Dear DNC, Stop asking us for more money. Part 2.

Part 1, updated and revised, is available here.

Dear DNC, Everyday citizens are hungry for a solution.

They say to each other across dinner tables, Why can’t we bring back the Fairness Doctrine?  (Honestly, it happened to me again recently.)  For you youngins, the Fairness Doctrine, dismantled under Reagan in 1987, required broadcast news outlets to represent differing viewpoints of controversial issues with fair and balanced coverage; it’s demise lead to the rise of the Fox “News” cable station in 1996.

Legal experts believe we could not bring the Fairness Doctrine back.  And yes, after examining the legal pitfalls (like free-speech complaints) and litigiousness it would generate (like hyper-analyzing every news broadcast for fair coverage and filing complaints ad nauseam), they have a fair point.

But other legal experts don’t see those challenges as insurmountable and envision a new, improved media guardrail, a Fairness Doctrine 2.0, if you will.  Perhaps a new name is in order, like the News Integrity Doctrine (yes, NID), and something simpler, less nebulous in scope, plus easier and mandated FCC enforcement.  Before you dismiss the idea, hear me out:

Courts have ruled that “reckless disregard for the truth” is not protected speech. Moreover, the FCC deems it “illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news.”  The current problem, however, is lack of the FCC’s enforcement ability:  The FCC’s jurisdiction over news distortion is limited to over-the-air broadcasters—not cable and satellite.  (And we all know that the Internet is the Wild West when it comes to content, with some ability for end-users to censor pornography, but not much else.)  In fact, and oddly, the U.S. Copyright Office issues licenses to cable operators, not the FCC.

Thus, step one is including cable and satellite in the FCC’s purview.  That will be a Congressional hurdle.

Once that is achieved, the new version of a Fairness Doctrine could be contemplated.  It would start with elevating the term “news.”  A News Integrity Doctrine could require that any broadcast outlet (including cable and satellite) which labels itself or aired segments “news” must adhere to basic ethical standards, such as accuracy and thoroughness, meaning not omitting important factoids, like, for example, that Fox lost the Dominion voting machine defamation lawsuit to the tune of $787 million, key findings in the January 6 Insurrection hearings, or Biden’s accomplishments.  If they can’t meet basic standards, they can’t use the term “news,” in their name or their broadcast segments.

“News” is factual and “commentary” is opinion; broadcast media can label each on screen or over air—just as print media does.  When airing news, require broadcasters to adhere to the principle of impartiality, just as the UK does.  It isn’t hard; it’s a culture of Integrity—foreign to Fox.

When airing commentary, require news outlets to balance time between varied viewpoints—or find a non-news outlet for biased commentary.  Freedom of Speech and Press thus aren’t impacted.  Fox could still do its thing, but not during a news program or on a news channel.  A robust, visible, public fairness rating system would encourage accountability.  As the Harvard Law Review says, we can incentivize “fairer behavior from content distributors by simply giving the public Awareness of whether they are viewing fact or opinion.”  It’s that simple.

Surely, DNC, you could bring together a bipartisan team of legal and media experts—many who have already contemplated this—to craft something brilliant.

But you have to win and be in power before you can set this in motion—and you can’t do that until you address the behemoth in the room, the Fox-Faux-News Propaganda Machine.

Let me know when you have a plan of attack.

Follow @Fox Faux News on Facebook, and share Truth!

Contact the DNC and let them know your thoughts on combating the Fox-Faux-News Propaganda Machine:

ACT