Veterans Group To Pentagon: Ban Fox News On Military Bases

[babylonsister]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/veterans-group-fox-news-propaganda_n_6406df24e4b04ef6d3dedcf8

Veterans Group To Pentagon: Ban Fox News On Military Bases
Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity have “open access to spread conspiracy theories to U.S. troops," progressive PAC VoteVets warned in a damning ad.
Lee Moran
By
Lee Moran
Mar 7, 2023, 02:18 AM EST
Updated 14 minutes ago


A veterans group has called on the Pentagon to ban some Fox News personalities from being broadcast in U.S. military facilities.

An advertisement released by the VoteVets progressive political action committee online Monday slammed the conservative network’s prime-time hosts Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity for knowingly pushing the baseless claim that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump.

“The most valuable weapon to the enemy is disinformation,” begins the narrator in the spot. “That’s why the Pentagon spends hundreds of millions training our troops to resist it. Yet, at the same time, the U.S. military uses taxpayer-funded facilities to broadcast disinformation on military bases, knowingly letting false propaganda infiltrate the ranks.”

Carlson, Ingraham and Hannity have “open access to spread their conspiracy theories to U.S. troops,” the voice-over adds.

Watch video here:

[Phoenix61]

1. I remember O'bama commenting on how much Faux's bs

helped the Rs and that the D’s had no way of combatting the fact it was played in offices, bars, and restaurants across the country.

[BComplex]

59. But it is played in PRISONS!!! Where it is militarizing the populations. And on military

bases, where it is further pumping up lies and radicalizing the soldiers. THOSE are two things the Biden Administration can fix RIGHT NOW! They should have fixed it right away.

Until we make enough phone calls to Biden AND Harris, it's not going to happen. But prisons and military are under the purview of the administration.

[soldierant]

85. State prisons are under the purview of the states.

Some states might agree to comply, but the ones that won't are the ones where compliance would be the most needed

[arthritisR_US]

97. You're so dead on mate!

[3Hotdogs]

2. Simpsons is the only Fox program that should be allowed.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

3. Local Fox stations

are far, far different from the cable Faux Snooze, I watch local Fox stations all the time for shows like the Simpsons, Family Guy, etc., their local news coverage is good also, none of that crap that the cable Faux spews.

[maxrandb]

11. Americans in 1944

"Volkswagen makes a good car"

[MarineCombatEngineer]

23. What???

[Hermit-The-Prog]

64. Something about cable Fox is to broadcast as nazis are to VWs, maybe?

Just making a wild guess while scratching my head.

The Fascist Oligarch eXtremists propaganda network should be banned from military bases. It certainly doesn't need to be taxpayer-funded through cable subscriptions.

[maxrandb]

72. I am just kind of tired of folks not realizing that we are at war to save American Democracy

So, we get a lot of this, "sure Faux Sports and local Faux Stations put money into Rupert Murdoch's propaganda machine designed to destroy Democracy, but they have good shows and a decent weather report".

Or,

"Yes, my universities sports teams broadcast on a radio station that does nothing but spew racism, fascism, misogyny, hatred and white supremacy for the other 165 hours of the week, but I love my Buckeyes"

"Stand-by as Lebron James takes on Steph Curry in a pivotal NBA Match-up, but first, here's that old ditty from the Rush Limbaugh show 'Barack the Magic Negro'"...what a hoot that guy was".

"Tonight, the Lady Viols look to win their 3RD NCAA Women's Championship, but first, here's Rush' replacement, Clay Travis to tell you he "only believes in two things completely, the Constitution and Boobs"

If corporations suffer no consequences for their funding and support of fascism, racism, misogyny, hatred and white supremacy, they are going to continue funding and supporting fascism, racism, misogyny, hatred and white supremacy.

So yes, we might as well have bought Volkswagens in 1944 to fund their production of German tanks and planes.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

73. Thank you for the clarification.

I'm picky about where I spend my money. It would be great if our tax dollars didn't help fund the fascist propaganda machine, e.g., through cable subscriptions that include Fox & Fiends as well as hate radio supported by universities.

