That video is Schultz's opinion as to why they
cancelled The Ed Show in 2015. It is also contrary to what he said back then, which was that MSNBC was changing its lineup.
The narrative that Sanders didn't get airtime during the campaign is false. Sanders got plenty of airtime. Take it from a viewer.
The narrative that MSNBC was biased towards Hillary is also false. MSNBC covered entire Trump stump speeches. Is the OP suggesting that MSNBC was biased towards Trump?
I'd suggest that Trump was a ratings machine given how audacious and different he was. Also it's not my 'narrative' that Sanders got no airtime, it's my assertion that he got substantially and disproportionately less than both Hillary and Trump during the primary cycle; per the Tyndall Report in 2015, he received 6 times less coverage than Hillary: 20 minutes to her 121.
Further, no, it's not just about Schultz's opinion on the cancellation of his show; that's a sideshow compared to his other allegations.
Both A and B represent an infringement of the radio station's rights. In the case of the FCC vs the League of Women Voters (the case that led to the FCC dropping the doctrine) SCOTUS determined that the regluation unfairly infringed on independent broadcasters, denying them the right to address their specific audience and prevented private groups from presenting their own views. The ACLU file for, and received, affirmance, by a 5-4 vote.
SCOTUS warned, back in Red Lion broadcasting case, where it upheld the doctrine, that if it was construed to infringe on Free Speech, which it later did, the decision could be reversed, so, if the FCC ever reinstates it (incredibly unlikely), it's most likely to get smacked down by SCOTUS anyway.
The 5-4 vote was actually about Congress forbidding editorials a media organization that received federal funds, which was in my view, indeed unconstitutional; this was not about the presentation of alternate view points or issues of public interest.
The 8-0 Red Lion vote is a more interesting case, and the unanimous vote recognizes both the purview of the FD and its value as a magnifier, not a silencer of free speech, as it was indeed an instance where there was a failure to present an opposing side on an issue of public interest.
Correct, we've learned that attempting to legislate fringe morality is usually counterproductive.
I wasn't proposing legislation, I'm saying that significant ethical breaches are news, and they are.
I disagree completely; if a news source is being disingenuous or deeply biased in a certain respect, and pretending to be otherwise, it is very much my business whether it is doing so
"Rudimentary, minimum standards" are in place. The Fairness Doctrine, as determined by the FCC, however, encroached on the independent nature of the broadcasters. Has the "quality and objectivity" suffered, as you say? Perhaps, but but preserving free speech, which was in question is more important.
That was their choice, and as a free society, we have to not just uphold MSNBC's choice, but the choice of all broadcasters to push their own agenda if they so choose. Americans are not brainless fools (well, for the most part) and the last thing we need is governmental interference in broadcasting. That's a slippery slope we don't even want to consider.
There are evidently no minimum standards that are worth spit per the conduct of modern MSM. The constitutionally of the FD was rightly and strongly upheld by the SCOTUS in cases where it served to expand speech while remaining within its mandate; it worked well. That said, there is a serious problem when mainstream mass media is fundamentally an oligarchy controlled by 6 corporations and they have no compunction to be truthful or present alternate views, and often aren't and don't; that is undeniably corrosive, in the long run, to the proper functioning of democracy.
How about instead of some massive conspiracy theory by MSNBC to not give Bernie Sanders air-time which is probably the most idiotic CT I've ever heard of. Maybe just maybe Schultz is angry, bitter and jealous of Sharpton or MSNBC??? News media personalities are known to be drama queens. They aren't exactly known for uncovering or concocting successful shadowy conspiracy theories.
Again, so why lie now specifically? Why lie now when that political contest is long past settled and Clinton has faded into complete and total irrelevancy? Why not make a stink about it when he was in a much better position to derive material benefit? It doesn't add up.
He's already got a secure position; his future is assured. He doesn't need the media attention.
