Ex-Fox News exec says the FCC should consider revoking Rupert Murdoch's licenses Gideon Rubin June 1

[Obvious85]

Preston Padden, who served as a Fox executive from 1990 to 1997, writes for The Beast that the right-wing network may be a revocation candidate, citing a section of the Communications Act that requires the FCC to assess the “character qualifications” of those broadcasting on public airwaves.

“False news has consequences,” Paddon writes.

“Despite all the factual information available to the contrary, millions of Americans, including Fox viewers, believe that the 2020 election was stolen. The rioters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 were chanting ‘Stop the Steal.’"

“So, the issue at hand is: Should the FCC review Fox’s character qualifications to remain a steward of the public airwaves?

https://www.rawstory.com/fox-news-exec-license-revoked/

[2naSalit]

1. Boy howdy...

That needs to happen last year.

[mountain grammy]

18. It needed to happen 10 years ago

Honestly, I think it's too late.

[2naSalit]

23. I agree...

Except, Rupert should never have been allowed to do business here. He has been on a campaign to destroy the western nations since at least the mid 1980s.

[mountain grammy]

27. He's done his magic here.

and we were ripe. Damn shame. I thought we were getting on the right track with Civil Rights and Voting Rights passing. We're better than we used to be, but just barely.

[2naSalit]

28. For years I have been...

Concerned about the generations who have never seen what it was like in the 60s and what we stand to lose now. But when Roe v Wade was killed, I think that was a rude awakening for those not paying attention or thinking they could never lose what was gained in the recent decades.

I hope that there is a great surge of young voters who overwhelm the elections and oust the cultists.

[SomedayKindaLove]

40. I hope so too

But in my circles a lot of young people are complaining that Biden is too old. And unfortunately that’s what a lot of people vote on, age, appearance, etc. I was horrified when a friend told me she couldn’t vote for Dukakis because of his eyebrows.

[TeamProg]

49. Lazy thinkers. nt

[Picaro]

2. Yes

This should happen .

[BlueKota]

3. Yes

Especially since they obviously haven't learned their lesson, as evidenced by using the runner "want to be dictator," for President Biden.

[GreenWave]

4. Make them have "Not responsible for the accuracy" banners every ten seconds.

[TheBlackAdder]

21. Or. . . We Make Shit Up For Gullible Rubes

[Ocelot II]

5. The FCC doesn't regulate cable content; cable isn't "public airwaves."

[elleng]

6. Thanks for setting the record straight.

[BootinUp]

14. I believe you are correct. nt

[Liberal In Texas]

15. They don't license cable channels BUT

Fox owns a bunch of TV stations all over the country. Losing licenses on them would be very painful.

[Ocelot II]

17. Since the TV stations are just entertainment outlets with no news content,

on what basis would their licenses be revoked? Would just the fact of being owned by the parent Fox corporation that also owns the Fox cable network be enough? I really don't think so.

[onenote]

47. Their licenses would be revoked on the basis that the owner of those stations lacks the requisite

character to be a licensee, as evidenced by its behavior. In this instance, as i have said repeatedly, its unlikely that the FCC would find the behavior (defamation and lying about the election) disqualifying since it doesn't involve a serious felony or lying directly to the FCC.

So the answer is yes, just being the common parent of the Fox stations and the Fox cable networks is enough for the behavior of that owner, whether in the context of the cable network operation or anything else, to potentially cause the stations to lose their licenses.

I'll give another example. Fox Corporation is a publicly traded company. If it committed serious SEC violations, it is likely that someone would argue that those violations indicate that the company lacks the character qualifications to be the trustee of broadcast station licenses and the FCC would have to decide if those violations were serious enough to warrant a finding that the ownership of the stations lacked the requisite character.

[Liberal In Texas]

52. The TV stations have robust news operations.

Fox corporate managers frequently put their 2¢ worth about how things should be run in the new departments.

