Bad FCC / Fairness Doctrine Takes

And oh no! A fragile man who whines about the replies he caused is gonna mute people!! Heaven forbid!! How will anyone ever go on?

Sweetie, the mentions you're getting are entirely on you.

Jack's being a whiny little bitch in the post on the left, given the post on the right is one he also made.

Yeah, I mean, how could this be misinterpreted?

Well, when one knows jack shit about Fox (or media at all), their imagination will draw conclusions that have no basis in reality.

I was about to shoot you a snarky reply; good thing I checked to see who you were actually replying to before I did! 😂

(For anyone who isn't sure why his is a humiliatingly bad take, just because a station is a Fox affiliate doesn't mean it is owned by FoxCorp. And none of them are).

Sometimes, all you can do is point and laugh uproariously.

The UK lets people sue for defamation over what you just called "their feels".

Spare me the lecture on their awesome free speech rules. (And allowing the government to define hate speech, especially in media, is fucking stupid)

As David just told you, "affiliate" and "owns" is not the same thing, dipshit.

(OK, I added the dipshit part--that wasn't David)

A better question is "why do many people who don't know anything about a topic to research correctly insist on weighing in on those topics and humiliating themselves with their ignorance", as you just did.

It was more due to advanced technology and a demand from the 80s and 90s conservatives for Limbaugh-like content--those were far more impactful than the end of a fairly weak policy.

Maybe you should read the whole thing ;)

One of our "lifetime achievement" award winners is back and better than ever!

Proof of why the dream of "Fairness Doctrine would ruin MAGA misinformation" is a ridiculous concept.

Ada here was given correct information. Ada still holds on to their totally wrong, ignorant, and misguided original opinion.

You realize that the "fire in a theater" analogy was one made by SCOTUS to justify locking up socialists for passing out anti-draft flyers, right?

It's not the flex you think it is.

OK is a moral judgment.

Most lying is LEGAL. That's a factual statement.

Quit moving the goalposts. You were wrong. Just own that.

So you've been told the facts, been given truthful information, and you still draw the same conclusion you had at the start.

Please explain to me how the Fairness Doctrine would be at all impactful when you're living proof it wouldn't be.

The end of the Fairness Doctrine was a bit player in this.

And the policy problem you imply is with the 1st Amendment.

Wait...you suggested "read the whole thing" in regards to the Fairness Doctrine and you think it had something to do with an obligation to be truthful?

Maybe you should follow your own advice?

Suggestions 1 & 3 are tremendous.

Suggestion #2 would have no real impact.

It really didn't for a lot of reasons.
-couldn't apply to cable (via 1969 Red Lion case)
-hadn't been enforced for almost 20 yrs pre-cancellation
-didn't require any semblance of balance or equal time of view points.
-Applied to station programming as a whole, not individual shows.

No, for two reasons. The first is that the Fairness Doctrine is a defunct policy. And the second is that if it was still around, it wouldn't apply to this particular situation.

Carr is simply being an asshole regardless of the FD.

I love when people continue to double down on their own idiocy.

No, I'm right, and you're a member of Dunning-Kruger Media Group.

Smart people are laughing at you. And deservedly so.

As you're on record being wrong a lot, I'm happy to see that.

The ownership rules changed in 1996.

It was two AM and two FM per market, but that changes your overall point not at all.

1st Amendment says "hey there!"