by Trevor Jackson · 15 Mar 2026 · 270pp · 104,133 words
of landless workers, 14, 87, 107, 119–24, 148–49 strikes, 9, 198, 226–29, 241–42 See also forced labor; wage labor; slavery laissez-faire, doctrine of, 185–86, 207 land, 5, 6, 23, 115–24, 128–30 common lands, 86, 119, 121–22, 130–31 enclosure of, 6, 14, 86
by Mark Skousen · 22 Dec 2006 · 330pp · 77,729 words
Solidifies Under John Stuart Mill Yet David Ricardo was able to convince practically all his contemporaries of his labor theory of value and his laissez-faire doctrines. "Ricardo conquered England as completely as the Holy Inquisition conquered Spain," said Keynes (1973a [1936], 32). It was principally through John Stuart Mill that the
by Bruce Cannon Gibney · 7 Mar 2017 · 526pp · 160,601 words
Buckley/Vidal in a fair and balanced way (in the original legal sense, not the Fox News sense). The FCC enshrined this ideal in the Fairness Doctrine, enacted in 1949.15 By 1974, the FCC found that it had never had to enforce it because broadcasters had voluntarily complied with the “spirit
…
1987, FCC chairman Marc Fowler—himself a (Canadian variety) Boomer, and so oblivious that he dismissed TV as “a toaster, with pictures”—formally abolished the Fairness Doctrine.17 The elimination of the Doctrine permitted the rise of ideologically driven channels, preaching to their respective choirs, a project completed in the 1990s when
…
highly knowledgeable on matters of current events, the mechanics of government, etc.18 The warping effects of all these problems, from the collapse of the Fairness Doctrine to the limitations of TV and its presentation of the news, could be seen in the Boomers’ avatar Donald Trump. Like many of his generation
…
to conform the news to his preexisting conceits. The spectacle of The Donald bullying Fox in the crudest terms alarmed certain audiences, but after the Fairness Doctrine collapsed, that event was exceptional only in that an individual informed a network of his preferences directly, rather than the network divining those preferences through
…
newer technologies like social networking foster narcissism among the young, and perpetuate the sort of media group-think that prevailed after the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine, nothing quite as bad as television seems to have arrived, though it will be years before we can reach a definitive conclusion. For now, newer
by Kurt Andersen · 4 Sep 2017 · 522pp · 162,310 words
not so much alarmed as amazed and thrilled. Just before the Clintons arrived in Washington, the right had managed to do away with the federal Fairness Doctrine, which had been enacted to keep radio and TV shows from being ideologically one-sided. Until then, big-time conservative opinion media had consisted of
…
two magazines, William F. Buckley’s biweekly National Review and the monthly American Spectator, both with small circulations. But absent a Fairness Doctrine, Rush Limbaugh’s national right-wing radio show, launched in 1988, was free to thrive, and others promptly appeared, followed at the end of Clinton
…
obliged to pursue and present some rough approximation of the truth rather than to promote a truth, let alone fictions. With the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, a new American laissez-faire had been officially declared. If lots more incorrect and preposterous assertions circulated in our most massive mass media, that was
by Kurt Andersen · 5 Sep 2017
not so much alarmed as amazed and thrilled. Just before the Clintons arrived in Washington, the right had managed to do away with the federal Fairness Doctrine, which had been enacted to keep radio and TV shows from being ideologically one-sided. Until then, big-time conservative opinion media had consisted of
…
two magazines, William F. Buckley’s biweekly National Review and the monthly American Spectator, both with small circulations. But absent a Fairness Doctrine, Rush Limbaugh’s national right-wing radio show, launched in 1988, was free to thrive, and others promptly appeared, followed at the end of Clinton