Local news managers many times end up being tapped to move to corporate or the NewsChannel.

[The Grand Illuminist]

59. The only direct connection with Fox Network and FNC

is their Sunday show Fox News Sunday.

[onenote]

69. The relevant direct connection is that Fox Corporation

controls both Fox News and Fox Broadcasting. If Fox Corporation is convicted of certain “egregious” criminal conduct the FCC can’t do a thing about Fox News but it can consider whether the company should be allowed to hold its broadcast licenses.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

60. i watch the Fox OTA broadcasts all the time,

I like watching shows like Family Guy, American Dad, etc.

They also do pretty good at broadcasting sporting events and do the local news pretty damn good.

Except for the Sunday news show, they are nothing like Faux Snooze on cable.

[spanone]

25. FCC WEBSITE

The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation. In its work facing economic opportunities and challenges associated with rapidly evolving advances in global communications, the agency capitalizes on its competencies in:

Promoting competition, innovation and investment in broadband services and facilities
Supporting the nation's economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework for the unfolding of the communications revolution
Encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally
Revising media regulations so that new technologies flourish alongside diversity and localism
Providing leadership in strengthening the defense of the nation's communications infrastructure

https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/what-we-do#:~:text=Main%20menu&text=The%20Federal%20Communications%20Commission%20regulates,of%20Columbia%20and%20U.S.%20territories.

[Ocelot II]

26. The FCC does not regulate cable *content*.

The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 established policies in the areas of ownership, channel usage, franchise provisions and renewals, subscriber rates and privacy, unauthorized reception of services, equal employment opportunity, and pole attachments. It does not control cable news content.

[CaptainTruth]

71. Also important to note that in the case of cable the FCC regulates technical requirements...

...& as you say, NOT content.

As an electrical engineer who specialized in communications technology & signal processing & worked closely with the audio/video content production & distribution industries (including broadcast, satellite, cable, theatrical presentation, physical media etc) for decades & helped develop technologies that today are in every PC, Mac, tablet, smart phone, TV, & cable/satellite box etc, I could launch into an explanation of what that means, but it's highly technical. Let's just say that you have a "cable box" at your house. For you to see a picture & hear audio, the incoming signal (the electrical signal carried over the coaxial cable) has to meet a laundry list of technical requirements so the electronics in your cable box can "recognize" the signal & decode it into a picture & audio. Those technical details are what the FCC regulates. They adopt technical standards developed by industry to ensure that all cable "transmitters" ("the head end" that sends the signal out over a "wire&quot & all the cable receivers (your cable box) work together. It has nothing to do with the content of the programming. Those are the standards I helped define for HDTV, & worked with FCC on their adoption of those standards.

[onenote]

32. While it is true the FCC's authority to regulate cable is limited, it can revoke broadcast licenses

based on conduct that is not directly related to or arise from the licensee's broadcast operations. I address this in detail in post 44, but to put it succinctly, the FCC's 1990 Character Policy Statement indicates that while the existence of a nexus between the behavior that allegedly disqualifies an entity from holding an FCC licensee under the "character" standard and the operation of the entity's FCC licensees strengthens the case for revoking the entity's licenses, it is not a requirement. Thus, the FCC can and does revoke licenses for behavior by the license that is completely unrelated to the operation of the licensee's broadcast or media properties -- behavior that the FCC deems so "egregious" as to "shock the conscience." Almost universally, such cases have involved serious felonies such as child molestation, murder, or other bodily harm, as well as other serious felonies like burglary, perjury, or bribery of law enforcement.

Ultimately, each case is decided on its own merits. The fact that there is some connection between the behavior in question (lying) and the licensee's media business (albeit not its broadcast stations ) is significant because a lack of candor is a serious issue for the FCC. But there is no claim that Fox lied to the FCC and it has not been charged with a criminal offense for its defamation of Dominion and its election lies.

