If the Dems get back in power, they need to do something about right wing media and ownership

[AStern]

If you think about it, they have done little or nothing about the rise in right wing media since 1987. Something needs to be done. If they pull the "let's put the past behind us" like they did in 1992 & 2008, it will be disappointing beyond belief.

[marble falls]

1. Censorship? I don't think so. Let subscribers vote with their subscriptions and letters to advertisers.

[AStern]

2. So 5 people get to own the media?

And good luck with your former classmates who've digested Fox News and AM Talk Radio for decades. I'm sure they'll see the light.

[yaesu]

4. No, we need to break up the rw media monopolies by using laws already on the books nt

[TBF]

14. This is the way. nt

[CrispyQ]

5. You shouldn't be allowed to call yourself a news station if you lie to your audience.

We should be able to regulate cable at least that much.

[Wiz Imp]

7. Where did this person say anything about Censorship?

It's clear they're talking right wing media monopolies like right wing corporate monoplies where a tiny number of companies own 90% of the market. The US used to go after such monoplies (Bell Telephone, anyone?)

[yaesu]

3. They need to kick fox goptv out of the country like Canada and Australia did for starters. Nt

[Celerity]

18. Canada and Australia did not kick Fox News out. That is misinfo.

CLAIM: Canada and the U.K. both banned Fox News.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-340810040961

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Fox News has not been banned in Canada, where it remains authorized for distribution. The network also was not banned in the U.K., although Fox News voluntarily stopped broadcasting there in 2017.

THE FACTS: A widely shared tweet this week purports to share a “FUN FACT,” that two major U.S. allies have permanently banned Fox News from their airwaves.

However, the claim isn’t a “fact” at all. Instead, it parrots a false narrative that has circulated online for years. Neither country has banned Fox News, though the network pulled its broadcasts from the U.K. by choice.

Fox News is currently authorized for distribution in Canada, said Isabella Maestri, a spokesperson for Canada’s broadcasting regulator, the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-banned-australia-new-zealand/

[Cirsium]

6. But, but, but

Free speech!! Censorship!!

Why shouldn't wealthy be able to control all of our communications?

If you don't like you can buy your own multi-million dollar media empire! Freedom!

[pat_k]

8. These won't solve the problem, but could curb the insanity

Reform Section 230 to remove liability immunity for promoting harmful falsehoods

Enforce stricter defamation laws (lowering the "actual malice" bar).

Revive the Fairness Doctrine to mandate balanced viewpoints

Requiring transparency in algorithmic amplification and ad funding

Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom of Reach. It is up to customers to push platforms to moderate content and remove or flag disinformation and ban hate speech and threats of violence.

[Bluewonder]

9. Shouldn't we first worry about whether there will be a midterm election?

Is it a fantasy to think the Democrats will ever be in power again? The Trump administration breaks the law and the Constitution every single day and it seems they are getting away with it. Refusing to hold an election will just be one more step toward dictatorship. How will we respond?
Regarding the problem of right wing media, I agree with you. However I think a bigger problem is the more general consolidation of power in a few corporations in many aspects of our economy. What ever happened to anti-trust
Legislation? The Democrats were sleeping at the job when they were in power and now we’re stuck with powerful oligarchs in many different industries having outsize influence in all realms of US policies.

[TBF]

10. "The Democrats were sleeping at the job when they were in power"

[Cha]

11. NO.. The Democrats were NOT

"Sleeping at the job..."..

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. Welcome to DU

[somsai]

12. Facebook, Youtube, Tik Tok, Instagram?

Much fewer go to yahoo or similar. Fox, the big 3 networks, etc only for old people.

[valleyrogue]

15. What do you mean, "if"? n/t

[Skittles]

16. NOTHING is ever guaranteed

just the fact that a vile piece of utter fucking garbage like Trump could be president not once but TWICE means all bets are OFF

[karynnj]

17. What media is has changed radically over time

We COULD have regulated radio and tv when everything was broadcast because they needed licenses and used part of the available bandwidth. I don't know if we can change rules we let lapse, but it would not cover cable or Internet based.

As to newspapers, their private ownership always existed and they always could have a slant. The bigger problem with print media is that there are few truly.independent papers.

[PatrickforB]

19. Try this: The 1919 MI Supreme Court ruling against Henry Ford created the current legal doctrine of

shareholder primacy. This means that the fiduciary responsibility of ALL the producers of 'news' shows in publicly traded media is always and only to generate PROFITS for shareholders. Nothing in there about truth in news at all.

Solution: Change the rules of corporate governance so officers in publicly traded companies are required to hold the interests of workers, consumers and the environment EQUAL to shareholder profits, and add a clause requiring truth in news reporting and a requirement to present balanced viewpoints.

And then don't be too spineless to enforce those rules. Because you'll have a bunch of slobbery billionaires and Wall Street greed lizards crying about the new rules. Fuck them.

[AllaN01Bear]

20. they also need to eliminate multi station and paper ownership and reinstate the fairness doctrine and

infource .