"Fox News and Sinclair-owned right wing media are why the rest of the world holds their leaders to account, while ours molest children, murder innocent people, and line their own pockets with inglorious impunity."
When someone makes a point that's better than anything I could come up with (and in fewer words too), the best thing to do is tip your hat in appreciation and move on.
WAIT - I do want to add one last thing. There's probably about 10000 different cable channels out there, and about 99.9% of the content truly sucks. While poking around, trying to find something to watch that wouldn't turn my brain into the fetid, pus-filled mass residing inside the cranium of the Pedophile-In-Chief, I discovered that I could stream (for free) the entire run of the X-Files. I'm realizing that in many ways Sabrina is like a modern day version of Dana Scully - intelligent, independent, able to sniff out the BS, and not afraid to kick some ass!!!
This is would be full-bore-"1984" if Carr added torture to those who dared to commit these thought crimes.
Reference:
Did Trump read my "1984" Substack from yesterday? Donald Trump dramatically kicked press out of governors' meeting with 4-word order: "you can leave now."
The "equal time" rule requires broadcasters and radio stations that operate on public airwaves to provide comparable airtime opportunities to opposing political candidates. However, the rule has not traditionally been applied to talk shows.
This presents a show with an interesting opportunity. Ask both candidates the same questions. For the view the candidates must defend their stance on women's issues. On late night question that expose intolerance.
Bring it
on…
So please defend your position on protecting the pedo list.
"Obey in advance", one of the tenets in Timothy Snyder's book "On Tyranny". Do I believe CBS was obeying in advance? Maybe? Ultimately it doesn't matter because the damage is done.
How do democracies besides the United States handle equal time for poltiical views in their broadcast media?
ChatGPT said:
Democracies handle “equal time” and political balance in broadcast media very differently from the United States. Most do not rely on a private-litigation equal-time rule like the U.S. once did (or the limited version that still exists for candidates). Instead, they rely on regulators, public broadcasters, and structured election-period rules. Here’s a clear comparative overview:
1. The U.S. approach (baseline for comparison)
In the United States:
The Equal Time Rule applies only when a broadcaster gives airtime to a legally qualified candidate—it must offer equal opportunities to opposing candidates.
The broader Fairness Doctrine, which required balanced coverage of controversial issues, was abolished in 1987.
Outside of elections, broadcasters are generally free to be partisan.
Cable TV, podcasts, and internet media are almost entirely unregulated politically.
Result: high editorial freedom but also highly partisan broadcast ecosystems.
Most democracies regulate more than this—especially during elections.
2. United Kingdom: “Due impartiality,” not equal time
The UK uses one of the most influential models.
Regulator: Ofcom
Key principles:
Broadcasters must maintain “due impartiality.”
This does NOT mean strict equal time minute-by-minute.
It means coverage must be balanced overall, especially on major political issues.
During election periods:
Parties receive airtime roughly proportional to their electoral support.
Special free broadcasts called Party Election Broadcasts (PEBs) are allocated.
Interview programs must include a range of political perspectives.
Public broadcaster example:
BBC must follow strict neutrality rules.
Violations can result in fines or loss of license.
3. Canada: proportional balance enforced by regulator
Regulator: Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
Key features:
Broadcasters must provide “equitable” (not strictly equal) treatment.
Airtime is often allocated proportionally based on party strength.
Parties receive free election broadcast slots.
Public broadcaster:
CBC/Radio-Canada must provide balanced coverage.
Private broadcasters also face fairness obligations.
4. Germany: strict neutrality and proportional allocation
The only REAL problem I have with the "Fairness Issue" is that media outlets normally only pay attention to the two major parties when giving it lip service.
Where's the Green Party candidate's time? Or the Human Rights Party candidate's time? Or any of the other multitudes of outlooks that SHOULD be allowed to access the information firehose?
It's a conundrum. On one hand, if you get too many candidates clamoring for equal time, then you won't have time to report LEGITIMATE news. You can't put it on a separate channel, because who's going to want to watch a bunch of (to them) wild-eyed fanatics espouse their philosophy?
And then ignoring them becomes justified in their eyes. "Well, they don't draw enough viewers, so there's no point in giving them the free time."
