Can Congress Force National TV Networks to Be More Balanced In What They Report.

Thursday, May 11, 2023

IMO - The Nationwide Media heads need to be hauled before Congress to explain why they choose to elevate Anti-Republican stories over Anti-Democrat stories, of the SAME SUBJECT/ACCUSATION.

For example: When Georgia Senate Candidate Hershel Walker's son said his Dad was an unfaithful bad father, 95% of the news media reported this every few hours, over a 6 week time frame.

However: Virtually NONE of those outlets have reported what Ashley Biden wrote, regarding her dad Joe Biden traumatizing her in the shower, as a little girl.
Source: nypost.com...

And NONE of them have mentioned anything about what "Star Jan 6th Witness" RAY EPPS's adopted daughter has said about his Pedophilia.
Source: thelibertydaily.com...

Doesn't CONGRESS have the AUTHORITY to regulate National Media Outlets, to make them report accusations against both Republicans, and Democrats?

-CareWeMust

Does the pope crap in the woods?

Does a bear wear a funny hat?


No they can’t.

Biased reporting isn't breaking any laws, and congress lacks the ability to get any laws passed without them being acceptable to the House and Biden.

originally posted by: carewemust
Thursday, May 11, 2023

IMO - The Nationwide Media heads need to be hauled before Congress to explain why they choose to elevate Anti-Republican stories over Anti-Democrat stories, of the SAME SUBJECT/ACCUSATION.

For example: When Georgia Senate Candidate Hershel Walker's son said his Dad was an unfaithful bad father, 95% of the news media reported this every few hours, over a 6 week time frame.

However: Virtually NONE of those outlets have reported what Ashley Biden wrote, regarding her dad Joe Biden traumatizing her in the shower, as a little girl.
Source: nypost.com...

And NONE of them have mentioned anything about what "Star Jan 6th Witness" RAY EPPS's adopted daughter has said about his Pedophilia.
Source: thelibertydaily.com...

Doesn't CONGRESS have the AUTHORITY to regulate National Media Outlets, to make them report accusations against both Republicans, and Democrats?

-CareWeMust

You would feel right at home in Russia, China, or Iran.

a reply to: 1947boomer

How are things in the US any different lately? There was a reveal of our government interjecting itself into social media to curb unfriendly stories to a certain political party. We learned that some of our former intelligence chiefs signed a letter that they never examined in a professional capacity to influence an election. At this point Russia, China and Iran's media are the same as ours when it comes to following party lines now.

No . That means that they would have to rescind Barry's EO that made propaganda legal .
[ insert smiley face here]

a reply to: hangedman13

There was a reveal of our government interjecting itself into social media to curb unfriendly stories to a certain political party.

The Biden campaign was not the government and the only things they asked to be removed were pictures of Hunter's dick.

We learned that some of our former intelligence chiefs signed a letter that they never examined in a professional capacity to influence an election.

So private citizens expressing an opinion?

a reply to: carewemust

Nope.

In the 1990's and Early 2000's the Democrats wanted to use the "Fairness Doctrine" to destroy Rush Limbaugh.

They did not succeed.


Likewise I doubt such a policy would be used to overcome the censorship and selective reporting of the MSM and Social Media.

a reply to: carewemust

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

One could argue whether or not the big media outlets are news or entertainment, but it's a loss either way. Their free speech is protected even if yours isn't always.

a reply to: carewemust

1996

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is the first major overhaul of telecommunications law in almost 62 years. The goal of this new law is to let anyone enter any communications business -- to let any communications business compete in any market against any other. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has the potential to change the way we work, live and learn. It will affect telephone service -- local and long distance, cable programming and other video services, broadcast services and services provided to schools.

It's a for profit endeavor where anyone can say anything they want as long as they can generate revenue.

Revenue regulation is FCC spiel, FBI enforce the rackets.

the dissenters will cry because Tucker has his neck free from the vice and can speak on anything under the sun.

a reply to: carewemust

What about outside views from republican / democrat? That's the real game they are in cahoots with, the bigger tyranny than it being lopsided to the one side.

a reply to: carewemust

Once upon a time President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Federal Communications Commission in 1934, to regulate the media outlets so they will be for the good of the public.

Then congress regulates the FCC, somewhere along the lines money talks and BS walk and the chain was broken.

a reply to: carewemust

No, you can't force American people or American companies to do anything. It's against everything we stand for. We always say, if you don't like what a company is doing, start one up yourself and do it better. It's a free market.

Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine, enforced by the Federal Communications Council, was rooted in the media world of 1949. Lawmakers became concerned that the monopoly audience control of the three main networks, NBC, ABC and CBS, could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda.

The Fairness Doctrine mandated broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance. Congress backed the policy in 1954 and by the 1970s the FCC called the doctrine the “single most important requirement of operation in the public interest – the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license.

sometimes "fairness" becomes "scareness" 😀

a reply to: 1947boomer

unless it's a common carrier like Twitter that gets "ordered on demand" from gov agencies to censor 🤡

a reply to: carewemust

No !

Don't open the door at all to censorship, even if to try to get balance.




Solution would be legislation against media censorship.
Let the people decide

a reply to: xuenchen

Twitter wasn't required to censor anything. In fact, prior to Elon, they only complied with about 50% of the government's demands. Under Elon, they're batting 1.000.

a reply to: Tough2fool

Who was the President in 2020?

the first problem is who gets to determine "what is balanced"

we have seen how the "fact checkers" and "judges of what is disinformation" on charged issues like trump and covid have clearly twisted the "unbiased" checking to fit their agenda

IMO you cant make them be unbias/balanced.

what you must do is give basic regulations that

a. there is no censorship on any info reporting (within reason people / few SPECIFIC limited examples like "showing human sacrifice")

B. every outlet is held responsible for MALICIOUS , deliberately false information..

for example , saying someone said "joe blow raped three children" without any facts to back it up should be held accountable and punished.

C. all outlets MUST FOLLOW THE LAW to include (but not limited to) privacy, confidential / secret information, private information not related to the issue, not "barge into private property" , ect.

there is a great movie from the 1980s that WARNED of what we are experiencing today and as prophetic as the books like 1984.

en.wikipedia.org...

scrounger