That doesn't force covering "both sides" of every issue though, in the way people often mean by "fair and balanced" in these discussions, where every issue needs to have a counterpoint aired.
The UK election rules are more about ensuring all the candidates for election get some representative airtime, and that overtly political advertisements are labelled as such during the election period, so a channel is not allowed to promote one party and completely block out another, or be monopolised by advertising funds. (There's also a very short quiet period just before the voting takes place.)
If all parties generally agree on something, the opposing view to that is unlikely to get much airtime, even if someone not running for office would really like to talk about it.
>Not sure what country you're referring to, but there's certainly no such rule in the US, Australia, or the UK. In the US it would be unconstitutional.
So in US you can say on newspaper or TV things like "Bob did X" and Bob can do nothing about it? I thought the at least justice can demand Bob to be paid damages and the newspaper/TV to show a retraction. I mean are you free to denigrate people in US with no consequences? If yes, let's ignore US and focus on countries where we demand media to act like professionals, to have a code and rules and to pay if they broke it, pay damages if they damage people etc.
In the US, there are slander and libel laws that you can be sued for if you print something that is untrue. But if you are a public figure or entity, you have to prove not just that an untruth was printed but also that it was done with "actual malice".
Which country were you referring to specifically? I don't know any that require presenting both sides of a political issue as a general rule.
there is the obligation that if you presented false acuzations(not opinions) about someone you are forced to give this person the right to present his defense, also the editors of the news are responsible for the things they published.
So you are not forced to invite both sides when presenting general news, this is the journalist code though, to always ask the other side for a comment.
At least going by the Google translation of the article you cited, I doubt that any of these broadcasters would be required to carry RT under this law. This is more about slander and libel, not about giving every political viewpoint equal airtime. So I guess the answer to your original question is, "no, we did not allow new media to ignore our laws." Because there are no laws enforcing the mechanisms you contemplated in your original comment.
As far as giving the other side the opportunity to comment, the news networks are falling all over themselves to give Russia the opportunity to comment. They would all love to have frank, on the record discussions of this issue with Russian officials. That's different than broadcasting Russian propaganda though.
Sorry for confusion, there is no law to give all possible political ideas equal air time.
Is about preventing fake facts being presented , you will pay if you do that and you are forced to admit it like a TV channel will have to present
"Our channel was fined with XYZ for the content we published at date because we did ABC"
Since bad behavior costs you money and you have to publicly admit when you were wrong and you have to also show affected parties response you will think a few times before you present something, maybe if you are not sure you label it "we cannon confirm X" .
But the issue with this constitution rules is that are old and do not specify the internet, IMO is a good idea to have media follow an good code of conduct and punish them when they repeatedly fail to do so, they are professionals not teens on reddit
The regulation requires equal access for political candidates during an election, which is substantially different and weaker than the claim I was rebutting.
> rules that demand to always provide both sides perspective
This regulation does not satisfy the "always" part of the quoted description. In fact the regulation does not even reach the standards of "most of the time" or "often." If the description had been, "in certain rare cases," then this regulation would have satisfied it, but then the whole comment would have made no sense w.r.t. the banning of RT.
Not sure what country you're referring to, but there's certainly no such rule in the US, Australia, or the UK. In the US it would be unconstitutional.