I agree it can become unwieldy. but difficult is not impossible. I also agree the country would benefit from hearing from a more diverse set of views, including the Green Party and other parties, and that would make the administration of fairness more complicated. but even IF the rule is only applied to our binary/ limited/ R vs. D, requiring accuracy and fairness would still be better than what we have now. as viewers get more educated from hearing actual facts, understanding gets broader and expectations shift. US politics simply can't evolve without a predicate foundation of truth.
I asked AI how the UK manages your specific (and valid) concern given that there are hundreds of political parties and this is what it said:
Regulators mandate a fair range of views and equal airtime for parties during elections, although this often results in covering the main opposition rather than all minor parties equally. Ofcom Broadcasting Code: TV and radio (including BBC, ITV, Sky, GB News) must ensure "due impartiality" on matters of major political controversy, meaning they must present a "fair range of views" rather than just two sides.
I take from the rule's limited application to "matters of major political controversy" that it filters out silly noise or unimportant topics from regulatory oversight, then raising the question of who decides what is a major controversy. all decisions are subjective, but presumably debated among people at Ofcom who have diverse and opposing political leanings. however they do it, Congress needs o consider it, which I don't see republicans allowing anytime soon.
Sure. It's like the Presidential debates that have been sponsored over the past few elections.
The moderators refused to let the Libertarians, Green Party, Constitution Party, and Socialist Workers parties participate. They even tried to justify it by saying that unless a political party had at least 5% of the vote in the national election, there was no useful purpose in them participating, and they (the moderators) weren't in the business to provide a free forum for "fringe" candidates.
And, of course, the information entertainment industry (my unwieldy but more accurate name for the media) was all in favor of that. God forbid that someone gets a forum that the IEI has no control over.
First, there is an ingrained institutional bias towards the two party system.
Second, all third parties are stuck in an impossible-to-win "chicken and the egg" scenario - the majority of the public is unaware they exist because they're too small to get attention from the media, and the media won't allow them to participate in debates because they don't have enough name recognition with the public.
Third parties need to have a voice, even as the two major parties use their power and influence to shut them out.
Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions on how to make that happen. Another example of how other countries have advanced democracy and left the US in the dust.
Eric, my friend, I can think of SEVERAL ways we can make it happen. But I'm reluctant to let the government get involved in the election process in any way.
And since the 'equal time' doctrine is NOT, in fact, a law, then there has to be a way.
I used to think the Internet would help spawn third parties' growth, but that appears to be a forlorn hope.
The Information Entertainment Industry has NEVER been on the people's side. They're in it to make MONEY.
It's been that way since James Gordon Bennett and the New York Herald back in the 1840s.
Joseph Pulitzer earned a sizable amount of money from placing fake advertisements in his newspapers, and there were no laws to prevent him from doing so.
Amazing, Fox News actually admitting under oath that they are fake news. I knew it, many others know it. I even know a Republican that admitted they lie, but where does this leave all those who watch Fox and actually believe their News is correct - confused. Believing they are getting the real news. Just a disgrace and Fox should have consequences for their behavior that has deceived so many. On the issue of the FCC: very clear they’re trying to destroy those Trump does not like or wants them out to take control like the dictatorship he wants so badly.
I just received this in a fund raising email from Mary Trump. This is police state stuff:
The Department of Homeland Security has sent hundreds of subpoenas to Google, Reddit, Discord, and Meta demanding names, emails, and phone numbers of anyone who criticized ICE online.
Criticizing the government is not a crime. It's protected speech under the First Amendment.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration arrested Black journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for simply reporting on a protest. A federal magistrate judge initially refused to issue a warrant because there wasn't enough evidence, but the administration arrested Lemon and Fort anyway.
This is what authoritarianism looks like. They're not just threatening dissent — they're criminalizing journalism.
And where is the corporate media? Mostly silent. Mostly looking the other way.
Another great response. So; what are Democrats doing about this? Is there any news of actions taken by them? or are they just hoping it will go away, because experience shows, when they don't act, they lose!
Another great response. So; what are Democrats doing about this? Is there any news of actions taken by them? or are they just hoping it will go away, because experience shows, when they don't act, they lose!
I find myself questioning how relevant constitutional rights are when enforcing them seems to always be a question of discretion. If we don't like how that discretion is exercised then we have to litigate the issue. Big organizations and presidents can hire legal teams, and I know organizations like ACLU do a lot. But, as someone who has been fighting for the enforcement of very obvious constitutional rights for two decades it's difficult that they are anything more than "best case" scenario outcomes for most people.
The First Amendment exists, but...