…
obliged to pursue and present some rough approximation of the truth rather than to promote a truth, let alone fictions. With the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, a new American laissez-faire had been officially declared. If lots more incorrect and preposterous assertions circulated in our most massive mass media, that was
by Rick Perlstein · 17 Aug 2020
asserted that God had passed His judgment on Harvey Milk by seeing to his assassination. The Dallas Gay Political Caucus asked WFAA to invoke the fairness doctrine, a stipulation of the Federal Communications Act that mandated that holders of federal broadcast licenses provide equal time to balance controversial expressions on issues of
…
said wife-swapping was a sin, after all. “No one claimed that would merit wife-swappers as a class to have equal time under the fairness doctrine.”) It also happened that Robison had a TV special in the can, The End of Outrage… A Call to Arms! It was booked for broadcast
…
of our time.” Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum joked to his colleagues at the American Jewish Committee that he wasn’t too offended. “In keeping with the ‘fairness doctrine’… the President asked me to offer the closing prayer,” which he did—starting in Hebrew. The men referred to one another by first names. Most
by David Bellos and Alexandre Montagu · 23 Jan 2024 · 305pp · 101,093 words
, then that too belongs to the unrestricted stock of literary resources since Shakespeare used it in Macbeth. Taken to a logical extreme, the scene a faire doctrine would exempt the plots of almost all novels, plays and movies ever created, since truly unprecedented narrative twists are as rare as hen’s teeth
by Rick Perlstein · 1 Jan 2008 · 1,351pp · 404,177 words
-eve broadcast. The Republicans bought a half hour on all the networks. Then DNC chair Larry O’Brien challenged the purchase under the FCC’s fairness doctrine, asking the networks to split the time in half. They acceded (rejecting the other request of the Democrats, who were $9 million in debt, to
by Kurt Andersen · 14 Sep 2020 · 486pp · 150,849 words
well, the right’s project expanded beyond the Wall Street Journal editorial pages to genuinely mass media. The Reagan administration did away with the federal Fairness Doctrine, which had been in place since the early broadcast era to prevent radio and TV news programs from having distinct ideological or partisan tilts. With
by Cass R. Sunstein · 7 Mar 2017 · 437pp · 105,934 words
to insulate themselves from competing positions and concerns. Fragmentation is correspondingly less likely. Group polarization also raises more general issues about communications policy. Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned, but once requiring radio and television broadcasters to devote time to public issues and allow an opportunity for opposing views to speak
…
view. If one view was covered, the opposing position would have to be allowed a right of access. When the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the fairness doctrine, it did so on the ground that much of the time, this second prong led broadcasters to avoid controversial issues entirely and to present views
…
in a way that suggested a bland uniformity. Subsequent research has indicated that the commission was right. The elimination of the fairness doctrine has indeed produced a flowering of controversial substantive programming, sometimes involving extreme views of one kind or another; consider talk radio.36 Typically this is
…
regarded as a story of wonderfully successful deregulation, and in general that is correct. The effects of eliminating the fairness doctrine were precisely what was sought and intended. Those effects are indeed good, and they should be celebrated. But if we attend to the problem of
…