Thus, Preston (who I've known for more than 35 years) is not completely off base, but he may be overly optimistic in thinking the FCC would strip Fox of its licenses for non-felonious behavior that did not directly involve its broadcast properties.

For a more detailed discussion, see post 44.

[brooklynite]

36. Sigh...FOX NEWS DOES NOT HAVE A LICENSE!!!!!

they don’t NEED a license, because they don’t BROADCAST!!!

Let’s return to that pesky old First Amendment. “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting…..the freedom of speech or of the press.” The only reason the FCC can interfere with BROADCAST (over the air) stations and their respective networks is that broadcast frequencies are considered to be government owned, and are leased to broadcast entities with are set of regulatory obligations. None of this applies to Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, CNN, MSNBC or any other cable channel.and just as there is no regulation (nor should there be) on what newspapers and magazines publish.

Why people are unwilling to accept this concept is beyond me.

[onenote]

45. SIGH: It doesn't matter.

I've been a communications attorney for over 40 years. I worked on the RKO General case in the 1980s which ultimately led to RKO being forced out of the broadcast business in part because its owner, General Tire, engaged in a range of felonious behavior unrelated to the operation of the stations.

Fox News and the Fox Broadcast stations are commonly owned. The behavior of one can be taken into account in deciding whether that common controlling entity has the requisite character to be a broadcast licensee. Owners of broadcast station licenses have lost those licenses for felonious behavior unrelated to the operation of their broadcast properties.

I don't think the FCC would revoke the broadcast station licenses ultimately controlled by Fox Corproration because of the defamation and lies committed by Fox News, also ultimately controlled by Fox Corporation. But that's because it probably wouldn't find that defamation and those lies disqualifying even if they had been disseminated by the broadcast stations.

I know as well as anyone in the country, having represented cable television companies for most of my 40+ years as a communications lawyer and having been involved in every aspect of their regulation, that the FCC does not and cannot directly regulate the content of cable networks. However this is not about directly regulating the content of the cable network. It is about the behavior of the owner of broadcast stations. The FCC doesn't directly regulate murder, SEC violations, bribery of law enforcement. But if the owner of a broadcast station engages in those behaviors, in any context, even completely unrelated to the operation of the station, the FCC can and has revoked station licenses.

I'll give you one more example. Imagine that Fox News becomes embroiled in a dispute under the Cable Act's "program carriage rules" which allow a cable program network (such as Fox News) to seek relief from the FCC if a cable operator makes certain types of demands in order for the cable network to obtain carriage (such as giving up an ownership stake in the cable network or discriminating in carriage in order to favor a network affiliated with the cable operator). And let's imagine that in a hearing, under oath, before an FCC administrative law judge, Fox commits perjury, displaying a lack of candor. The FCC could consider that lack of candor by Fox with respect to its cable network as indicative of a propensity to lie to the FCC which would then call into it has the requisite character to hold a station license.

[brooklynite]

48. I responded to your previous post.

Whatever the FCC did to Fox broadcasting O&O stations would have no impact on Fox News.

[onenote]

50. Correct. But what Fox News does can, in theory, impact Fox Corp.'s right to be a broadcast licensee.

I'll try one more time to illustrate the point.

Imagine a company that has never had a broadcast license decides to apply for one. It turns out, however, that it has been convicted of certain felonious behavior, such as felony antitrust violations. It doesn't matter whether those antitrust violations involved cable properties that the prospective licensee owned or a group of grocery stores that it owned. The FCC could consider whether those antitrust felonies disqualified the applicant for a broadcast license from getting one.

The FCC regulates ownership of broadcast stations. It decides who has the requisite qualifications to be a broadcast licensee, including the requisite character.

Under the way you are looking at things, the FCC could never refuse to give a first time applicant a broadcast license even if that applicant was a convicted serial killer. That's not how it works or ever has worked. The FCC considers anything that reflects adversely on the "character" of a prospective broadcast licensee, including how that prospective licensee (or current licensee) conducts itself outside the broadcast realm.