This issue with the FCC is exactly what we should expect from a party who burned their ships when they arrived on the shores of this presidency. They can't allow themselves to lose because there's no turning back to civility after this. Every one of these individuals will be politically dead after Trump, and they know that, which is why they do what they do.
I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on the SCOTUS tariff ruling from last week and Trump's unwillingness to comply. How does a republic survive when rules are optional and there's no legitimate mechanism for accountability?
Phew!! Another excellent article - I really hope that Carr's ears are burning from the straight talking and facts you presented, Sabrina.
Great, great piece. Thank you, Sabrina 🙏 Haven’t yet seen anyone else cover this topic with the thoroughness it deserves
me neither. dammit.
Agreed, excellent piece!
"Fox News and Sinclair-owned right wing media are why the rest of the world holds their leaders to account, while ours molest children, murder innocent people, and line their own pockets with inglorious impunity."
When someone makes a point that's better than anything I could come up with (and in fewer words too), the best thing to do is tip your hat in appreciation and move on.
WAIT - I do want to add one last thing. There's probably about 10000 different cable channels out there, and about 99.9% of the content truly sucks. While poking around, trying to find something to watch that wouldn't turn my brain into the fetid, pus-filled mass residing inside the cranium of the Pedophile-In-Chief, I discovered that I could stream (for free) the entire run of the X-Files. I'm realizing that in many ways Sabrina is like a modern day version of Dana Scully - intelligent, independent, able to sniff out the BS, and not afraid to kick some ass!!!
ha! I'll take that.
Carr is MAGAKKK
This is would be full-bore-"1984" if Carr added torture to those who dared to commit these thought crimes.
Reference:
Did Trump read my "1984" Substack from yesterday? Donald Trump dramatically kicked press out of governors' meeting with 4-word order: "you can leave now."
https://halbrown.substack.com/p/did-trump-read-my-1984-substack-from
The original "1984" movie is on Amazon Prime Video — available until March 1, 2026.
The "equal time" rule requires broadcasters and radio stations that operate on public airwaves to provide comparable airtime opportunities to opposing political candidates. However, the rule has not traditionally been applied to talk shows.
This presents a show with an interesting opportunity. Ask both candidates the same questions. For the view the candidates must defend their stance on women's issues. On late night question that expose intolerance.
Bring it
on…
So please defend your position on protecting the pedo list.
"Obey in advance", one of the tenets in Timothy Snyder's book "On Tyranny". Do I believe CBS was obeying in advance? Maybe? Ultimately it doesn't matter because the damage is done.
Here's my long ChatGTP answer:
You said:
How do democracies besides the United States handle equal time for poltiical views in their broadcast media?
ChatGPT said:
Democracies handle “equal time” and political balance in broadcast media very differently from the United States. Most do not rely on a private-litigation equal-time rule like the U.S. once did (or the limited version that still exists for candidates). Instead, they rely on regulators, public broadcasters, and structured election-period rules. Here’s a clear comparative overview:
1. The U.S. approach (baseline for comparison)
In the United States:
The Equal Time Rule applies only when a broadcaster gives airtime to a legally qualified candidate—it must offer equal opportunities to opposing candidates.
The broader Fairness Doctrine, which required balanced coverage of controversial issues, was abolished in 1987.
Outside of elections, broadcasters are generally free to be partisan.
Cable TV, podcasts, and internet media are almost entirely unregulated politically.
Result: high editorial freedom but also highly partisan broadcast ecosystems.
Most democracies regulate more than this—especially during elections.
2. United Kingdom: “Due impartiality,” not equal time
The UK uses one of the most influential models.
Regulator: Ofcom
Key principles:
Broadcasters must maintain “due impartiality.”
This does NOT mean strict equal time minute-by-minute.
It means coverage must be balanced overall, especially on major political issues.
During election periods:
Parties receive airtime roughly proportional to their electoral support.
Special free broadcasts called Party Election Broadcasts (PEBs) are allocated.
Interview programs must include a range of political perspectives.
Public broadcaster example:
BBC must follow strict neutrality rules.
Violations can result in fines or loss of license.
3. Canada: proportional balance enforced by regulator
Regulator: Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
Key features:
Broadcasters must provide “equitable” (not strictly equal) treatment.
Airtime is often allocated proportionally based on party strength.
Parties receive free election broadcast slots.
Public broadcaster:
CBC/Radio-Canada must provide balanced coverage.