fewer controversial positions than for them to hear a single such view, stated over and over again. I do not suggest or believe that the fairness doctrine should be restored. Law professor Heather Gerken has rightly drawn attention to “second-order diversity”—the kind of diversity that comes when society consists of
…
speech on the subways. In the technical language of First Amendment law, this form of regulation is “content based” but “viewpoint neutral.” Consider the old fairness doctrine, which required broadcasters to cover public issues and allow speech by those with opposing views. Here the content of speech is highly relevant to what
…
competition to do more and better, and enlisting various social pressures in the direction of improved performance. I have referred several times to the old fairness doctrine, which required broadcasters to cover public issues and allow a right of reply for dissenting views. We have seen that this doctrine was repealed largely
…
was amply justified, it has had a downside insofar as it has increased fragmentation and hence polarization. But whether or not we think the old fairness doctrine was defensible, a disclosure requirement—tied to coverage of public issues and diversity of views—would be a far less intrusive way of accomplishing the
…
held that government has the authority to subject television and radio broadcasters to a kind of must-carry rule in the form of the old fairness doctrine, requiring attention to public issues and an opportunity for diverse views to speak.14 At the same time, the Court firmly rejected the idea that
…
technological reasons, and hence are more properly subject to governmental controls. Now that the scarcity rationale is so much weaker, the continued viability of the fairness doctrine is exceedingly doubtful. If the Federal Communications Commission tried to reinstate the doctrine, the Court would probably strike it down. The Court has nonetheless upheld
…
.For a work that offers an affirmative answer to the question in its own title, see Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa, “Was the Fairness Doctrine a ‘Chilling Effect’? Evidence from the Postderegulation Radio Market,” Journal of Legal Studies 26, no. 1 (1997): 279–301. 37.See Heather K. Gerken, “Second
…
; cybercascades and, 119, 134–35; deliberative democracy and, 228; disclosure policies and, 215, 218–23; diversity and, 18, 23, 214; evaluating market of, 53–54; fairness doctrine and, 84–85, 207, 221, 227; FCC and, 84, 179, 198, 219–20, 227; fewer shared experiences and, 144–46; filtering and, 6, 28 (see
…
; terrorism and, 236, 242, 245 diversity: blogs and, 231; of cities, 12; communications options and, 18, 23; Daily Me and, 255; epistemic value of, 49; fairness doctrine and, 221; ideological, 123; institutions and, 37; polarization and, 69, 85–86; public forums and, 37–38; real-world interactions and, 13; religious, 38; republicanism
…
; sovereignty and, 53; spreading information and, 11, 15, 138–39, 146, 149, 154–55; terrorism and, 237, 240–42, 245–46; time spent viewing, 124 fairness doctrine, 84–85, 207, 221, 227, 272n36 falsehoods: rumors and, 103, 108–11, 125, 236–37; spreading information and, 11, 23, 135, 155, 250; terrorism and
…
, 259, 266n14; cybercascades and, 57, 98, 127, 132, 135; democratic debate and, 230; Democrats and, 10; e pluribus unum and, 51–52; extremism and, 7; fairness doctrine and, 84–85, 207, 221, 227; feelings and, 16; heterogeneity and, 51, 135; improving situation of, 213, 221, 230; niches and, 23; partyism and, 10
…
, 85–89; entreprenuers of, 238; extremism and, 7, 67, 69, 72, 74, 76, 78, 86, 88; Facebook and, 64, 71–72, 82–83, 86, 89; fairness doctrine and, 84–85, 207, 221, 227; filtering and, 60–62, 64, 66, 71, 79, 82; fragmentation and, 5, 7, 64, 77, 83–86, 89, 221
…
); Democrats and, 10 (see also Democrats); Dennis v. United States and, 248; echo chambers and, 10, 122; Facebook and, 2–4, 82–83, 122–24; fairness doctrine and, 84–85, 207, 221, 227; fascism and, ix, 80; federalists and, 45, 48–49; filtering and, 24–26, 60–62; freedom and, 24–26
