For much of the twentieth century mass media was policed by The Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was a policy that required media outlets to cover controversial issues in a balanced manner that represented both sides of the argument.
The issue is that arguments often have more than just two views. Like let’s say someone goes on TV and argues for a 50% vice tax on alcohol, there’s a number of different possible responses here.
Keep the status quo
Vice tax but a lower amount
Vice tax but a higher amount
Prohibition again
Some other type of new limit on alcohol
Some other other type of new limit
Some other other other type of new limit (and so on for as many potential methods as exist)
Subsidies to encourage alcohol instead.
Who gets to demand a response here? And if the “I want more people to drink” guy gets a response, does it use up the opportunity from the prohibition one? Heck even “same side” responses could be difficult cause they still differ too. Does a “I prefer a 40% vice tax” response
count the same as a 20% vice tax response? Does “I want drinking alcohol to require a drinking license” count the same as “I want alcohol consumption to be illegal if consumed over X limit?”
Maybe we try to solve some of this by only allowing “mainstream” views a response, but now we have to determine what is mainstream enough and what isn’t. And we still have the problem of determining how to separate out different views to begin with. Maybe we collapse the status quo people with the pro alcohol subsidies people because they both reject the tax, and then the guy who gets up on TV and actually gets to talk is the subsidies guy despite not actually being popular.
And I’m sure many can relate to seeing a person argue something on the internet you generally agree with, but then use bad arguments and behavior that you think are terrible. Maybe you believe in a 20% vice tax for X and Y reasons, but the guy who gets on stage to represent the view says “I support 20% because the voices in my head told me to.” Would you feel represented by that? I wouldn’t, and I would think it bullshit if the government tried to say that man gets to take the place of my well thought response.
The fairness doctrine just doesn’t seem very workable as a concept. To even do a somewhat decent job, government will have to get into and sort out the most niche debates on everything said on TV or radio, and there will still likely be tons of mistakes that happen. And I’m not even gonna get started on how much corruption/bribery/dealmaking/etc is going to be encouraged by this level of bureaucracy and decisionmaking.
The issue is that arguments often have more than just two views. Like let’s say someone goes on TV and argues for a 50% vice tax on alcohol, there’s a number of different possible responses here.
Keep the status quo
Vice tax but a lower amount
Vice tax but a higher amount
Prohibition again
Some other type of new limit on alcohol
Some other other type of new limit
Some other other other type of new limit (and so on for as many potential methods as exist)
Subsidies to encourage alcohol instead.
Who gets to demand a response here? And if the “I want more people to drink” guy gets a response, does it use up the opportunity from the prohibition one? Heck even “same side” responses could be difficult cause they still differ too. Does a “I prefer a 40% vice tax” response count the same as a 20% vice tax response? Does “I want drinking alcohol to require a drinking license” count the same as “I want alcohol consumption to be illegal if consumed over X limit?”
Maybe we try to solve some of this by only allowing “mainstream” views a response, but now we have to determine what is mainstream enough and what isn’t. And we still have the problem of determining how to separate out different views to begin with. Maybe we collapse the status quo people with the pro alcohol subsidies people because they both reject the tax, and then the guy who gets up on TV and actually gets to talk is the subsidies guy despite not actually being popular.
And I’m sure many can relate to seeing a person argue something on the internet you generally agree with, but then use bad arguments and behavior that you think are terrible. Maybe you believe in a 20% vice tax for X and Y reasons, but the guy who gets on stage to represent the view says “I support 20% because the voices in my head told me to.” Would you feel represented by that? I wouldn’t, and I would think it bullshit if the government tried to say that man gets to take the place of my well thought response.
The fairness doctrine just doesn’t seem very workable as a concept. To even do a somewhat decent job, government will have to get into and sort out the most niche debates on everything said on TV or radio, and there will still likely be tons of mistakes that happen. And I’m not even gonna get started on how much corruption/bribery/dealmaking/etc is going to be encouraged by this level of bureaucracy and decisionmaking.