[The Grand Illuminist]

61. What cable networks had their license revoked by the FCC?

nt

[onenote]

63. None because they don't have licenses

The issue is under what circumstances a broadcast station can have its license revoked or denied renewal because the conduct of its owner violates the character qualification requirement for holding a broadcast license. Fox Corporation controls both broadcast stations and cable networks including Fox News. If Fox Corporation ( or the controlling owners of Fox Corporation) engages in certain “egregious behavior” the FCC can consider whether they should become or remain broadcast licensees. For example, if Fox Corporation was convicted of felony anticompetitive activity or securities violations the FCC couldn’t do anything about Fox News, which isn’t licensed but it would have the power to conduct a proceeding to decide whether the company should lose its broadcast licenses.

In the situation at hand the civil judgment against Fox Corporation for defamation almost certainly would not be viewed by the FCC as egregious enough conduct to warrant pulling the company’s broadcast licenses since the FCC generally will not consider revoking a license where the licensee or its parent company have not been convicted of a serious criminal charge.

[Liberal In Texas]

53. Fox NewsChannel on cable does not have a broadcast license. BUT the Fox TV stations all over the

country do.
I will refer you to post #15 and #52.

[brooklynite]

7. Except for the minor point that FOX NEWS DOESN'T BROADCAST ON THE PUBLIC AIRWAYS!

FCC has no regulatory authority over cable channels. The only thing they regulate are Fox entertainment broadcast channels which don’t carry any FMC programming besides “Fox News Sunday”.

[Ocelot II]

11. I keep saying that but nobody listens...

[CaptainTruth]

20. Me too...

[onenote]

34. See posts 32 and 44.

In and of itself, the fact that the allegedly disqualifying behavior involved Fox's non-broadcast operations does not mean the FCC could not consider revoking the broadcast licenses. However, it is unlikely that they would do so in the absence of a serious felony conviction or instances of Fox lying directly to the FCC.

[summer_in_TX]

44. Since Smartmatic is a privately held company, it has no obligation

to shareholders to take a settlement offering before a trial and a legal judgement. So it is possible we will get to some kind of legal decision that would move the FCC to take action.

BTW, the FCC does at least have regulatory authority over obscene content even on cable. That's about the only content they do have such authority over in terms of cable.

Character issues are major. Our low power community FM radio station cannot have board members who have ever been convicted of a felony or ever been associated in operating an illegal "pirate" radio station.

But I haven't read the related statutes for cable. Of course Fox Network owns plenty of over-the-air broadcast stations and those certainly might be vulnerable depending on further court decisions, even if the cable part of the what NewsCorp owns is not.

[summer_in_TX]

46. Since Smartmatic is a privately held company, it has no obligation

to shareholders to take a settlement offering before a trial and a legal judgement - unlike Dominion. So it is possible we will get to some kind of legal decision that would move the FCC to take action.

BTW, the FCC does at least have regulatory authority over obscene content even on cable. That's about the only content they do have such authority over in terms of cable.

Character issues are major. Our low power community FM radio station cannot have board members who have ever been convicted of a felony or ever been associated in operating an illegal "pirate" radio station.

But I haven't read the related statutes for cable. Of course Fox Network owns plenty of over-the-air broadcast stations and those certainly might be vulnerable depending on further court decisions, even if the cable part of the what NewsCorp owns is not.

[Liberal In Texas]

55. WRONG! Fox News does broadcast on public airwaves. Fox NewsChannel does not, it's on cable.

There are many O&O stations that broadcast over the air and broadcast news and are controlled ultimately by Fox management. Some of the local news content comes from Fox national feeds. Elsewhere I pointed out the local O&O I'm most familiar with broadcasts 8.5 hours of news per day.

[Takket]

8. in a perfect society something like fox news would not exist

unfortunately we are far from a perfect society.

