I want to say it was a clause of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine, wherein newscasters were legally required to present information on events and political matters as unbiased as possible on publicly-issued airwaves. It lost a lot of its steam when cable became commonplace, as cable networks were technically closed-circuit systems, and then it went out the door with the internet. On top of which, stations like Fox News claiming to be entertainment and not news stations helped their cause. The original idea was that if the FCC was to grant you a broadcast license, you were obliged to operate in the interest of the public, and the doctrine expressly forbade operating for personal gain.
I mean it’s mostly just something to say, I haven’t put a lot of thought into it. But there are things that are objectively true, and objectively false. If a company states something that is objectively false, then they should be held accountable. This PSN issue is an area where it becomes subjective, or at least difficult to prove, and then we’re right back where we started.
Who decides what “truth” is? In concept I’m with you but in practice that sounds like a nightmare. See: mainland china
Governments should be the arbiters of law and recommendations, not the arbiters of truth.
Alright how about ethics laws. Make knowingly lying or blatant dishonesty a felony.
Didn’t news stations at one point have something that required exactly this? Atleast over in america…
I want to say it was a clause of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine, wherein newscasters were legally required to present information on events and political matters as unbiased as possible on publicly-issued airwaves. It lost a lot of its steam when cable became commonplace, as cable networks were technically closed-circuit systems, and then it went out the door with the internet. On top of which, stations like Fox News claiming to be entertainment and not news stations helped their cause. The original idea was that if the FCC was to grant you a broadcast license, you were obliged to operate in the interest of the public, and the doctrine expressly forbade operating for personal gain.
I mean it’s mostly just something to say, I haven’t put a lot of thought into it. But there are things that are objectively true, and objectively false. If a company states something that is objectively false, then they should be held accountable. This PSN issue is an area where it becomes subjective, or at least difficult to prove, and then we’re right back where we started.
deleted by creator