[lambchopp59]

112. Sometimes that gets tricky

Beyond the long standing torrid reputation of Koch products and a few other sundries retailers (Dollar Tree/Family Dollar), unfortunately in some situations unavoidable but I'll still try to redirect the bulk of my shopping where I know it's not funneled to MAGA assholes.
There's the automotive parts conundrum: Jesus Christ they're all owned by rabid MAGAt's happy to take my dollars but they would have me state-sactioned murdered. It's part of why much of my retirement is headed towards bay-area where car commuting is minimized.
HRC made an app many years ago I loved the idea of: scan the barcode and it gave you their HRC company score! Pretty reliable indicator of also not being the likes of Nazi Trumpers if they scored well on LGBTQ rights surveys. But apparently they didn't maintain the app.
I just now wrote to them about this.

[odins folly]

14. I wouldn't say "far"

The failed AZ Governor candidate Kari Lake was a local fox talking head. I always thought is was the beginning of her hypocrisy that her first add showed her saying the media was lying to us, as she was one of the ones telling all those lies….

[MarineCombatEngineer]

24. I live in AZ and I don't remember her spouting her bullshit

while she was an anchor at the local Fox affiliate.

[Grumpy Old Guy]

30. Every local station has its own ownership.

The quality of local Fox stations varies from one market to another. I have several friends who worked for the Fox station in L.A. It's not bad.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

32. +100.

The local Fox station in the area of AZ I live in is pretty good on their programming and their news reporting is actually very good.

[onenote]

87. The LA Fox broadcast station is owned by Fox.

It is one of 18 Fox owned and operated stations.

[Grumpy Old Guy]

98. I worked there 47 years ago

When it was owned by Metromedia. I got fired for helping to organize a union. I still knew a few people there until recently.

[onenote]

102. Yep. Owned by Metromedia and operated as an independent station from 1963-1986

In 1986, Murdoch purchased the Metromedia stations, including KTTV, and launched the Fox broadcast network on those stations. It's been a Fox-owned station longer than it was a Metromedia station. But the fact that its a Fox-owned station doesn't mean it operates like Fox News. In fact, Sinclair owned stations are more like Fox News in their lack of objectivity than many Fox affiliates, including some owned by Fox itself.

[Grumpy Old Guy]

107. All true. Sinclair is far worse!

I know a young reporter, a former intern, who started her career with Sinclair. It was two years of misery. Unfortunately, Sinclair covers a huge portion of the U.S. They are the worst.

[jaxexpat]

34. The Simpsons are on Fox network affiliates. Fox News is different.

They both enrich Rupert. Their origins in the US trace back, around 1986, to the subtle (and somewhat sudden) slide into deeper inanity of TeeVee programming.

That there are those for whom this is not clear is disturbing. Could be they've already won the "info-wars". Perhaps defining classic entertainment as a "married with children" rerun.

[Zeitghost]

68. 21st Century Fox

Which controls all of the movie and TV show catalog Is owned by Disney, not Murdoch.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

5. Not sure if they can do that,

I may be wrong, but that would constitute a violation of the 1st Amendment.

[GreenWave]

6. I am wondering about Fox fomenting violence

and sedition. If that is the key.

[NewHendoLib]

109. feeling particularly profound today, hey? not very clever, though

[Joinfortmill]

9. If that is the case and I'm not certain it is, then rotate the news channels.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

10. As I said,

I'm not sure if it would be a violation, perhaps one of DU's lawyers could answer that.

[Captain Zero]

83. Yes my idea too. Rotate the big 3. MSNBC, CNN

Faux.

In some manner.

[Shipwack]

19. I don't see it as a 1A issue...

The government isn’t telling Fox what it can and cannot say, it’s just saying that they are not going to give them a soap box in military bases.

That being said, I was at a wretched duty station in California (used to be Point Mugu, but the name is now something else) and the base CO decided to remove godless MTV from the base cable network and replaced it with a religious channel. It only lasted a couple of weeks before things went back to “normal”, and we peons were never told who’s choice it was…

[MarineCombatEngineer]

27. What you and I see are irrelevant,

it's what the courts see and they would, IMO, rule that it's a 1A violation.

[lambchopp59]

31. 1st amendment legality used to be under more scrutiny when

It's broadcast speech for profit.
Once the Fairness Doctrine was repealed under RayGun, broadcast "free speech" became legal propaganda, a brainwashing tool.
Doubly so when it's posted publicly under guise of "officially sanctioned" communications.
May be legal, but really sketchy: especially when they claim they're "entertainment" when caught in their game, but maintain the veneer of "news" and "factual" to their audience.

