The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the FCC between 1949-1987, mandating broadcast license holders to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was “honest, equitable, and balanced.” It didn’t mandate but often resulted in an “equal time” presentation of stances on such issues (if you had some guy talking about the virtues of gun control for ten minutes, you usually ended up with another guy talking about how awful gun control was for ten minutes).
The doctrine was finally abolished under the Reagan Administration because of concerns that it resulted in the restriction of journalistic freedom. And I can recall times since when liberal upset over conservative domination of the radio waves led to conservative punditry and politicians condemning any thought of reinstating it.
Now, it seems, Donald’s concern that too many people on the (non-licensed) Internet are saying too many mean things about him, without all the hypothetical people who might want hypothetically to say hypothetical nice things about him being able to get a hypothetical word in edgewise, might mean that the Federal Government does … um … something to try and “fix” the “problem.” A new Fairness Doctrine? Breaking up of social media giants? More promotion of Trump tweets? Who knows?
This is, of course, directly opposed to conservative thought for quite a few decades — but as the Trump era has shown, the GOP is willing to turn on a dime if it keeps that guy in the White House happy.
Justice to convene meeting on whether social media companies are ‘intentionally stifling’ free speech
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has scheduled a meeting with state attorneys general in September to discuss a “growing concern” that tech companies may be “intentionally stifling” the free flow of ideas on their platforms.
Bad is good
Wrong is spelt weird.