Private broadcasters also face fairness obligations.
4. Germany: strict neutrality and proportional allocation
Germany regulates political broadcasting heavily.
Regulators: regional broadcast authorities coordinated nationally.
Public broadcasters:
ARD
ZDF
Key principles:
Parties receive free airtime.
Allocation is proportional to political importance, not identical.
Strong legal requirement of neutrality.
Political advertising is tightly restricted compared to the U.S.
Private broadcasters also must avoid extreme imbalance.
5. France: mathematically precise airtime balancing
France uses one of the most structured systems.
Regulator: Arcom
They divide campaign coverage into phases:
Phase 1: Pre-campaign
Coverage proportional to party strength.
Phase 2: Official campaign
Coverage becomes strictly equal.
Phase 3: Final official campaign period
Strictly equal airtime for candidates.
Arcom literally tracks minutes of airtime and enforces balance.
6. Australia: fairness requirement, but looser enforcement
Regulator: Australian Communications and Media Authority
Features:
Broadcasters must present news accurately and fairly.
Public broadcaster must remain neutral.
Public broadcaster:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
Political advertising is allowed but regulated during elections.
7. Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark): strongest neutrality norms
Public broadcasters dominate political coverage.
Example:
SVT
Key characteristics:
Strict neutrality requirements.
Minimal political advertising.
Structured debates with equal candidate participation.
These systems produce very high levels of public trust.
8. Key structural difference: Public broadcasting vs private dominance
The biggest difference between the U.S. and other democracies is structural:
Other democracies rely heavily on public broadcasters.
Examples:
UK: BBC
Canada: CBC
Germany: ARD, ZDF
France: France Télévisions
Australia: ABC
These publicly funded institutions are legally required to remain neutral.
The U.S. equivalent, PBS, exists but is much smaller and less dominant.
9. Cable news: where the U.S. is uniquely permissive
The U.S. is unusual in allowing openly partisan cable networks such as:
Fox News
MSNBC
Many democracies allow opinionated programming, but:
Stronger neutrality rules still apply to licensed broadcast news.
Public broadcasters remain dominant and neutral.
10. Summary table
Country Equal time? Balanced coverage required? Strict election rules?
United States Limited No (outside candidate airtime) Moderate
United Kingdom No strict equal time Yes Strong
Canada No strict equal time Yes Strong
Germany No strict equal time Yes Very strong
France Yes (during official campaign) Yes Extremely strong
Australia No strict equal time Yes Moderate
Nordic countries Often equal or near-equal Yes Very strong
11. Big picture conclusion
Most democracies do NOT use America’s narrow “equal time rule.”
Instead they use a broader principle:
Balanced political coverage enforced by regulators, especially during elections.
The U.S. is unusually permissive in allowing:
Partisan broadcast news
Minimal fairness requirements
Heavy reliance on private broadcasters rather than public ones
The only REAL problem I have with the "Fairness Issue" is that media outlets normally only pay attention to the two major parties when giving it lip service.
Where's the Green Party candidate's time? Or the Human Rights Party candidate's time? Or any of the other multitudes of outlooks that SHOULD be allowed to access the information firehose?
It's a conundrum. On one hand, if you get too many candidates clamoring for equal time, then you won't have time to report LEGITIMATE news. You can't put it on a separate channel, because who's going to want to watch a bunch of (to them) wild-eyed fanatics espouse their philosophy?
And then ignoring them becomes justified in their eyes. "Well, they don't draw enough viewers, so there's no point in giving them the free time."
I agree it can become unwieldy. but difficult is not impossible. I also agree the country would benefit from hearing from a more diverse set of views, including the Green Party and other parties, and that would make the administration of fairness more complicated. but even IF the rule is only applied to our binary/ limited/ R vs. D, requiring accuracy and fairness would still be better than what we have now. as viewers get more educated from hearing actual facts, understanding gets broader and expectations shift. US politics simply can't evolve without a predicate foundation of truth.
I asked AI how the UK manages your specific (and valid) concern given that there are hundreds of political parties and this is what it said:
Regulators mandate a fair range of views and equal airtime for parties during elections, although this often results in covering the main opposition rather than all minor parties equally. Ofcom Broadcasting Code: TV and radio (including BBC, ITV, Sky, GB News) must ensure "due impartiality" on matters of major political controversy, meaning they must present a "fair range of views" rather than just two sides.
