The fairness doctrine only ever applied to broadcast TV and radio. It was considered constitutional on the grounds that these were limited public resources. It never applied to newspapers, cable TV, or web sites, which were far less limited.
It was never really the reason that news broadcasts aimed for fairness. They aimed for fairness because they were journalists, and they considered it a point of pride to be accurate and informative.
The broadcast networks (including Fox affiliates) still aim for that, despite the end of the fairness doctrine. But their markets have been eaten into by cable networks, some of which were explicitly founded as propaganda machines and discovered that people preferred it as entertainment.
That depends on what you mean by 'having a balanced news'.
Should reporting present both sides in the same light if the facts support one side more?
Does a presidential endorsement from the editorial section of a newspaper corrupt the impartiality of the reporting section of the newspaper?
> Does a presidential endorsement from the editorial section of a newspaper corrupt the impartiality of the reporting section of the newspaper?
It probably does. If your editor, boss and all your colleagues support candidate X and you come up with a story that hurts candidate X, will you really get to publish it? Will you even try to come up with such a story?
I'm not saying it's impossible to get this right, but under the current climate I don't think its possible.
I was in Manila last month, didn't see any electric vehicles.
The jeepney isnt exactly enviroment friendly, but it gets the job done and is easy to repair/maintain. Thats where the focus is in that kind of economy.
Yes. Should is the key word. As the government pushes lots of people to install solar, prices soar… also my house is particularly bad for solar (roof parts looking exactly west-east) so I install double of what will be used. Also high roof, so according to regulations, all house has to be with scaffolds around. Just that+permits+ connection to the grid by a “meister” costs around 5k… German efficiency is called…
The 4Kw limit should be on the infeed and not the solar panel capacity.
You could put 10Kw worth of panels up just limit the output to 4Kw. Now you have a more stable 4Kw feed.
Yeah, my dad has that setup. Over provisioned panels so he still can get max output more of the year. Not to the amount you suggest, but his inverter can safely have about 20% more input than output.
He bought used panels so the actual input may be a little lower than rated (though it doesn’t seem much lower), but he says he sees some ads for new panels nearly as cheap as he paid for used ones 5 years ago.
Its making the price higher because you know people are dependent on your product, well beyond a reasonable profit.
I think 10x the price in other countries hints a bit to predatory pricing.
I ran UBQT hardware with mikrotik router and third party firewall. UBQT replaced old frankenstein hardware that had the worst channel management etc.
Everything got so much better, customers issues dropped to almost zero (sometimes was hundreds of issues a day)
We always had other vendor for part of the network, and that had no impact.
