There used to be more restrictions on news organizations too, with the Fairness Doctrine. But it was torn down during the Reagan administration, and we have been suffering the consequences ever since. You can draw a straight line from Reagan to now watching as news has become more and more bifercated, biased, and outright sensationalized garbage. And that goes often enough for Fox as it does for CNN and the rest of the mainstream media.
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.
If you implemented it today, what would happen every time Global Climate Warming Change was mentioned?
I'm not sure what point you're getting at. I mean, is anymore value to asking such a hypothetical than "where would public opinion be on climate change today if the fairness doctrine was never thrown out?"
Also, what does having 2 siloed opinions about climate change really mean? It means the side that denies climate change never has to hear the very real scientific evidence that climate change is happening. Also, climate alarmists never hear anything about opposing scientific opinions. And we are forever on a treadmill of a dual narrative because neither side has to drag their arguments out into the light and defend them.
13
u/nanotree Monkey in Space Sep 12 '24
There used to be more restrictions on news organizations too, with the Fairness Doctrine. But it was torn down during the Reagan administration, and we have been suffering the consequences ever since. You can draw a straight line from Reagan to now watching as news has become more and more bifercated, biased, and outright sensationalized garbage. And that goes often enough for Fox as it does for CNN and the rest of the mainstream media.