One guy's opinion.

[Jolly]

[Mik]

Short piece, but a lot to think about. The networks cannot be said to serve the public good.

[Jolly]

I'm not in favor of auctioning off the spectra. About 20% of Americans still watch free OTA tv, especially those in older and poorer households.

I do think some changes must be made. News programs should not be editorial programs. CBS, with the demotion of McDonnell, has decided the day of the high profile, high paid anchor is over. There will be cost -cutting and there needs to be.

Editorials by OTA providers are fine, but must be labeled as such and opposition viewpoints must be aired. I think a revisitation of slander and libel laws for public figures would do us all good.

Lastly, I think where OTA does best, are live events... Sporting events, major news stories, SOTU speeches, etc. There has to be a business model that works, that allows the networks to partner with streaming services to jointly produce content that benefits both. For instance, an LSU football game is broadcast live on NBC...If I miss that game for whatever reason and I still wish to watch it, I should be able to stream it on Peacock. Conversely, maybe a series is produced for a streaming service...CBS fronts some of the money for a Netflix series, and has broadcast rights for the show a few months after it first drops on Netflix.

[LuFins Dad]

Reading through the comments on that thread, a lot of people on the right are calling for the same type of arbiter of “truth” as the idiots on the left. They say misinformation, the right says fake news. Their both the same dystopic thing.

[George K]

Time for the "Fairness Doctrine?"

[LuFins Dad]

No. Just let the market work. They are hemorrhaging viewers. Blatant partisanship only takes you so far. CNN actually seems to be struggling against their innate tendencies. Two steps forward, 1.5 steps back. At the same time, there are very effective conservative counters to the bias.

Print or broadcast as you will. But I do think there does need to be some repercussions when a media source has a report that winds up being blatantly false.

[Jolly]

I think the Warren court got some things badly wrong. One was this case:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

I think a return to the earlier versions of slander and libel would tamp down some of the crap we have today and reinstate some basic journalism - on both sides of the spectrum.

[89th]

@George-K said in One guy's opinion.:

Time for the "Fairness Doctrine?"

At a gut level, absolutely. The vitriol, violence, conflicts, and even school shootings... so much is drastically fed by the 24/7 corporate opinion media feed (aka... wanna-be news). It wouldn't solve everything, but if journalism could return to reporting the 5 W's, investigations, and so forth... society would be a bit nicer.

But at a legal / constitutional level... LD and Jolly are right.