasters operating using the limited, publicly owned radio spectrum. It was only Constitutionally enforceable because it was intended to ensure equal access to what was essentially a public space.
Cable TV and the Internet turned that completely on its head. Attempting to regulate speech over a privately owned medium is a very, very different legal hill to climb. The most problematic sources of misinformation and bias today tend not to be AM radio but things like NewsMax or Libsoftiktok.
It’s a huge problem, but it’s not one the Fairness Doctrine would solve.