Why is Fox News Allowed To Spread Falsehoods? Seriously, where is the FCC?

[Joinfortmill]

&t=186s

My Words: This Fox News Roundtable of liars and fabricators is unconscionable (begins at 3.40). Enough, already! The FCC needs to step up, Now!

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/communications_law/publications/communications_lawyer/2021-summer/worse-a-wasteland-protecting-consumers-cable-news-the-public-interest/

'The FCC will not need to reinvent the wheel to regulate cable news. The news distortion framework, although currently only applicable to broadcast television, should apply to cable television. The commission has already asserted jurisdiction over cable network content in the case of obscene material, as it is not protected by the First Amendment.27 News distortion should be treated similarly because of the special impact of televised news28 and the lesser First Amendment standard for reckless or knowing falsehoods.29...

Trustworthy, fact-based news is critical to the American public. The FCC should use its existing tools and authority to ensure that televised news is accurate. The FCC should (1) enforce existing rules to police news distortion and hoaxes in televised news; (2) extend, if necessary, the news distortion policy and hoax policy to cable news; and (3) revise the news distortion standard so that it is an effective and usable tool against the misinformation of audiences.'

[Fullduplexxx]

1. Cause it's on cable tv

[Attilatheblond]

12. And because the company describes its self as "entertainment" not news

A pointless distinction, yes, but it is the fine print that, added to the First Amendment, gives them a level of freedom to lie constantly. It does not, however, protect them from liable lawsuits filed by other companies.

[PeaceWave]

17. Referring to "Entertainment" as "News" is fraud...

Fox viewers are reasonably relying that the cable "News" provider is, in fact, providing "News." Has anyone dragged them into court in an effort to force Fox to remove "News" from their name?

[tritsofme]

20. If that was true, why do you suppose such a lawsuit has not been filed and then won?

[mzmolly]

23. Dominion sued Fox and won.

I hope more follow suit.

[tritsofme]

25. Because of very specific lies that directly damaged them.

Not general grievances.

[mzmolly]

29. Right. But Fox has damaged far more

than Dominion.

[tritsofme]

93. Not in the legal sense.

[mzmolly]

109. The dominion cases was settled

in a court of law. Smartmatic will be.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/11/media/fox-corp-board-subpoena-smartmatic-lawsuit/index.html

Inciting a violent insurrection with lies about an election, is illegal. That doesn't mean anyone at Faux has been charged, accordingly.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/aoc-fox-news-tucker-carlson-incitement-of-violence-1234722133/

[Attilatheblond]

21. So far as I know, there have been no legal attempts to make them scrub "News" from their title

and then, there is that First Amendment thing. While I am disgusted & terrified that so many people think FOX IS news, it seems like a long shot to make them drop the word.

What annoys me more is how the company provided free TVs (and maybe some money for cable bills when that was fairly new) to businesses that would agree to set the TVs to FOX News. That and making FOX a free station on cable TV to home viewers pretty much assured they would build a huge viewer base very quickly as cable service opened up in rural America. Since actual news cable stations were usually 'add ons' and increased prices for cable service package, a huge hunk of viewers were exposed to FAUX news and missing the actual news.

[PeaceWave]

28. Go to any airport in Texas...TVs (hundreds of them) are all set to Fox 24/7

[LeftInTX]

32. I didn't see any TVs at SAT or El Paso when I flew two weeks ago.

Not did I see any at the gate when I had a transfer at Dallas Love Field.

[PeaceWave]

41. Try DFW...You'll see what I'm talking about.

[TexasDem69]

92. I fly out of DFW numerous times a month

The bars and restaurants have TVs and some may have been set to Fox, but most were showing sports if I recall. It’s certainly untrue that the majority are set to Fox

[MarineCombatEngineer]

37. Fraud according to who?

What law would that be?
US Fed. law?
Or your law?
If there were a law, then why hasn't anyone dragged them into court to demand they remove the word News in their title?

[mzmolly]

47. Fraud according to anyone who considers 'news'

to mean truthful reporting. Dominion demonstrated how to fight back in their lawsuit. Alex Jones is another lesson in the consequences of perpetuating fraud. We need more people holding the liars accountable.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

50. So, I ask again,

What law is Fox violating by having the word News in their title?
Please state the law that says that it's fraud using the word News.

BTW, Dominion was able to prove specific harm done to their company by Fox, not because Fox has the word News in their title.

[mzmolly]

52. None at this time.

That's part of the problem. It could be considered false advertising, but they're not directly selling a product so the FTC isn't likely to govern in this regard.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

57. Thank you and I certainly wouldn't want such a law on the books.

Just imagine if a future repig admin has such a power to determine if the word news is fraud, the thought of that rattles my brain.

