Pedal To The Metal

Optional@lemmy.world · 4 months ago

Pedal To The Metal

Stovetop@lemmy.world · 4 months ago

Thank the deregulation of the 80’s and 90’s, coupled with the internet making it easier than ever to access anything and everything.

It used to be that spreading falsehoods or political bias on network TV or the airwaves via radio could get your station’s license revoked by the FCC. But Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine, and with that out of the way, there were no barriers for Rush Limbaugh and similar ilk to make more money by saying whatever kept the hyper-conservative, over-religious pearl clutches tuning in.

UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · edit-2 3 months ago

But Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine

I have mixed feelings about the Fairness Doctrine, because the practical consequence of the rule only ever seemed to give you a narrow “moderate liberal says X, moderate conservative says Y” corporately approved view. Hard to look at the modern media landscape and think to myself “Damn, if only we had more episodes of Crossfire to fix this”.

But yes, after the Fairness Doctrine, you saw an absolute flood of Rush-tier content that could blast uncontested bullshit all over the airwaves endlessly. The FCC went limp and allowed this to roll over the country.

I might also throw in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which started a Katamari-esque consolidation of local radio and tv networks into the modern Clear Channel and Sinclair Media mega-monopolies. A big reason why Rush was a household name by the late '00s stemmed from all these local stations being force-fed his syndicated content, which was blasted practically 24/7 in rotation with a handful of other right-wing talking heads. This guy was cranking out three hours of content a day five days a week, and the shows would play back-to-back on a loop morning, noon, and night.

Stovetop@lemmy.world · edit-2 3 months ago

You’re spot on that it wasn’t perfect, and it especially falls apart when you look at the politicization of science and objective facts. E.g. climate change should not be a debate, so there should be no obligation to humor a talking head with an R next to their name who is there to “refute” climate change every time a story is run about it.

So on principle, I can’t say I love the idea that the Fairness Doctrine required a good bit of oversimplistic “both sides” nonsense. But in practice, it wasn’t the media personalities spreading politicized pseudoscience who ended up deplatformed with the law’s removal—the opposite ended up happening. Having realized that sensationalism sells, the “alternative facts” crowd are now the only voice in the room for a lot of clueless people. And I think that’s the outcome Republicans wanted when they did away with it.

In the absence of a better system today, I can’t say I wouldn’t like to see it make a return. I’d prefer it if there was still a legal obligation for all of these media outlets to platform at least one sane person.

Also right that it wasn’t just the removal of the Fairness Doctrine that led to where we are now, appreciate the other examples (and for a bit of a twist, it was under the Clinton administration that the Telecommunications Act was signed).

JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world · 3 months ago

Fuck, why is it that almost everything that is bad in the US can be traced back to Reagan. It’s unbelievable

SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world · 3 months ago

"In 1969, the court “ruled unanimously that the Fairness Doctrine was not only constitutional, but essential to democracy. The public airwaves should not just express the opinions of those who can pay for air time; they must allow the electorate to be informed about all sides of controversial issues.”

That’s how it started. I kept reading and it dawned on me how important it is to re-read what was learned in history class.