[onenote]

88. Fox News isn't broadcast.

[Beachnutt]

94. Statements made with 'reckless disregard' are unprotected by First Amendment

Last edited Wed Mar 8, 2023, 09:48 AM - Edit history (2)

St Amant vs Thompson 1968

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/604/st-amant-v-thompson

Court said 'reckless disregard' means person seriously doubted truth, published anyway

https://www.reuters.com/legal/fox-news-must-face-smartmatics-lawsuit-over-election-rigging-claims-2023-02-14/

[onenote]

95. The reckless disregard standard is a high bar.

For example, it wasn't met in the case you cite.

And its the basis for imposing damages for defamation, but it doesn't justify a prior restraint on all speech by someone who engages in some defamatory speech.

[Beachnutt]

99. Fox news has admitted lying over and over again

wreckless disregaed was met over and over and over by fox and host, it's on tape, e mails, text, witness testimony etc...
So Yes it is in this fox suit.

[onenote]

113. I never said it wasn't. But that gives rise to a claim for damages for those specific statements.

It does not allow a court to impose a prior restraint on all speech by Fox.

[lambchopp59]

101. Interesting!

Thanks. There's no doubt the foxes knew they were lying but did it anyway. Now to get that through the heads of their brainwashed masses...

[Smackdown2019]

56. If the Military takes away all your stuff on first day

If the military takes away your stuff, including your cell phone on day 1, they pretty much own you until your contract expires.

[SCantiGOP]

62. What I'm seeing more of

In places that usually had FOX on, they are now set on ESPN. Perhaps that is a result of people complaining about FOX, so ESPN is a non-controversial alternative.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

65. Are our tax dollars spent on subscribing to cable Fascist Oligarch eXtremists network?

Not paying is not the same as making a law that violates the 1st A.

[Joinfortmill]

7. Shut them the f*ck down. I don't get this, really. Is the military that clueless?

[TeamProg]

8. +1

[usaf-vet]

12. FINALLY! Let's get the station band on every U.S. military installation.

We would have been no worse off if we had let Russian news stations spread their propaganda.

It started with Limbaugh, and hopefully, it will end the lies of the three anti-American talking heads.

This veteran supports VoteVet's action to ban FOX.

[The Wizard]

50. Tucker Carlson is on Russian TV.

And US military installations. Pox is Putin's voice in the USA.

[onetexan]

75. K&R

[2naSalit]

13. Should have been done TWO YEARS AGOI!!!

[BOSSHOG]

81. A very good argument could have been made

That it should have happened 20 years ago. Non stop passive indoctrination provided by a government entity through most of one’s career.

[2naSalit]

82. Good point.

[mn9driver]

15. Military bases have carried Fox News and its predecessors for decades.

I remember my Navy days in the ‘80s being pissed off that AFRTS had a 3 hour block of Rush Limbaugh every afternoon. The military is a very receptive audience for right wing propaganda.

[spanone]

16. NOW!!!!!

[Puppyjive]

17. Spoon fed propaganda

Fox News has fucked up our military. As a former soldier, I often tried to figure out what happened to my friends. They are mean, racist, Trump loving, fact denying russian loyalists. CNN was the news back in the day. Now they are bombarded with fox news. It's no wonder. They are spoon fed propaganda. It's really disheartening.The military is where I was shown that diversity can enrich your life.

[bucolic_frolic]

18. That would be a start. How about PSA's warning of lies in media?

Anything that can reach MAGA

[LaMouffette]

20. The military should use Fox News as a training tool to teach recruits and longtime service members

alike what Russian propaganda looks like.

Make them aware of propaganda techniques like "The Big Lie," scapegoating, and grievance politics. Make them read Edward Bernay's Propaganda and Timothy Snider's On Tyranny.

Teach them the traits and techniques of authoritarians and what real democracy looks like and the importance of an independent judiciary.

Educate, educate, educate!