[mzmolly]

64. The Fairness Doctrine wasn't pro-censorship.

It was a way to prevent it IMO.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/07/31/how-the-repeal-of-the-fairness-doctrine-gave-us-donald-trump/

As it is, Fox censors alternative points of view. We're watching our democracy crumble before our eyes as a result.

Christian Nationalism doesn't appeal to me, but it appeals to those Fox has brainwashed and it's becoming a potential reality for this nation. What should be done?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

67. The FD is not what you think it was as explained by onenote many times here on DU over the years.

Besides, it would not have applied to cable, which does not use public airways, cable is privately owned, anyone can start their own channel, hell, an FCC license isn't even required to operate a cable channel.

[mzmolly]

70. I understand and don't need to defer to onenote

on the matter.

I realize the FD would not have applied to cable, which is part of the problem we're discussing.

McDonald's can't sell horsemeat and call it beef in the name of freedom, yet fox is selling bullshit and calling it news. McDonald's is regulated, fox is not. That's a problem and we're all witnessing the consequences of it.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

55. BTW, did you know that I can pick up a camera and claim I'm an independent news journalist

and go out and film anything I can see from from a public place?
Any american can do so, would we be accused of fraud for using the word News in our title?

[mzmolly]

65. That would depend on the method of delivery.

And, whether or not that delivery method is regulated.

Alex Jones might have appreciated regulation, in hindsight.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

68. What method of delivery?

If I go out and film in public and then sell it to a news station, whether it's an over the air channel or a cable/satellite/internet, that's not illegal, I can claim that I'm an independent news journalist and if any news org. wants to pick it up, they can, of course it would be up the org. to follow up and verify if its true or not.
I don't even need any press credentials to claim I'm a journalist, its a right bestowed upon each and every American citizen via the 1A.

[mzmolly]

69. If you sell it to a news station

and that station is local, the content is regulated to an extent. Fox 'news' might buy something from you if you share their slanted agenda. To date, they would have no consequence for airing absolute bullshit. I'm aware of that.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

72. ....

If you sell it to a news station
and that station is local, the content is regulated to an extent

And that's why I said it's up to the station to verify if what I filmed is true or not.

[Think. Again.]

54. self-correction....

Edit to add:

I was wrong, foxnews was not banned in the U.K.

They faced multiple breaches of the U.K's broadcasting code and stopped broadcasting voluntarily.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

58. Fox News was not banned in the UK.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-010263624425

CLAIM: Fox News was banned from operating in the United Kingdom for promoting right-wing “propaganda.”

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Fox News voluntarily stopped broadcasting in the U.K. in 2017 after failing to cultivate a sufficient audience. U.K. regulators did not ban the channel from operating in the region.
These claims are false, according to both Fox News and U.K. officials. Fox News’ former parent company, 21st Century Fox, announced in August 2017 that Fox News would stop broadcasting in the U.K. due to the channel’s low viewership there.

[Think. Again.]

59. Yes, thank you..

I've corrected my post.

[mzmolly]

71. Perhaps we have a way forward

using a model based on the UK's broadcasting code.

[Think. Again.]

80. Yes, things got bad when reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine...

...and continued to be bad as we keep pretending that broadly casting media over specific technology is not considered broadcasting.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

82. Reagan did not abolish the FD,

the FCC abolished the FD, yes it was under Reagan's admin., the the actual abolishment was done by the FCC.
The FD was finally taken off the books in 2011 by the FCC under Pres. Obama's admin.

https://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/fcc-finally-kills-off-fairness-doctrine-061851

The FCC gave the coup de grace to the fairness doctrine Monday as the commission axed more than 80 media industry rules.

Earlier this summer FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski agreed to erase the post WWII-era rule, but the action Monday puts the last nail into the coffin for the regulation that sought to ensure discussion over the airwaves of controversial issues did not exclude any particular point of view. A broadcaster that violated the rule risked losing its license.

While the commission voted in 1987 to do away with the rule — a legacy to a time when broadcasting was a much more dominant voice than it is today — the language implementing it was never removed. The move Monday, once published in the federal register, effectively erases the rule.

Monday’s move is part of the commission’s response to a White House executive order directing a “government-wide review of regulations already on the books” designed to eliminate unnecessary regulations.

[Think. Again.]

83. Yes, reagan's FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, correct.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

84. Correct

So why didn't Pres. Obama direct the FCC to examine if the FD could be re-instated?
Because it very likely would be ruled unconstitutional and Pres. Obama, being a Constitutional lawyer, knew this.

[Think. Again.]