I take from the rule's limited application to "matters of major political controversy" that it filters out silly noise or unimportant topics from regulatory oversight, then raising the question of who decides what is a major controversy. all decisions are subjective, but presumably debated among people at Ofcom who have diverse and opposing political leanings. however they do it, Congress needs o consider it, which I don't see republicans allowing anytime soon.
Sure. It's like the Presidential debates that have been sponsored over the past few elections.
The moderators refused to let the Libertarians, Green Party, Constitution Party, and Socialist Workers parties participate. They even tried to justify it by saying that unless a political party had at least 5% of the vote in the national election, there was no useful purpose in them participating, and they (the moderators) weren't in the business to provide a free forum for "fringe" candidates.
And, of course, the information entertainment industry (my unwieldy but more accurate name for the media) was all in favor of that. God forbid that someone gets a forum that the IEI has no control over.
There are two overriding problems here,
First, there is an ingrained institutional bias towards the two party system.
Second, all third parties are stuck in an impossible-to-win "chicken and the egg" scenario - the majority of the public is unaware they exist because they're too small to get attention from the media, and the media won't allow them to participate in debates because they don't have enough name recognition with the public.
Third parties need to have a voice, even as the two major parties use their power and influence to shut them out.
Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions on how to make that happen. Another example of how other countries have advanced democracy and left the US in the dust.
Eric, my friend, I can think of SEVERAL ways we can make it happen. But I'm reluctant to let the government get involved in the election process in any way.
And since the 'equal time' doctrine is NOT, in fact, a law, then there has to be a way.
I used to think the Internet would help spawn third parties' growth, but that appears to be a forlorn hope.
So the media is not on the people's side. It is all owned by billionaires in order to protect billionaires.
The Information Entertainment Industry has NEVER been on the people's side. They're in it to make MONEY.
It's been that way since James Gordon Bennett and the New York Herald back in the 1840s.
Joseph Pulitzer earned a sizable amount of money from placing fake advertisements in his newspapers, and there were no laws to prevent him from doing so.
Amazing, Fox News actually admitting under oath that they are fake news. I knew it, many others know it. I even know a Republican that admitted they lie, but where does this leave all those who watch Fox and actually believe their News is correct - confused. Believing they are getting the real news. Just a disgrace and Fox should have consequences for their behavior that has deceived so many. On the issue of the FCC: very clear they’re trying to destroy those Trump does not like or wants them out to take control like the dictatorship he wants so badly.
It would be wonderful if we could have both him and Crockett in the house.
I just received this in a fund raising email from Mary Trump. This is police state stuff:
The Department of Homeland Security has sent hundreds of subpoenas to Google, Reddit, Discord, and Meta demanding names, emails, and phone numbers of anyone who criticized ICE online.
Criticizing the government is not a crime. It's protected speech under the First Amendment.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration arrested Black journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for simply reporting on a protest. A federal magistrate judge initially refused to issue a warrant because there wasn't enough evidence, but the administration arrested Lemon and Fort anyway.
This is what authoritarianism looks like. They're not just threatening dissent — they're criminalizing journalism.
And where is the corporate media? Mostly silent. Mostly looking the other way.
Another great response. So; what are Democrats doing about this? Is there any news of actions taken by them? or are they just hoping it will go away, because experience shows, when they don't act, they lose!
Another great response. So; what are Democrats doing about this? Is there any news of actions taken by them? or are they just hoping it will go away, because experience shows, when they don't act, they lose!
I find myself questioning how relevant constitutional rights are when enforcing them seems to always be a question of discretion. If we don't like how that discretion is exercised then we have to litigate the issue. Big organizations and presidents can hire legal teams, and I know organizations like ACLU do a lot. But, as someone who has been fighting for the enforcement of very obvious constitutional rights for two decades it's difficult that they are anything more than "best case" scenario outcomes for most people.
The First Amendment exists, but...
This issue with the FCC is exactly what we should expect from a party who burned their ships when they arrived on the shores of this presidency. They can't allow themselves to lose because there's no turning back to civility after this. Every one of these individuals will be politically dead after Trump, and they know that, which is why they do what they do.
I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on the SCOTUS tariff ruling from last week and Trump's unwillingness to comply. How does a republic survive when rules are optional and there's no legitimate mechanism for accountability?
Shambles now has both his teeny thumbs stuck in the Dike of Lies. Flood gonna be "Biblical".