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.
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
So much worse than what? The thing you’re picturing in your mind?
You have nothing to compare it to, this is all just based on guessing. I have no doubt that people would have found a way to make things just as bad, if not worse, had the fairness doctrine never been repealed.
it’s not really based on guessing… another comment here laid out exactly how the abolition of the fairness doctrine and rush limbaugh led to fox news and the conservative propaganda machine that you’ve got today
what we’re comparing against is the observed effects of, and changes since the repeal of the fairness doctrine. i agree its not a given that these things wouldn’t have happened anyway, but there’s at least correlations to draw from. the comparison with no basis is literally “would have found a way regardless”: that has no basis in observation
is it an ideal solution? na… but it’s better than letting propaganda from vested interests run amok
never let perfect be the enemy of good enough, or better
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.”
Why would you do this when you yourself work for a massive corporation with vested interest in pretending it’s not real?
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
So much worse than what? The thing you’re picturing in your mind?
You have nothing to compare it to, this is all just based on guessing. I have no doubt that people would have found a way to make things just as bad, if not worse, had the fairness doctrine never been repealed.
it’s not really based on guessing… another comment here laid out exactly how the abolition of the fairness doctrine and rush limbaugh led to fox news and the conservative propaganda machine that you’ve got today
what we’re comparing against is the observed effects of, and changes since the repeal of the fairness doctrine. i agree its not a given that these things wouldn’t have happened anyway, but there’s at least correlations to draw from. the comparison with no basis is literally “would have found a way regardless”: that has no basis in observation
is it an ideal solution? na… but it’s better than letting propaganda from vested interests run amok
never let perfect be the enemy of good enough, or better
Why would you do this when you yourself work for a massive corporation with vested interest in pretending it’s not real?