85. I wouldn't know, I'm not Obama.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

86. I'm not Pres. Obama either, but that's a valid point as to why he didn't direct the FCC to examine the issue.

Also, Congress makes laws and I highly doubt that Congress would've passed such a law and even if they did, I'll speculate that Pres. Obama wouldn't have signed it for the reason stated in my previous post.

Good conversation, I enjoyed the civility of it, thank you.

[TheProle]

95. Has anyone done so with E! Entertainment News or ESPNews?

[themaguffin]

90. That's not relevant to the FCC as it's still cable, whatever the content is.

[tritsofme]

2. Because the First Amendment. Thankfully it protects us all from authoritarians promoting government censorship.

[Jacson6]

3. The FCC can only regulate obscenity on the public TV & Radio channels.

It can't regulate what private broadcasters show or say over satellite, cable or the Internet. The only thing they can regulate is the technical standards such is how much bandwidth & the frequencies that can be used.

[mzmolly]

24. Perhaps we need a new regulatory body?

eom

[marybourg]

26. The Truth Police?

[mzmolly]

30. Is that what the FCC is?

Truth police?

[marybourg]

43. Not at all. But you're not satisfied with them.

You’re asking for a new body with new powers.

[mzmolly]

45. I'm not dissatisfied with the FCC.

I'm suggesting we have a similar regulatory body overseeing cable television.

[CrispyQ]

4. +1!

We absolutely should clearly define & regulate which orgs get to call themselves "news" stations.

[brooklynite]

16. "Congress shall make no law......."

That pesky First Amendment again.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Lying is a public nuisance, private Cable TV and FCC laws be damned!

[tritsofme]

6. This right here is Exhibit A on why we have the First Amendment.

[bucolic_frolic]

9. "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater. Try it some time.

Lying, chaos, unfair competition, libel, slander, financial market disruption, fraud, pyramid schemes ... all reasons to limit "free speech" that are well grounded in law and precedent.

[tritsofme]

11. Ah yes, an incredibly poor analogy that is of course the favorite of speech restrictionists and authoritarians.

None of those other concepts apply here. The First Amendment exists precisely to protects us from folks like this, and I would argue, they from themselves.

[mzmolly]

49. We'll see how free speech is when tRump overturns the constitution.

He's talking about jailing reporters who disagree with him and bringing back firing squads.

Regulation is not authoritarianism. Though I fear we'll see what that actually involves if tRump wins with the help of Fox. Some of us can proclaim we upheld the right for fox to lie to Americans under our former freedoms, apparently.

[tritsofme]

91. I'm not too keen on the argument that we have to destroy the Constitution in order to save it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. Bad example

Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a long-disproven First Amendment myth.

https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/

[marybourg]

27. No. After you say something you can be

punished for saying it, in very rare instances, but preventing you from saying it in the first place is very very rare in our history. It's called “prior restraint “ and is almost never invoked in peacetime.

[sarisataka]

14. What content should the government be allowed to censor?

And whom do you trust to provide the oversight that the censorship powers will only be used for "good"?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. That reminds me: it's time to turn off DU and start scrubbing the kitchen floor. NT

[usaf-vet]

10. I'm getting more and more of those same feelings here at DU lately. Let's tell more of our storys and....

.... less of DJT's side of the stories.

[usaf-vet]

8. This is a stupid story and it only gives DJT more screen time. These two points should have been the focus of the story.

1. Wherever DJT is, his heavily armed Secret Service Protection Team isn't far away.

2. The warrant (search) contained boilerplate (weapons) language that appears in every federal warrant being served.

[onenote]

13. Article written by three recent law school graduates who should be given a failing grade.

Last edited Wed Jun 19, 2024, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

The FCC has no more authority to regulate non-obscene content on Fox News or any other non-broadcast network any more than it has authority to regulate content on the internet. The reasons are both constitutional and statutory. The First Amendment protects non-libelous speech even when it includes falsehoods. And Congress has not given the FCC authority to regulate cable television content. The exception - obscene speech -- is contained in an express statutory provision and otherwise is expressly forbidden, which further strengthens the case against the FCC claiming to have authority with respect to cable similar to what it has with respect to broadcasting since Congress is presumed not to have intended to give such authority to the FCC.

And believe me, we would not want the FCC to have that authority. I say this as someone, unlike the wet behind the ears law students who authored the piece linked in the OP, who has practiced communications law before the FCC and courts, including the Supreme Court, for over 40 years. I worked on several of the leading first amendment cases involving cable content such as Home Box Office, Inc. v. Wilkinson and Community Television of Utah, Inc. v. Roy City. I also worked on cases that involve the Cable Act of 1984, as amended. Section 624( f ) (1 ) of that legislation states as follows: " Any Federal agency, State, or franchising authority may not impose requirements regarding the provision or content of cable services, except as expressly provided in this subchapter."

