What we are up against - part 54,887

[NewHendoLib]

Yesterday my wife and I took our 6 mile loop walk on the mostly very rural (most dirt road) streets near our house. We've been doing this walk for a year and a half, and have met only a very few folks that live along the roads,

Yesterday we had a chat with two young men (and a young girl) along one of the more distant loops - they are putting up a greenhouse, have chickens, etc - very nice property. We had a good talk about gardening, our dogs - then somehow the talk went to flea medicines for our dog. Then - I made a comment about Ivermectin and folks using that (and UV lights, and bleach) - it surfaced how they both felt about things. "Joe Rogan - he's great - he cured himself with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquin and zinc" "Japan stopped using all vaccines - they are poisoning people - and going with ivermectin" - etc etc etc "ivermectin is one of the safest medicines known" "it has been used for all kinds of things for 40 years".


We just returned the talk to gardening and said goodbye and headed back on our walk. Nothing more need be said - to them yesterday, or here, now. Wow.

[dlk]

1. Repealing the Fairness Doctrine has created this disinformation monster

If we don’t vigorously confront the pervasive propaganda tidal wave, our country will be lost.

[Elessar Zappa]

2. The fairness doctrine

wouldn’t have helped much. It would’ve evened out the biased radio but cable news and the internet wouldn’t have been covered under the Fairness Doctrine.

[dlk]

3. The fact that internet & cable companies aren't better regulated is a major problem

Having the Fairness Doctrine in place would have provided a solid foundation for regulation in that regard. Instead, we are experiencing the high cost of deregulation bias. When the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, it set the stage for the misinformation and propaganda flood we are now drowning under.

[Dave says]

5. The Fairness Doctrine only covered broadcast media

But it could have been extended to cable. The justification for the Fairness Doctrine was that media were being given valuable spectra from the commons (the latter the property of the general public). Cable also is given valuable assets from the public commons and, thus, could also be subject to a Fairness Doctrine quid pro quo. Instead, they act as “takers” subject to little meaningful regulation.

Nice when they and their ilk can buy a Congress, Presidencies, and courts. Big payback for them.

[FakeNoose]

6. The Fairness Doctrine only applied to political candidates

When a candidate got free airtime for an interview or news story, the network had to give equal time to the opponent or a spokesperson for the opponent. The ideal was "equal time" so that one candidate couldn't dominate the airwaves.

So the Fairness Doctrine was fair in that regard, but it never guaranteed that the network couldn't broadcast incorrect "facts" or fake "news." It was the honor and integrity of the news announcers - people like Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, Dan Rather, and others - THEY and their news reporters were the ones who made sure the truth was told. If any errors happened they were corrected immediately on the air, as soon as they were discovered. People used to be fired for telling deliberate lies on the air.

That integrity is what we have lost, thanks to Faux Noise.

[Piasladic]

4. Yeah, but no

They need to be confronted. I am surrounded by TFG crap, and if I said nothing, they would think they are in the majority.

[NewHendoLib]

7. no - not going to confront two dudes on a back road with my wife.

we didn't have a good feeling about them. We are not armed. I suspect they were.