[Freethinker65]

21. How about a rotating cycle of media from different sources?

[Wounded Bear]

22. K & R...nt

[Amishman]

25. Not sure how I feel about this, always wary of censorship

Even when it's right-wing bullshit.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

26. +100. nt

[RobinA]

40. Well, I Know

how I feel about this. As a First Amendment extremist I am totally against it. And that's in addition to the fact that the optics are terrible. It gives me a tremor just thinking about it.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

41. Thank you.

[cstanleytech]

28. Ya, they are not "fair & balanced" nor trustworthy. nt

[Jarqui]

29. FOX shouldn't be in the White House or

at the State Department, etc

They're not a news organization and have not been for many years.

[PhylliPretzel]

33. Always wondered . . .

why the military broadcasts Rush Limbaugh's program and then wonders why they have such a problem with sexual harassment. Duh!

[Alice Kramden]

35. Agree

Never understood how this disinformation was allowed

[MarineCombatEngineer]

36. And I don't understand those that don't understand the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Baltimike]

38. Does a network have a right to lie to their viewers?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

39. Yes, they have the right,

and we have the right to either not watch them or sue them.

[RobinA]

42. Yep, They Do

The First Amendment as no exception for lies.

[Baltimike]

45. So can a person scream "Fire" in a movie theatre?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

46. Yea, they can,

as long as they reasonably believe that there is a fire.

[Baltimike]

47. what if there is no sign of fire anywhere?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

49. They can still yell it,

but they'll suffer the consequences of their actions.

[Baltimike]

52. what are those consequences?

[onenote]

92. Depends on the reaction to the false claim that there is a fire.

The full statement by the Supreme Court (which, by the way, was not essential to the holding in the case and the case itself has largely been disavowed by later cases), was that the "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theater and causing a panic.” Note that last part ... "and causing a panic." If someone falsely shouts fire in a crowded theater and no one pays attention or reacts, its likely that there would be no consequences. But if it causes a panic, there could be legal consequences --- after the fact -- such as a claim of criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, or even involuntary manslaughter if someone dies in the resulting panic.

But remember -- these are after-the-fact responses, not a prior restraint against future speech.

[Beachnutt]

103. Read post #94 on this thread

[DENVERPOPS]

44. I am with you

MCE...........100%

It is sad that those buttwads use these laws AGAINST the public's best interest, not FOR the public's best interest.

But, I will intensely argue for anyone, including those I don't agree with, to be able to speak freely..........

As a side note, I distinctly recall when the Armed Forces Network? during Vietnam censored the living shit out of news allowed to be given to the troops......as portrayed in Good Morning Vietnam, and Full Metal Jacket?........

Do you know whatever happened to the Air America? news group?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

48. Thanks DENVERPOPS.

i detest Faux Snooze, but I wholeheartedly support their right to spout their bullshit.

As far as Air America, it went belly up due to lack of listeners and there was a scandal about money being embezzled or something like that, I use to listen to Randy Rhodes all the time and was bummed when Air America went belly up.

[DENVERPOPS]

53. I forgot her name

Randy Rhodes was a rip............LOL

[Hermit-The-Prog]

66. Not asking for a law; asking that our money not be spent to pipe that stuff to troops.

Let the Fascist Oligarch eXtremists propaganda network continue, but don't spend tax dollars to bring it to the military and prisons.

[kimbutgar]

37. Yes fox is protecting overthrowing the government every day they have no business being

Broadcast on military bases.

[Cha]

43. Yes! It's Propaganda.. Proven LIES!

TY & Veterans.

[Pluvious]

51. It's so heartening to see this warning/demand FINALLY getting some steam !

Many of us have been pushing this issue for years now

[Sympthsical]

54. People just really don't like the First Amendment these days

And, just to reiterate for the billionth time, I find the rejection of old school ACLU sentiments very, very strange in a liberal space.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

67. How would the 1st Amendment be violated by ceasing to pay for cable Fox?

[Sympthsical]

70. I'm addressing the OP

Which wants to forbid specific speech from military bases.

In the vein, should some websites be blocked? They're not all good. Lots of falsehoods, terrible reporting, and shitty personalities on the internet. Should military bases be banning those?

Why/why not?

Here a hint: if someone's trying to legalese their way around why censorship of speech they dislike is totally ok - - - they're already on the wrong side of civil liberties.

The rest is just negotiating how wrong of a side they're on. A little bit authoritarian or a lot bit? And thing about that sort of thing is, even a little bit tends to grow enormously.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

71. The "banning" from military bases and prisons does not involve the 1st Amendment.

President Biden can simply order that no money will be spent to feed Fox & Fiends into those places. Congress would not be involved. No new law is needed. Fox & Fiends can continue to sell subscriptions to their shit elsewhere.

