Should biased reporting be illegal?

[BlueTex]

@Bill.in.PA

Are you in favor of bringing back the fairness doctrine to broadcasts?

In the era of internet and cable, would rules on broadcasts really make much of a difference?

No, over the air broadcasts only are extremely rare… I would be more inclined to recover more an more of the spectrum allocated to over the air tv and allocate it to wireless data service…

[theduke]

@BlueTex

@Bill.in.PA

Are you in favor of bringing back the fairness doctrine to broadcasts?

In the era of internet and cable, would rules on broadcasts really make much of a difference?

No, over the air broadcasts only are extremely rare… I would be more inclined to recover more an more of the spectrum allocated to over the air tv and allocate it to wireless data service…

It’s all a red herring

@Bill.in.PA

No. Courts have ruled that the first amendment protects speech, even biased reporting.

An exception is for radio and television since the government owns the broadcast spectrum. Enforcing anti-bias rules would elsewhere would probably require a constitutional amendment.

[Bill.in.PA]

No, I am not in favor of government-enforced rules against biased reporting.

A possible exception would be for search engines, social media, etc. who are exempted from liability from libel suits from content that users post since they are allegedly open platforms as internet services. If they are going to filter to favor certain political viewpoints, then they should be liable for the content that they are actively promoting.

[BlueTex]

@Bill.in.PA

No. Courts have ruled that the first amendment protects speech, even biased reporting.

An exception is for radio and television since the government owns the broadcast spectrum. Enforcing anti-bias rules would elsewhere would probably require a constitutional amendment.

The courts ruled that the FCC’s equal time requirement was valid since the spectrum leased to the broadcasters was ultimately public. They never required that there be no bias, only that the FCC’s equal time requirement could stand.

[CanadianJudo]

good thing social media isn’t bias its based users input.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Bill.in.PA

A possible exception would be for search engines, social media, etc. who are exempted from liability from libel suits from content that users post since they are allegedly open platforms as internet services. If they are going to filter to favor certain political viewpoints, then they should be liable for the content that they are actively promoting.

Under your rules, if someone posted pornography to this message board, the mods would not be able to delete it without becoming a “publisher”, and opening themselves up to defamation suits.

You misunderstand the point of Section 230.

[Snow96]

And CNN, and MSNBC, and NBC and CBS and ABC . . . .

[CanadianJudo]

depends on who is controlling the government.

I don’t think a liberal government would find them bias, and I don’t think a Conservative government would find fox bias.

a “Fairness” doctrine sounds like a great idea when your in control of what is fair.

[merickson]

@CanadianJudo

let pretend you get your amendment your okay with the government controlled by liberal defining what is “Bias” reporting.

Even worse would be liberals define it for 4 (or 8) years, followed by conservatives.

[theduke]

@Snow96

And CNN, and MSNBC, and NBC and CBS and ABC . . . .

Much less so than Fox News.

[theduke]

@CanadianJudo

depends on who is controlling the government.

I don’t think a liberal government would find them bias, and I don’t think a Conservative government would find fox bias.

a “Fairness” doctrine sounds like a great idea when your in control of what is fair.

Fox News ONLY became possible with the end of the fairness doctrine. Regardless of the cable/broadcast cherry pick.

[zantax]

@Bill.in.PA

No. Courts have ruled that the first amendment protects speech, even biased reporting.

An exception is for radio and television since the government owns the broadcast spectrum. Enforcing anti-bias rules would elsewhere would probably require a constitutional amendment.

But since that exception rested on the concept of limited bandwidth and predated the internet and 100’s of cable channels as alternate methods for people to obtain information it’s doubtful even that could be resurrected.

@BlueTex

There were NEVER any rules against biased reporting… I assume you are referring to the fairness doctrine.

Yes, there were. In addition to the equal time rule broadcasters were also subject to the fairness doctrine which was broader and required them to

from FCC fairness doctrine - Wikipedia

to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC’s view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]

[zantax]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Bill.in.PA

A possible exception would be for search engines, social media, etc. who are exempted from liability from libel suits from content that users post since they are allegedly open platforms as internet services. If they are going to filter to favor certain political viewpoints, then they should be liable for the content that they are actively promoting.

Under your rules, if someone posted pornography to this message board, the mods would not be able to delete it without becoming a “publisher”, and opening themselves up to defamation suits.

You misunderstand the point of Section 230.

Pornography is not political speech. I think you will find the supreme court finds political speech more worthy of protection in ample precedent.

[zantax]

@CanadianJudo

depends on who is controlling the government.

I don’t think a liberal government would find them bias, and I don’t think a Conservative government would find fox bias.

a “Fairness” doctrine sounds like a great idea when your in control of what is fair.

Same applies to what is and isn’t “fake news”.

[BlueTex]

@zantax

Yes, there were. In addition to the equal time rule broadcasters were also subject to the fairness doctrine which was broader and required them to

from FCC fairness doctrine - Wikipedia

Again, predicated on the limited spectrum available to over the air broadcasters…

[zantax]

@BlueTex

@zantax

Yes, there were. In addition to the equal time rule broadcasters were also subject to the fairness doctrine which was broader and required them to

from FCC fairness doctrine - Wikipedia

Again, predicated on the limited spectrum available to over the air broadcasters…

Yeah I believe I mentioned neither of them would likely fly today given the broadened avenues available to disseminate information.

[BlueTex]

@zantax

Pornography is not political speech. I think you will find the supreme court finds political speech more worthy of protection in ample precedent.

Okay, what about blatantly racist content… Plenty would argue it’s political speech… There are places one could go today and post where this is allowed. Can the moderators on this board remove that kind of content?

[zantax]

@BlueTex

@zantax

Pornography is not political speech. I think you will find the supreme court finds political speech more worthy of protection in ample precedent.

Okay, what about blatantly racist content… Plenty would argue it’s political speech… There are places one could go today and post where this is allowed. Can the moderators on this board remove that kind of content?

I believe the argument is more along the lines of, should they be held liable for damages such speech may cause if they didn’t remove it given they have a track record of exercising control of content through moderation. Should they be able to argue they are merely a conduit for individuals to post on the internet after having repeatedly acting more like a publisher exercising editorial control over the content posted here?

[biggestal99]

the question:

Should biased reporting be illegal?

In the United States we have freedom of the press ensconced into our constitution.

Allan

[AlexMcAlpine]

@biggestal99

Should biased reporting be illegal?

Fake reporting should be fineable - and fine the reporters and outlets enough to put them out of business.

That would include click-baiting - posting a pejorative headline and a link to an article that has very little to do with the headline.

Years ago, I used to visit the Michael Savage website - it was notorious for that…