…
, 109 radicalization, 45, 74–75, 235, 237, 241–42, 244–46 radio: advertising and, 28; bias and, 64; citizens and, 165–66; consumers and, 33; fairness doctrine and, 84–85, 207, 221, 227; freedom of speech and, 196, 202; improving, 213, 215, 220–23, 225, 227; must-carry rules and, 226–29
…
, 197–99, 202, 204–5, 210–11, 221, 226; educational programming for children and, 170, 181, 197–99, 202, 204–5, 210–11, 221, 226; fairness doctrine and, 84–85, 207, 221, 227; filtering and, 1, 25–26 (see also filtering); First Amendment and, 196–99; forms of neutrality and, 207–10
by Timothy Garton Ash · 23 May 2016 · 743pp · 201,651 words
by John Connelly · 11 Nov 2019
by Mehrsa Baradaran · 7 May 2024 · 470pp · 158,007 words
by Benjamin Barber · 20 Apr 2010 · 454pp · 139,350 words
by Anatole Kaletsky · 22 Jun 2010 · 484pp · 136,735 words
by Philip Mirowski · 24 Jun 2013 · 662pp · 180,546 words
by Gary Gerstle · 14 Oct 2022 · 655pp · 156,367 words
by John Maynard Keynes · 13 Jul 2018
by Sarah Milov · 1 Oct 2019
by Marc J Dunkelman · 17 Feb 2025 · 454pp · 134,799 words
by Rob Reich, Mehran Sahami and Jeremy M. Weinstein · 6 Sep 2021
by Giovanni Arrighi · 15 Mar 2010 · 7,371pp · 186,208 words
by Ha-Joon Chang · 4 Sep 2000 · 192pp
by Ha-Joon Chang · 26 May 2014 · 385pp · 111,807 words
by Richard Kluger · 1 Jan 1996 · 1,157pp · 379,558 words
by Jonathan Zittrain · 27 May 2009 · 629pp · 142,393 words
by Shawn Lawrence Otto · 10 Oct 2011 · 692pp · 127,032 words
by Ed West · 19 Mar 2020 · 530pp · 147,851 words
by Howard Zinn · 2 Jan 1977 · 913pp · 299,770 words
by William Baker and Addison Wiggin · 2 Nov 2009 · 444pp · 151,136 words
by Sebastian Mallaby · 10 Oct 2016 · 1,242pp · 317,903 words
by Nicholas Carr · 28 Jan 2025 · 231pp · 85,135 words
by Thomas Piketty · 10 Mar 2014 · 935pp · 267,358 words
by Norbert Haring, Norbert H. Ring and Niall Douglas · 30 Sep 2012 · 261pp · 103,244 words
by Benjamin R. Barber · 1 Jan 2007 · 498pp · 145,708 words
by Sarah Kendzior · 6 Apr 2020
by Siddhartha Mukherjee · 16 Nov 2010 · 1,294pp · 210,361 words
by Elizabeth S. Anderson · 22 May 2017 · 205pp · 58,054 words
by Vito Tanzi · 28 Dec 2017
by James O'Toole · 29 Dec 2018 · 716pp · 192,143 words
by Tarleton Gillespie · 25 Jun 2018 · 390pp · 109,519 words
by Lawrence Lessig · 14 Jul 2001 · 494pp · 142,285 words
by John Darwin · 12 Feb 2013
by Rachel Slade · 9 Jan 2024 · 392pp · 106,044 words
by Michiko Kakutani · 17 Jul 2018 · 137pp · 38,925 words
by Hedrick Smith · 10 Sep 2012 · 598pp · 172,137 words
by J. David Woodard · 15 Mar 2006
by Bhu Srinivasan · 25 Sep 2017 · 801pp · 209,348 words
by Eric Kaufmann · 24 Oct 2018 · 691pp · 203,236 words
by George Packer · 4 Mar 2014 · 559pp · 169,094 words
by Andrew Yang · 15 Nov 2021
by Robin Wright · 28 Feb 2008 · 648pp · 165,654 words
by Jill Lepore · 14 Sep 2020 · 467pp · 149,632 words
by Jaron Lanier · 21 Nov 2017 · 480pp · 123,979 words
by Joel Bakan · 1 Jan 2003
by Nancy Isenberg · 20 Jun 2016 · 709pp · 191,147 words
by Ben Tarnoff · 13 Jun 2022 · 234pp · 67,589 words
by Ron Paul · 5 Feb 2011
by Catherine Lutz and Anne Lutz Fernandez · 5 Jan 2010 · 269pp · 104,430 words
by Sharon Beder · 1 Jan 1997 · 651pp · 161,270 words
by Chester W. Hartman and Sarah Carnochan · 15 Feb 2002 · 518pp · 170,126 words
by James Naughtie · 1 Apr 2020
by Matt Taibbi · 7 Oct 2019 · 357pp · 99,456 words
by Jevin D. West and Carl T. Bergstrom · 3 Aug 2020
by Peter F. Hamilton · 26 Sep 2012 · 1,266pp · 344,635 words
by Rahm Emanuel · 25 Feb 2020 · 212pp · 69,846 words
by Ben Shapiro · 26 Jul 2021 · 309pp · 81,243 words
by Tim Wu · 2 Nov 2010 · 418pp · 128,965 words
by Antonio Damasio · 6 Feb 2018 · 289pp · 87,292 words
by Mancur Olson
by Mark Bergen · 5 Sep 2022 · 642pp · 141,888 words
by Peter Barnes · 29 Sep 2006 · 207pp · 52,716 words
by Eli Pariser · 11 May 2011 · 274pp · 75,846 words
by Paul Roberts · 1 Sep 2014 · 324pp · 92,805 words
by Beth Macy · 6 Oct 2025 · 373pp · 97,653 words
by Steve Kornacki · 1 Oct 2018 · 589pp · 167,680 words