[Sympthsical]

74. I think you should just own what you want to do

Talking around the authoritarian impulse that is opposition to freedom of expression doesn't make it somehow more palatable.

Once these tactics are embraced, remember, it is never - ever - "just this one thing".

Own it.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

86. You should make sense. Where does the Constitution guarantee cable subscriptions?

[onenote]

93. as a matter of first amendment jurisprudence

state and local governments that grant franchises to cable operators to provide cable service cannot demand that those cable operators carry or not carry specific channels because of the content of the channels.

This principal is embodied in 47 USC 544 which provides, among other things, that a government franchising authority may not establish requirements for video programming beyond enforcing requirements, agreed to by the cable operator, to provide broad categories" of video programming. In other words, the franchise might provide that the cable operator has to provide news channels, but cannot specify which news channels are provided.

Most domestic military bases are served by cable operators operating pursuant to franchise agreements entered into between a cable operator and the base and are subject to the same legal provisions as cable franchises entered into by state and local governments.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

96. Is disinformation protected?

From the code you cited (thanks):

(1) Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as prohibiting a franchising authority and a cable operator from specifying, in a franchise or renewal thereof, that certain cable services shall not be provided or shall be provided subject to conditions, if such cable services are obscene or are otherwise unprotected by the Constitution of the United States.

The documents in the Dominion case demonstrate that Fox, from Murdoch to the online personalities, deliberately and knowingly disseminated falsehoods without regard to the harm caused.

If military bases are treated as franchising authorities, they can still discontinue subscribing.

[onenote]

104. The provision does not allow military bases to determine the content of cable service

Last edited Wed Mar 8, 2023, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

The provision you cite is absolutely clear on its face: it states that "a franchising authority and a cable operator" are not prohibited from "specifying in a franchise or a renewal thereof that certain cable services not be provided or provided subject to conditions if such cable services are obscene or otherwise unprotected by the Constitution of the United States."

I have negotiated, reviewed, and/or litigated the terms of literally hundreds of cable franchises over the past 45 years, including franchises with military bases. I have never seen a franchise with a military base in which it is agreed that the military base has the right to prohibit the carriage of a programming service with the exception of provisions addressing obscene content. Rather, consistent with the Communications Act, at most these franchises identify "broad categories" of programming that the operator must carry and/or contain a listing of the programming networks that the operator agrees to carry initially, leaving it to the complete discretion of the operator to make changes.

Here's an example, from the franchise agreement between a cable operator and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri:

"The Franchisee agrees to carry the programming specified in Schedule B [the cable operator's proposed channel line-up] and to conform its system to the technical, installation and performance requirements set forth in 47 CFR Part 76 Subpart K ("Technical Requirements&quot . The programming set forth on Schedule B is discretionary and may change at any time, and from time to time, in the sole and absolute discretion of the Franchisee."

In short, a military base that is being provided cable television service pursuant to a franchise entered into with a cable operator may not dictate what channels the cable operator provides unless the cable operator has expressly agreed, in advance, not to carry certain constitutionally unprotected content and such agreements are never part of franchise agreements. When the language of 544(d) was adopted in 1984, the 'otherwise constitutionally unprotected" clause was included because of uncertainty as to the constitutional status of "indecent" (as opposed to "obscene&quot programming. Other provisions of the law make it clear that cable operators may be sued for defamation for the content of programming that is under their editorial control -- but Fox News' content is not under the editorial control of the cable operators that carry it, which is why Fox News is being sued, not any of the cable operators or satellite providers that carry Fox News.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

110. Thank you.

[onenote]

89. If the basis for that decision is Fox News' content, it is a first amendment issue.

If DirecTV or Dish, private entities, want to stop paying for Newsmax, OAN, or, some day, Fox, they are free to do so for any reason including the content.

But if the government makes that decision, it raises a first amendment issue and some justification beyond not liking the content would be necessary.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

90. Does the military provide Isis recruitment tv to troops?

If I were to enlist in the army, and the army was crazy enough to let me, I'm certain that there would be some things the higher ups (including the Commander-in-Chief) would insist I give up.

[madville]

78. Imagine the reaction

If Desantis was going to block MSNBC from all state office buildings and state issued cell phones. We’d all be against that.

