[ztetranz]

How much do they have to be "neutral" when there are multiple candidates with significantly different popularity?

If there are three candidates polling about equal then okay, it's easy to be neutral. But what if they're |40, 35, 25| or |60, 20, 20| or |55, 40, 5|?

When does a minor candidate drop out of their neutrality? I'm not saying the general idea is bad but just pointing out that neutrality is kind of a vague concept. It's a bit like giving climate change deniers equal airtime with serious scientists.

[ggregoire]

I don't know if I follow you. My point was that TV networks can't do propaganda for a candidate, i.e. they can repeat the policies of each candidate (without giving you their opinion on those policies and trying to convince you if it's good or bad or modify them) and fact check what they say, but they can't tell you who to vote for or blatantly lie about them. Hence they are neutral. Meanwhile here Fox will just tell you to vote for Trump to save America and that if Harris wins she will turn America into communism, and millions of people are watching and believing it.

[Freedom2]

If that's what the Fox presenters truly believe, should the government be allowed to censor them?

[lazide]

And this is the crux of the issue.

Most countries don’t have the pretense of free speech, and media is heavily regulated to be ‘fair’ (which means different things in each country).

It has pros and cons.