The Zapple Doctrine and The Fairness Doctrine in New Media?
I don't agree with some liberal arguments that if we just reason -- through discourse, media, and common knowledge of US history -- with conservatives, that we can change their minds.
I DO agree with the liberal argument that we Democrats, at least, must work on reasoning with each other to broaden and deepen our understandings of what's at stake for our democracy.
We just shouldn't have to bear that burden of fairness as a party, but as a nation.
But I do think most people believe in fair play and fairness.
Sure, these "doctrines" below are important, relevant in the 2020 election. They're worth review, 24/7/365, so we can keep our wits in the year ahead.
I see the Zapple and Fairness Doctrines improving political media.
But also in equipping personal exchange. Fairness in media helps us balance more than one interpretation in seeking commonality in our experience -- "win-win" -- over "win-lose."
These doctrines makes sure each side "hears" the other side accurately. Listening can be the essence of our body politic's fairness in decision making. They give more light and less heat in our discourse.
When media rules favor one player, or one kind of "speech" over another, the political rules of who speaks and who listens are rigged, inevitably.
Then there's Humor, talking emoji, talk by pictures, memes that illustrate/relieve the tensions we've lived by. They vie for our attentions as ways of understanding, over broadened and deepened, informative discourse.
Or do they offer net gain in fairness to our discourse?
From the video/media threads here:
From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapple_doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