[republianmushroom]

55. agree

[Samrob]

57. This should have happened when Rush Limbaugh was alive. Make it happen NOW!

FOX is more dangerous than TikTok.

[Martin68]

58. Yes! When I was living in Japan and somebody had Armed forces Radio turned on, I used to hate

hearing Rush Limbaugh and his bullshit right wing lies. Fox is anti-American and should not be allowed to brainwash our boys overseas or domestically.

[SonofDonald]

63. We had AFRN as our only radio station in bush Alaska

In a place called Dutch Harbor and I would think all the outer villages, this was while I lived there from 1979-1993.

It was an hour of news, an hour of Country Western, one hour each of rock, classical, etc all day long but they would play classical at night for a few hours.



I don’t remember ever hearing anything of a political type and didn’t know who limpbaugh was until I moved out of state.

I’m so happy I didn’t have to hear that kind of thing over the only radio station we had.

[SonofDonald]

60. I worked at Joint Base Lewis/McChord

As a disabled civilian Heavy equipment mechanic from 2008-2010.

Everywhere I went on the base that had tv’s they were always turned on and running faux news, stores, offices, the base hospital and even some of the equipment service buildings.

Luckily I/we didn’t have to endure it all day long, a few of the mechanics I knew and later myself would find out what brands of tv’s they were using and if you took a trip to the local goodwill you could find tv remotes in the electronics section that would work on some of the tv’s.

Of course you had to be sneaky about it, they didn’t think it was funny when they found the TV’s had been messed with by putting your own password in place all the faux channels had been blocked.

In fact they figured out what was going on and we got an announcement that it would no longer be tolerated.

But it was fun while it lasted.

[Maggiemayhem]

69. Many of us blocked Fox on our parents tv by passwording the remote

I thought Fox “news” was classified as entertainment , not news. Did that change?

[colorado_ufo]

61. Terrific ad!

So well done!

[COL Mustard]

76. I work at the Pentagon

It’s very incongruous to see Fox on the TVs in the gym and in other offices.

[40RatRod]

77. When I was in the military and went to the Base Exchange, Every TV Set was on FOX

[Evolve Dammit]

79. And 40 years of Rushbo on Armed Services network. The propoganda has worked for the asshats.

I think the term "conservative" bears no semblance to who they are anymore and I will never use it again. They are a cult of brainwashed fascist nazi asshats.

[SheltieLover]

80. Absolutely!

[SeattleVet]

84. When I was in the Air Force stationed in Germany...

Our main English language news was Armed Forces Radio and Television Service. We knew that their news was biased, so we would listen to Radio Moscow on shortwave and figure that the truth was halfway between the two.

[onenote]

91. Armed Forces Network News shows programs from various networks, including MSNBC, not just Fox News

There appears to be some misunderstanding regarding the availability of Fox News on military bases.

Most domestic bases are served by commercial cable television companies under franchises comparable to those issued by local governments, and receive the same programming line-up as the cable subscribers in neighboring areas served by the same cable operator. Just as a local government couldn't tell its cable provider not to carry a particular network, neither can the US military.

Overseas, Armed Forces Network is the principal military-provided source of news, sports and entertainment programming. One of the AFN channels features news and over the course of the day, offers programs from a variety of broadcast and cable networks, including not just Fox News, but also MSNBC, CNN, etc etc.

Here is the current AFN schedule: https://v3.myafn.dodmedia.osd.mil

[SouthernDem4ever]

100. Even if you don't ban it

Place stickers or plaques on all the base's televisions reminding any viewer that fox is a lying network. Something to the effect of "Fox has proven itself untrustworthy as an information source"

[kentuck]

105. The very least they could do...short of banning FOX

...would be to establish a rotating schedule where all the major cable networks would share the time slots now owned by FOX only.

[onenote]

111. Armed Forces Network News already presents programming from multiple news channels

AFN provides content to US overseas bases. In the US, bases are served under franchises with cable operators similar to the franchises entered into between cable operators and states or local governments. By law, the franchising authority (which would include the military base entering into such a franchise) cannot dictate the programming carried by the operator or how it is presented.

https://v3.myafn.dodmedia.osd.mil/

A good many of the posts in this thread are based on an incorrect understanding of the availability of Fox News to members of the military.