829
The father of fake news
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
829 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
11949 readers
1656 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I know the Fairness Doctrine was a good thing but it kind of sounds like false balance to me. Of cause it's better to put a climate change expert next to a climate change denier instead of only listening to the latter but wouldn't the Fairness Doctrine also make it more difficult to only interview the former? Or would that fall under News? Maybe I'm missing something here.
The biggest detail I think you aren't seeing is that the fairness doctrine made 'Opinion Pieces' on air much less attractive as a host, as a producer, etc. So generally they just WOULDN'T present anything that wasn't just news unless it was a political debate and the two sided conversation would be natural.
So it was false balance but now it's worse? Is that a way to put it?
Exactly.
And who determines whether it's "news" or not when it's something seen as controversial? Oh, the corporations that own the channels/shows? What could go wrong?
The main reason it's overrated is that it only applied to broadcast networks. It wouldn't do anything to hold Fox News accountable, since Fox News is on cable.
It might have helped with the Sinclair style bullshit in local news but they've lost a huge amount influence to the internet anyway.
Yeah, it would make it so you had to legally put a climate change denier on.
So you do a segment that says "here's a scientist with noting to gain from deceiving you and, by legally required contrast, a climate change denying corporate shill whose profit motive in lying to you is jarringly obvious."
You still have the lunatic there to rile up the audience, but you don't ONLY have the audience riling lunatic on.
No you wouldn't. This is a common misconception. The law allowed for the reporting of facts without having to have a wacko on there denying them. Every time a journalist mentioned gravity, they didn't have to have someone come on and say that gravity didn't exist. They weren't constantly having to have people come on claiming that heliocentrism was false with every morning show.
Who determines what's "fact"?
Because climate change is pretty indisputable, but the corporations that own the news have a vested interest in continuing to dispute it.
that’s a pretty shit argument… you could say the same about almost any law… this is why we have the legal system. who determines what’s fact? judges and juries… and you have laws in place in order to sort things out before the courts need to get involved
libel and deceptive advertising are exactly the same: who determines what is fact? courts… and people tend to do the right thing to avoid prosecution for the most part
and then you have anti-SLAPP laws to protect against frivolous lawsuits
You have far more faith in our broken-ass system than I do then.
i have very little faith in your broken system… that doesn’t change the fact that what you have now is so much worse
Why would you do this when you yourself work for a massive corporation with vested interest in pretending it's not real?