[brooklynite]

10. In a perfect society what news media WOULD exist?

[Takket]

12. i don't know, but i know outright propaganda wouldn't be there

[brooklynite]

13. Propaganda as defined by whom?

I’m a first amendment absolutist because I don’t want Republicans deciding which liberal/left outlets are “propaganda”.

Media in the US has had strong biases since the Revolutionary War.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

62. Thank you.

[Sogo]

9. And hand the rwing a huge campaign issue????

"Biden Administration Censors Conservative Media"

"Biden Administration Abolishes Free Speech for Conservatives"

Biden Administration Weaponizes the FCC Against Conservatives"

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

[rubbersole]

33. They already spread shit worse than this.

The repub bs machine has dems as baby eating pedophile takers. The lying MO will stop/slow when defamation lawsuits bury them. AI will be a huge problem.

[Joinfortmill]

16. Yup

[CaptainTruth]

19. "broadcasting on public airwaves"

Which does not apply to Fox News, a cable network. They do not broadcast on the public (government-owned) airwaves.

Also, even for networks that do broadcast "on the public airwaves" the networks don't have FCC licenses, it's the stations (the folks with antennas who send electromagnetic waves out through space) who have FCC licenses.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

51. No matter how many times it's debunked

People still stupidly believe it.

[onenote]

56. The FCC can revoke a broadcast license based on the misconduct of its ownership

In contexts not directly related to the operation of the broadcast station. Otherwise it would, to give an extreme example, not be able to refuse to grant a license(or renew a license) to a serial killer or child molester.

But Padden is mistaken in thinking that the civil (not criminal ) defamation judgment against Fox Corporation, which controls both Fox News and Fox Broadcasting would be deemed egregious enough to warrant a character-based license denial or revocation of the commonly owned broadcast stations.

In the other hand if Fox Corporation was convicted of a felony criminal violation of the antitrust or Securities laws the FCC might well give serious consideration to whether the company has the required character qualifications to hold a broadcast license.

Speaking as a communications attorney with four decades of experience in these matters.

[CaptainTruth]

70. Thanks for the additional details! You posts on these matters are always informative.

I will note that I was responding to the common misbelief that Fox News, the cable network, has an FCC license & they can be shut down ("taken off the air&quot if the FCC revoked their license for uncouth behavior like calling Biden a "wannabe dictator" in an onscreen graphic or repeatedly hosting guests who lied about various topics, which are the kinds of events that cause folks all over social media to scream "The FCC should cancel their license!!!"

No, no, no, no, no.

I hope we can all agree that Fox News, the cable network, does not have an FCC broadcast license, & even if they did revoking that license for *content* like the comments of guests or onscreen graphics would run into serious First Amendment issues. That is the misbelief I was commenting on.

[onenote]

72. Agreed

[CaptainTruth]

74. Wow, thank you. I truly appreciate that.

[JohnSJ]

22. I would prefer if the INS consider deporting him back to Australia.

Sorry Australia

[2naSalit]

24. +1

[wnylib]

38. Revoke his citizenship.

You have to be a US citizen to own media in the US.

[onenote]

29. I've known Preston since the 1980s.He's smart, but I don't think the FCC would agree with him.

I first met Preston when he worked for Metromedia Broadcasting in the 1980s and I was a young communications attorney. He has a lot of experience, but I think he's a bit out over his skis on this. I should note, however, that this is based on the RawStory description of his position not the DailyBeast article, which is behind a pay wall. And RawStory has a tendency to overstate things.

Bottom line: the FCC has gone back and forth over its history as to whether and to what degree a licensee's conduct outside the realm of its broadcast operations can be considered in judging the licensee's "character" qualification to hold a broadcast license. The leading example is the RKO General case, which dragged on for well over a decade as the FCC sought to determine whether RKO, which had been purchased by General Tire, should have its broadcast licenses revoked for various character issues, including many that had no relationship to the company's media business (such as bribery of foreign officials, SEC violations, etc etc). I actually worked on the RKO matter in the early days of my career as a communications attorney. In the end, RKO was forced out of the broadcast business, primarily because of findings that it had "lacked candor" in its dealings with the FCC. Lying to the FCC is about the worst thing a broadcaster can do.

