It was a real balance that was usually more trouble than it was worth, so they just didn’t produce content that needed to be balanced. They did current events and breaking news, weather, stock markets, that sort of thing. Just facts.
Not so much of the commentary we have today. They just said what happened that day, they didn’t suggest how you should feel about it. That’s the worse part about now.
Ok, that makes a lot of sense. I don’t consume too much US media but where I live, there is a lot of false balance so the fairness doctrine sounded like that. So, to come back to my example, a climate scientist would be science news, just facts.
Partly. From my understanding, a climate scientist simply reporting facts would be science news. Weighing in on what we should do in response to the facts would probably be considered a viewpoint that warrants equal time for the opposing view. But then the Fairness Doctrine predates me by a few decades, so idk.
So it was false balance but now it’s worse? Is that a way to put it?
It was a real balance that was usually more trouble than it was worth, so they just didn’t produce content that needed to be balanced. They did current events and breaking news, weather, stock markets, that sort of thing. Just facts.
Not so much of the commentary we have today. They just said what happened that day, they didn’t suggest how you should feel about it. That’s the worse part about now.
Ok, that makes a lot of sense. I don’t consume too much US media but where I live, there is a lot of false balance so the fairness doctrine sounded like that. So, to come back to my example, a climate scientist would be science news, just facts.
Partly. From my understanding, a climate scientist simply reporting facts would be science news. Weighing in on what we should do in response to the facts would probably be considered a viewpoint that warrants equal time for the opposing view. But then the Fairness Doctrine predates me by a few decades, so idk.