politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The media is mainly sensationalist driven and Trump is... well he's very not normal.
Unless we fix media funding and restore something like the fairness act loud assholes will always have an advantage.
I hate it. The last 9 years have been hell for me because this asshole won't shut up and the news insists on blasting every stupid thing he says. It doesn't matter if he thinks drinking bleach is a good idea. What matters is the news broadcasts this so people that already know he's an idiot can laugh, and those that don't think 'well if der president says it makes sense it must'. What you get is 1. a decrease in average intelligence, and 2. constant name recognition for a rapist felon with no business acumen who chronically lies and wants to literally destroy democracy.
Graph go up tho so hurr hurr!
edit: typos
The problem as I see it is how the news portrays every little thing the left does (or just things that happen on the left's watch) with the exact same sensationalism as every radical thing the right does and says. If anything they tone down what the right does so it doesn't sound extreme.
Like finding the most extreme loud leftist protester to compare to actual elected delegates on the right or militant groups on the right that officials actually back. Meanwhile if the right wipes their ass without making a mess, they are hailed.
The left is judged on their worst and the right is judged onto their best, and the left still usually comes out looking better.
It wasn't perfect, but it was WAY better than what we have now. They just lie openly about anything they want with zero oversight.
The Fairness Doctrine is a red herring in the conversation either way. Even if it hadn't been rescinded, it would have eventually become irrelevant.
The Fairness Doctrine only ever applied to radio and TV broadcasters, i.e., broadcasters operating using the limited, publicly owned radio spectrum. It was only Constitutionally enforceable because it was intended to ensure equal access to what was essentially a public space.
Cable TV and the Internet turned that completely on its head. Attempting to regulate speech over a privately owned medium is a very, very different legal hill to climb. The most problematic sources of misinformation and bias today tend not to be AM radio but things like NewsMax or Libsoftiktok.
It's a huge problem, but it's not one the Fairness Doctrine would solve.