Hindsight question. Could we Dems have done something more effective...

[LAS14]

.... to respond to:

Swift boating

Whitewater

Native American heritage (It's not over till it's over, here)

E-mails

Land of birth (Interestingly, I'm not sure if this had any significant effect. Does anyone know? Since it was so totally un-tethered to any facts, maybe it illustrates that there are limits to what planned negative attacks can accomplish.)

Did I forget some?

[Liberty Belle]

1. Sure. Restoring the fairness doctrine and pulling the plug on FOX

and other right-wing media stations over the public airways when they first got started,
back when Dems regained control of Congress is what would prevented all of this.

In the old days you'd never hear opinions disguised as news. There were news anchors on the networks who were straight shooters presenting facts.

Sometimes you would hear commentary/opinion identified as such. If someone wanted to run an opposing opinion, the network had to give them equal time.

We need laws governing cable shows like Fox News and radio programs like Rush Limbaugh -- require that stations either allow equal time on each show, or have say, a liberal talk show to counter a conservative talk show.

I also believe if someone is found to be totally devoid of the facts repeatedly, networks should be pushed to cancel their contracts or get their right to use the public airways revoked. There is a difference between free speech and propaganda or conspiracy nutjobs.

Another thing we could do is create some federal grants to help independent nonprofit local media outlets and also to help support even larger newspapers. Until about a century ago, the federal government paid for postage to mail newspapers to people in rural areas, believing it important to have an educated populace. Now many rural areas have no newspaper delivery, or at best only one.

Is it just coincidence that rural areas are often core Trump supporter zones? If they can't get real news and alternative views to right-wing radio rants and Fox, how can we expect any other outcome?

In our area, I started a nonprofit news outlet a decade ago. Our major newspaper in town was conservative owned and had cut off delivery to rural towns. We filled that cap with an online news service. It's making a difference. The last election we saw Dems, progressives and independents elected in places that hadn't ever had this before, at least not in decades. A conservative Congressman who previously won by over 40 points came within 4 points of losing. Granted there are other factors, not just our news outlet. I am constantly frustrated at lack of any government grants for media, and having to beg for funds from private donors when our readers in rural areas are mostly poor. We have to constantly host events and spend time on fundraising that we'd much rather spend on reporting, and there's never enough money to cover all the town councils, planning groups, water boards, school boards, supervisors, state legislative and congressional actions in any given month so we always have to pick and choose a few of the most important meetings or issues to cover. It shouldn't be this way.

[LAS14]

2. Yeah, I'd forgotten about the "equal time" practise.

Was that prescribed by law? Was there a "fairness doctrine" law? It sounds familiar.

I went to Google and found an article from the WAPO. Haven't read it yet, but see that the law lapsed or was overturned in 2011. I find this exciting because I've been cogitating about how one defines "fact" for purposes of legislation. I posted that in a direct reply.

[LAS14]

3. Everything you need to know about the Fairness Doctrine. WP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fairness-doctrine-in-one-post/2011/08/23/gIQAN8CXZJ_blog.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ce0a8e46a54f

In response, the FCC began to reconsider the rule in the mid-80s, and ultimately revoked it in 1987, after Congress passed a resolution instructing the commission to study the issue. The decision has been credited with the explosion of conservative talk radio in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. While the FCC has not enforced the rule in nearly a quarter century, it remains technically on the books. As a part of the Obama administration’s broader efforts to overhaul federal regulation, the FCC is finally scrapping the rule once and for all.

The two underlined parts of this para seem contradictory. I couldn't read the link about "overhaul federal regulation" without subscribing to the Wall Street Journal. Can anyone shed more light on why Obama's admin would want to scrap these rules?

[Liberty Belle]

4. Thanks. It was the Reagan administration that ended the fairness doctrine.

Republican regimes don't want fairness. They want propaganda to sway the masses.

Some Dems have objected to restoring the Fairness Doctrine because on the very rare examples of liberal media they'd have to provide equal time, too if they editorialize. (If it's straight news reporting, they would not have to do so).

But the trade-off is well worth it in my view, since nearly all of the talk radio shows are right wing.

You can also address Fairness Doctrine issues by offernig a point/counterpoint as one network did, where you'd have a liberal and a conservative debating an issue. Armed with facts the liberal could win against most of these bozos hands down.

[LAS14]

5. Thanks for explaining why liberals caved.

Maybe we should try to revive it. I would like to know how the regulations defined "fact" vs "opinion." It seems like a big part of the problem is that some people claim opinion is fact. Would you know how to drill down into the old regulations to find that? Or was it just assumed?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

6. Obama did well because he was a charismatic candidate.

And an approval rating in positive territory.

Yeah, it helps when your candidate has positive approval ratings.

[Baltimike]

7. *Nope*. This is called "blaming the victim". We need to hold the kGOPb to the rule of law

and not "try and play nice" when we are the ones with the gavel.