Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
I'm not certain what's better? Muzzle certain viewpoints?
|
Isn't that what those channels are doing?
Isn't that what the Hearsts and co of the past did? (And continue to do?)
Muzzle dissent and distort reality for political/commercial gain.
Broadcast TV and Radio *used* to have an equal access requirement from the FCC that basically said that biased one-sided reporting could be challenged and the dissenting viewpoint would automatically get *free* air time to counter the report.
In those days, the airtime scarcity made air time valuable so the Evening News shows were *really* careful to stick to verifiable facts and maintain a civil tone.
With the equal access requirement relaxed more recently, there is an overabundance of cable news venues happy to feed both fringes for fun and profit.
Not sure how much can be done to deal with that particular economy of abundance other than maybe regular pop-ups reminding viewers that a given pundit is a paid corporate shill or rabid marxist, as the case may apply.