For awhile after the RKO marathon, the FCC backed away from putting too much emphasis on lack of character allegations that were not related in some way to the licensee's broadcast-related business. But then the pendulum swung back and the agency issued Character Policy Statements in 1986 and 1990 that sought to explain whether and to what degree the agency would consider non-broadcast related character issues in license revocation proceedings. By and large, the upshot is that certain criminal convictions that are unrelated to the licensee's broadcast business can and will cause a licensee to lose its right to broadcast.

But a recent case indicated that there are limits. In the Auburn Network, Inc. case, the issue was whether the company's licenses should be revoked based on the felony conviction of the station's owner. That conviction was for a violation of the Alabama Code of Ethics For Public Officials committed by the station owner who was the Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives. Specifically, he was convicted of two counts of soliciting or receiving a thing of value from a principal of a lobbyist, one count of using an official position for personal gain, two counts of representing a business entity for compensation before an executive department or agency, and one count of using public property for private benefit.

Although the unlawful acts were tangentially related to Auburn Network in that they involved some consulting agreements entered into in the name of Auburn Network, the Administrative Law Judge that heard the case ruled that these particular felony convictions did not disqualify the company from being an FCC licensee. The judge ruled that the FCC had not met its burden of proving that the felony at issue were disqualifying. In reaching this decision, the judge emphasized that while the crimes at issue were "serious", they did not meet the standard of being “so egregious as to shock the conscience and evoke almost universal disapprobation.” Examples of such crimes would include child molestation and murder. Other examples given were burglary, firearms offenses, drug-related felonies, bribery of law enforcement officials. And while the lack of direct nexus between the felonies and the company's FCC licenses is not determinative, it weighed in favor of finding that the felonies in question were not disqualifying.

Keeping the above in mind, it is highly significant that Fox has not been charged with or convicted of a felony in connection with its defamation of Dominion or its lies about the election. Moreover, the fact that the lies were spread by a media entity owned by Fox puts it closer to its FCC - related activities than the facts in the Auburn case, it likely matters that those lies were disseminated by its cable programming network, not its FCC licensed broadcast stations.

In short, Preston isn't completely off base, but he's probably over optimistic about the possibility of the FCC to revoke Fox's broadcast station licenses (at least based on the RawStory description of his position).

[Ocelot II]

31. Thanks for this very thorough explanation!

But it sounds like this all relates to Fox' broadcast licenses and not the garbage on its cable news network, which is what's giving everybody heartburn but AFAIK the FCC can't do anything about. So as I understand it, even if Fox' cable network committed a crime, the FCC couldn't shut that down. Could they lose their broadcast station licenses (and if I understand correctly, it's the stations that hold the licenses, not the parent company) as a penalty for a crime committed by the cable network? That doesn't make sense.

[onenote]

35. It is not out of the question that a crime committed by the parent company that controls both

the broadcast stations and the cable network could result in the revocation of the broadcast station license. The ultimate controlling owner of the stations and of Fox News is the Murdoch family through Fox Corporation. As pointed out in my other posts, the FCC is not limited to considering the behavior of an entity with respect to its stations it controls when determining whether that entity has the requisite character to become or remain a broadcast licensee.

That being said, I also think that the behavior in question would not result in the FCC revoking Fox's licenses, not because it doesn't regulate cable, but because that behavior, which did not involve a serious criminal/felony conviction or lying directly to the FCC, isn't egregious enough to be disqualifying. This would be the result even if the defamation and lying had occurred on Fox-owned broadcast stations.

[brooklynite]

39. And the revocation of FoX OTA station licenses would have no iOS t on Fox News...

It simply mean you would be able to watch HELL’S KITCHEN and STARS ON MARS.

