this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
1412 points (97.3% liked)
DebunkThis
1080 readers
1 users here now
Debunking pseudoscience, myths, and spurious hogwash since 2010.
We are an evidence-based Reddit/Lemmy community dedicated to taking an objective look at questionable theories, dodgy news sources, bold-faced claims, and suspicious studies.
Community Rules:
Posting
Title formatting on all posts should be "Debunk This: [main claim]"
Example: "Debunk This: Chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay."
All posts must include at least one source and one to three specific claims to be debunked, so commenters know exactly what to investigate.
Example: "According to this YouTube video, dihydrogen monoxide turns amphibians homosexual. Is this true? Also, did Albert Einstein really claim this?"
NSFW/NSFL content is not allowed.
Commenting
Always try to back up your comments with linked sources. Just saying "this is untrue" isn't all that helpful without facts to support it.
Standard community rules apply regarding spam, self-promotion, personal attacks and hate speech, etc.
Links
Suggested Fediverse Communities
• RFK Jr. Watch @lemm.ee - Discuss misinformation being spread by antivaxxer politician, Robert F Kennedy Jr.
• Skeptic @lemmy.world - Discuss pseudoscience, quackery, and bald-faced BS
• Skeptic @kbin.social - The above, just on Kbin
• Science Communication @mander.xyz - Discuss science literacy and media reporting
Useful Resources
• Common examples of misleading graphs - How to spot dodgy infographics
• Metabunk.org - a message board dedicated to debunking popular conspiracies
• Media Bias / Fact Check - Great resource for current news fact checking + checking a source's political bias
• Science Based Medicine - A scientific look at current issues and controversies
• Deplatform Disease - A medical blog that specifically counters anti-COVID-vaccine claims
• Respectful Insolence - David Gorsky's blog on antivax shenanigans, politics, and pseudoscience
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fox News is cable. And was never subject to the fairness doctrine. It may have had a small impact on AM radio. But nothing near the impact of all the consolidation that happened under Reagan and Clinton.
A small impact on AM radio? You know why AM radio is exclusively reactionary conservative nonsense right? It was 100% the fairness doctrine.
I think the reason AM radio is right wing is it’s only good for talking, and the people who listen to long conversations as their form of media consumption tend to be conservatives.
Mostly consolidation of ownership. Don't get me wrong, the fairness doctrine and played a small part. But single ownership of a vast swath of stations did far more damage than lack of fairness doctrine.
Not to mention how fair was the fairness doctrine? Did it truly serve a purpose giving voice to other opinions etc? Or was it largely limited to the same few mainstream ones? Socialist, social democrats, anarchists, communists?
Fox news was launched when the fairness doctrine was already dead for many years and Rush Limbaugh was huge. Without the repeal of the fairness doctrine, right wing talk radio shows wouldn't have been so ubiquitous. Without similar alternate fact content from many sources, fox news alternate facts would have to be closer to reality out of necessity or they would have no credibility with their target audience.
It's one of those things where one thing lead to another. Without the repeal of the fairness doctrine, fox news as we know it today, would simply not exist. Here's a good article on it: https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2021/how-rush-limbaughs-rise-after-the-gutting-of-the-fairness-doctrine-led-to-todays-highly-partisan-media/
I don't get your comment about how the impact on am radio was "small". Consensus seems to be that the repeal in 1987 was the start of the shift to the alternate facts radio shows on am radio: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_talk_radio
Most consolidation came later and it's definitely a contributing factor, but this shift was already well under way before most of the consolidation happened.
Fox News was conceived in the 1970s. Yes, it started after the fairness doctrine was ended. The fairness doctrine never applied to it in any way however. Even then in the late '90s early 2000s, much of the content was designed with the concept of the fairness doctrine in mind. Any overtly political show, such as Hanity and Colmes. Already had a fake diverse/alternate voice built in. The fairness doctrine was always toothless and easily bypassable
Rush Limbaugh as problematic as he was. Was largely pushed by large conservative owned radio networks. There is some correlation between the end of the fairness doctrine and Limbaugh's national syndication. But no clear causation. No part of the fairness doctrine would have impacted syndication. And his show exist fine before and after.
Plenty of people nostalgically lament the loss of the fairness doctrine. But none can actually explain how it would help. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the concept. But the problem is, who is the arbiter of what is "fair". Or when it is fair. It makes a difference.
Fox news was launched in 1996. In did not adhere to the fairness doctrine in any way. Yes it did follow classic panel show formatting with multiple guests with differing opinions, but that's just the classic format for those shows, that's not the fairness doctrine. You can even find shows like that in Russia. Fairness doctrine would be for example that every time that a fox news slandered someone, that person would be able to demand airing a rebuttal on fox news.
Rush Limbaugh was first nationally syndicated in 1988. The fairness doctrine was done away with in 1987. It's really no coincidence and it's plenty documented and discussed. Check the 2 links I send you earlier for starters.