Bad FCC / Fairness Doctrine Takes
@badfcctakes.bsky.social
If you've see your words screenshotted here, it probably means you brought up a very, very bad take on the Fairness Doctrine or other FCC regulation you didn't understand.
Repost = good take. Screenshot = bad take
Repost = good take. Screenshot = bad take
Who wants to tell 'em?
November 19, 2025 at 11:42 PM
Who wants to tell 'em?
I don't know if Vinny was mocking someone (the post that was quoted was "blocked") or being serious, but someone is making a very bad take.
November 19, 2025 at 11:41 PM
I don't know if Vinny was mocking someone (the post that was quoted was "blocked") or being serious, but someone is making a very bad take.
Yeah, let's just make up history.
November 19, 2025 at 11:34 PM
Yeah, let's just make up history.
Trump's a fucking dummy.
November 19, 2025 at 2:01 AM
Trump's a fucking dummy.
Who were no doubt correct if they told you the FD didn't do all that much.
Because....well....it didn't.
Because....well....it didn't.
November 17, 2025 at 11:16 PM
Who were no doubt correct if they told you the FD didn't do all that much.
Because....well....it didn't.
Because....well....it didn't.
It legally can't be, so....
November 17, 2025 at 11:15 PM
It legally can't be, so....
Check out Mr. Big Brain here. 😂
November 16, 2025 at 9:35 PM
Check out Mr. Big Brain here. 😂
RESTORE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE! THE GOVERNMENT MUST POLICE THE MEDIA TO REQUIRE TRUTH AND BALANCE! AND LETTING THE GOVERNMENT DEFINE THOSE TERMS AND ENFORCE ACCORDINGLY WOULD BE TREMENDOUS!
November 16, 2025 at 7:04 PM
RESTORE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE! THE GOVERNMENT MUST POLICE THE MEDIA TO REQUIRE TRUTH AND BALANCE! AND LETTING THE GOVERNMENT DEFINE THOSE TERMS AND ENFORCE ACCORDINGLY WOULD BE TREMENDOUS!
Oh, the melodrama.
November 16, 2025 at 6:55 PM
Oh, the melodrama.
Uses AI to answer legal question; thinks it's "proof". 😂 😂 😂 😂
What a fucking dullard.
What a fucking dullard.
November 16, 2025 at 12:08 AM
Uses AI to answer legal question; thinks it's "proof". 😂 😂 😂 😂
What a fucking dullard.
What a fucking dullard.
Pot, meet kettle.
November 15, 2025 at 9:54 PM
Pot, meet kettle.
The Fairness Doctrine never did anything to separate fact from propaganda, and it can't apply to non-broadcast (use of the public airwaves) content without violating the 1st Amendment.
Outside of that: great idea!
Outside of that: great idea!
November 15, 2025 at 9:14 PM
The Fairness Doctrine never did anything to separate fact from propaganda, and it can't apply to non-broadcast (use of the public airwaves) content without violating the 1st Amendment.
Outside of that: great idea!
Outside of that: great idea!
The Fairness Doctrine did none of the following things, plus it had not been enforced since 1969.
The idea that it was "impactful" is folly. Plus, compliance was easy--a 60-120 min "public affairs" show aired at 5:30 Sunday AM would suffice.
The idea that it was "impactful" is folly. Plus, compliance was easy--a 60-120 min "public affairs" show aired at 5:30 Sunday AM would suffice.
November 15, 2025 at 9:09 PM
The Fairness Doctrine did none of the following things, plus it had not been enforced since 1969.
The idea that it was "impactful" is folly. Plus, compliance was easy--a 60-120 min "public affairs" show aired at 5:30 Sunday AM would suffice.
The idea that it was "impactful" is folly. Plus, compliance was easy--a 60-120 min "public affairs" show aired at 5:30 Sunday AM would suffice.
Compelled speech = "democratic ideals"?
Uh-huh.
Uh-huh.
November 15, 2025 at 6:35 PM
Compelled speech = "democratic ideals"?
Uh-huh.
Uh-huh.
In no way was "equal time" part of the Fairness Doctrine when it came to ideas and positions on policy.
November 15, 2025 at 6:33 PM
In no way was "equal time" part of the Fairness Doctrine when it came to ideas and positions on policy.
So forcing stations to platform vaccine deniers after a report on vaccine efficacy would be cutting down on misinformation?
OK. Sure.
OK. Sure.
November 15, 2025 at 6:32 PM
So forcing stations to platform vaccine deniers after a report on vaccine efficacy would be cutting down on misinformation?
OK. Sure.
OK. Sure.
This picture is wildly inaccurate....like "Paul Revere shows us the Boston Massacre" inaccurate. Stop sharing it.
November 15, 2025 at 6:31 PM
This picture is wildly inaccurate....like "Paul Revere shows us the Boston Massacre" inaccurate. Stop sharing it.
That's....not what the Fairness Doctrine did at all.
November 15, 2025 at 6:29 PM
That's....not what the Fairness Doctrine did at all.
The Fairness Doctrine didn't mandate "discussions". The "rebuttal", if you want to call it that, didn't have to be at the same time or even on the same program. Often it was aired as part of a 5:30 Sunday AM "community affairs" show.
November 15, 2025 at 6:28 PM
The Fairness Doctrine didn't mandate "discussions". The "rebuttal", if you want to call it that, didn't have to be at the same time or even on the same program. Often it was aired as part of a 5:30 Sunday AM "community affairs" show.
The Fairness Doctrine's demise has pretty much nothing to do with this.
November 15, 2025 at 6:27 PM
The Fairness Doctrine's demise has pretty much nothing to do with this.
"I don't like what some people say on the radio or TV! BAN THEM!!!!"
November 14, 2025 at 11:59 PM
"I don't like what some people say on the radio or TV! BAN THEM!!!!"
Yeah, haha....me neither.
November 14, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Yeah, haha....me neither.
Correlation =/= Causation
Oops..my bad:
CORRELATION =/= Causation
Oops..my bad:
CORRELATION =/= Causation
November 14, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Correlation =/= Causation
Oops..my bad:
CORRELATION =/= Causation
Oops..my bad:
CORRELATION =/= Causation
It required "some time" not a "fair presentation"
November 14, 2025 at 11:52 PM
It required "some time" not a "fair presentation"