[Liberal In Texas]

54. Losing the licenses on the TV stations would be quite a blow to the corporate Fox.

The Fox OTA stations, as I've stated above, have news departments. Sometimes very large news departments. The local Fox O&O in my town has satellite uplink trucks, microwave trucks, access to two helicopters and runs live or repeated news broadcasts 8.5 hours daily.

Losing a broadcast license is no small thing.

[onenote]

65. Yep.

But the defamation verdict in a civil case isn’t the type of thing the FCC general views as so egregious as to warrant stripping a company of its broadcast licenses. To merit a license denial or revocation the FCC requires a criminal conviction of a serious breach of law — drug trafficking, perjury, bribery, murder, child molestation are examples of criminal convictions that have led the FCC to pull a station owner’s license

[Effete Snob]

75. "And RawStory has a tendency to overstate things."

The funhouse mirror of news.

Thank you for taking the time to write that.

Getting into character disqualifications without clear lines could, of course, open another can of worms.

One could argue that MSNBC regularly platforms convicted felon Michael Cohen.

[Dr. Strange]

30. What license does Rupert Murdoch have exactly?

What is the FCC supposed to "revoke"?

[onenote]

37. The broadcast licenses held by Fox Corporation through its subsidiaries

Fox Corporation, which directly or indirectly owns those stations as well as Fox News, is controlled by the Murdoch family. But see posts 29 and 32 for an explanation as to why the FCC wouldn't revoke the licenses, not because the lying was on Fox News, not the broadcast stations, but because defamation and lying about the election would not be deemed egregious enough under FCC policies which essentially require an entity to have been convicted of a serious felony or to have lied directly to the FCC in order for the entity to lose its licenses.

There are 28 broadcast stations (18 Fox affiliated and 10 MyNetwork) that are licensed to Fox Television Stations, LLC, which is a subsidiary of Fox Broadcasting Company, which is a subsidiary of Fox Corporation. As noted, common control of all of these entities rests with the Murdoch family.

[Warpy]

42. Local station licenses to broadcast on our airwaves.

We had one of 'em, it ran a lot of stories from the cable channel. I don't know if it's still there, I haven't turned the TV on in about a year.

[Dr. Strange]

43. Yeah, that would be quite a reach.

The broadcast stations actually seem okay.

[Warpy]

41. They should have done that in 2021, when Pox was running with both the Covid disinfo

and the Big Lie from TFG. Both those things were the equivalent of yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

57. Since when does the FCC have any authority over cable, satellite or the internet?

Oh, wait, they don't.

Those are PPV, are privately owned and operated, IOW, they don't operate over public airways, no license is required to operate over cable.

I don't know how many times this has been pointed out, yet we still get these threads.

[The Grand Illuminist]

58. That is the truth unfortunately.

nt

[onenote]

64. But they have authority over who holds a broadcast lucense

If the owner of a cable network turns out to be a child molester or serial killer the FCC can’t stop the owner from continuing to own the cable network. But if the same person also owns broadcast stations the FCC can revoke the stations licenses.

In the case of Fox Corporation, which controls both cable networks and broadcast stations, the civil judgment for defamation by Fox News almost certainly wouldn’t be deemed egregious enough by the FCC to warrant pulling the company’s licenses. But if the company was convicted of a criminal antitrust or securities violation the FCC could and likely would consider conducting a proceeding to determine whether that conviction calks into question the company’s character as to warrant stripping it of its licenses.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

66. Over broadcast licenses yes,

but here's my question, if Murdoch's broadcast license were revoked, would that stop him from carrying on with his cable network?

[onenote]

67. Nope. They can't take the cable networks away.

Just the broadcast stations.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

68. Thanks,

that's what I thought, but it's nice to have an experienced communications lawyer confirm it.

[Blue Owl]

73. Please do....

PLEASE!