▲ 1023 ▼ ‘It will be the end of democracy’: Bernie Sanders on what happens if Trump wins – and how to stop him (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 322 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] SupahRevs@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (2 children) What left wing media empire has spread lies so much as to be sued for hundreds of millions of dollars? This is not a two sides issue. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] teamevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not pushing it as a two sides issue. I haven't seen anyone in the Democratic establishment advocating for media censorship like this. I'm talking about you, as an individual. You're not a side. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jobby@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not advocating ‘censorship’. I’m advocating for standards of truth in news media. Unless it’s laid out as the facts, it’s opinion. This used to be the case until Murdoch and the GOP changed the law to allow bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago If you're talking about the fairness doctrine, it required broadcast networks to devote equal time to both sides of controversial issues. It never applied to opinion shows, which are like 2/3rds of the content on 24 hour cable news networks, and it never applied to cable. You could bring it back tomorrow and it wouldn't change anything about Fox News. There is not, nor has there ever been, a legal 'standard of truth' for news media. There shouldn't be. If you trust the government to decide what is true and punish the media for reporting otherwise, what's to stop trump or the next trump from weaponizing that? That is why the first amendment exists. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] teamevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not pushing it as a two sides issue. I haven't seen anyone in the Democratic establishment advocating for media censorship like this. I'm talking about you, as an individual. You're not a side. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jobby@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not advocating ‘censorship’. I’m advocating for standards of truth in news media. Unless it’s laid out as the facts, it’s opinion. This used to be the case until Murdoch and the GOP changed the law to allow bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago If you're talking about the fairness doctrine, it required broadcast networks to devote equal time to both sides of controversial issues. It never applied to opinion shows, which are like 2/3rds of the content on 24 hour cable news networks, and it never applied to cable. You could bring it back tomorrow and it wouldn't change anything about Fox News. There is not, nor has there ever been, a legal 'standard of truth' for news media. There shouldn't be. If you trust the government to decide what is true and punish the media for reporting otherwise, what's to stop trump or the next trump from weaponizing that? That is why the first amendment exists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jobby@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not advocating ‘censorship’. I’m advocating for standards of truth in news media. Unless it’s laid out as the facts, it’s opinion. This used to be the case until Murdoch and the GOP changed the law to allow bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago If you're talking about the fairness doctrine, it required broadcast networks to devote equal time to both sides of controversial issues. It never applied to opinion shows, which are like 2/3rds of the content on 24 hour cable news networks, and it never applied to cable. You could bring it back tomorrow and it wouldn't change anything about Fox News. There is not, nor has there ever been, a legal 'standard of truth' for news media. There shouldn't be. If you trust the government to decide what is true and punish the media for reporting otherwise, what's to stop trump or the next trump from weaponizing that? That is why the first amendment exists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago If you're talking about the fairness doctrine, it required broadcast networks to devote equal time to both sides of controversial issues. It never applied to opinion shows, which are like 2/3rds of the content on 24 hour cable news networks, and it never applied to cable. You could bring it back tomorrow and it wouldn't change anything about Fox News. There is not, nor has there ever been, a legal 'standard of truth' for news media. There shouldn't be. If you trust the government to decide what is true and punish the media for reporting otherwise, what's to stop trump or the next trump from weaponizing that? That is why the first amendment exists. permalink fedilink source parent