Why give the recent graduates a failing grade? Because they totally ignore the cases and statutory provisions I just referenced.

[John1956PA]

18. Well stated. Thank you for your accurate post. n/t

[brooklynite]

19. Why can't we just have a simple law that everything I like is protected and everything I don't is banned?

(that was sarcasm)

[sarisataka]

22. We need a Ministry of Truth

Might as well create the Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Love and Ministry of Plenty at the same time. It will streamline government.

[mzmolly]

31. NPR did a story on this issue in March.

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/16/1163505593/tucker-carlson-regulate-cable-jan-6-security-tapes#:~:text=Put%20another%20way%3A%20The%20FCC,you%20guessed%20it%2C%20Fox%20News.

[Mountainguy]

33. There is no authority for the government

to regulate what is said on TV outside of obscenity rules. It's not their job to fact check the news.

It's up the the audience to regulate these things by either watching it or not. There is no lack of information easily available that Fox News is telling constant lies. If anyone is watching Fox it's because they want to hear those things.

[Johonny]

34. Clearly the Dominion lawsuit shows

If people would bother to sue them, they are as libel as anyone else of lying.

[onenote]

129. Who do you think can sue them for a lot of their statements?

One has to have standing. So when Fox misrepresents President Biden's comments or policies, the person with standing is President Biden. And he isn't about to file a libel suit against Fox.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

35. Yeah, let's give the FCC the power to determine what's real or fake news.

I'm quite sure that'll work out really, really well.

Would you want the FCC, under a repig admin, such as Been A Dick Donald, to have the power to determine what is or isn't fake news on cable? Or the internet or satellite TV/Radio?

[Laffy Kat]

36. You can thank Ronald Reagan for the demise of the Fairness Doctrine.

It was in effect from 1947 until 1987.

[onenote]

38. The Fairness Doctrine was overrated and was destined to be ruled unconstitutional.

Didn't keep Nixon from getting elected. Didn't keep Reagan from getting elected, twice. Democrats have held the presidency, and the chairmanship of the FCC, for more half of the 37 years since the doctrine was repealed and have not reimposed it. Indeed, President Obama did not support its reimposition and it was in 2011, during his presidency, that the FCC took the formal, albeit ministerial, step of striking the doctrine from the FCC's rules.

[Laffy Kat]

40. How so? nt

[onenote]

44. I've edited my post to provide more context.

In addition, as someone who practiced before the FCC both before and after its repeal, I can assure you that it could be and was complied with by means that made it meaningless. For example, issues-based discussions were relegated to very early Sunday morning or very late at night. People forget that the FD was not an "equal time" rule.

The FCC described the distinction thusly:
The fairness doctrine deals with the broader question of affording reasonable oppor-
tunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues of public
importance. Generally speaking, it does not apply with the precision of the "equal
opportunities" requirement. Rather, the licensee, in applying the fairness doctrine,
is called upon to make reasonable judgments in good faith on the facts of each
situation-as to whether a controversial issue of public importance is involved, as to
what viewpoints have been or should be presented, as to the format and spokesmen
to present the viewpoints, and all the other facets of such programming.... In pass-
ing on any complaint in this area the Commission's role is not to substitute its judg-
ment for that of the licensee as to any of the above programming decisions, but
rather to determine whether the licensee can be said to have acted reasonably and in
good faith. There is thus room for considerably more discretion on the part of the
licensee under the fairness doctrine than under the "equal opportunities" requirement.

[mzmolly]

46. It might prevent faux news

from spewing BS without any reality inserted.

Nixon and Reagan were bad, but Trump isn't even feigning regard for the constitution.

[onenote]

48. It never applied to cable and it would be struck down by the court immediately if there was any attempt to do so.

The distinction between the status of broadcasting and cable for purposes of the first amendment -- and between broadcasting and the internet for that matter -- is well-established.

Plus, as stated, it was pretty toothless. In particular, who would present a contrary view on controversial issues was always up to the station and would be up to Faux News if the rule was reinstated and appleid to them. Do you remember the late Alan Colmes? He was the liberal "voice" on Faux News for years. I don't think folks thought he was particularly effective. Heck, there are folks who think many of the MSNBC commentators aren't effective, but Faux News could hire one of them and make them the counterpoint voice to satisfy their "obligation" to present opposing views on controversial issues.

[mzmolly]

51. It was overturned prior to cable being available.

I see how far we've devolved without such a standard in place, regardless.

[onenote]

60. i've been working in the cable industry since 1981. The FD was struck down in 1987.

So, to put it simply, you're wrong.

As mentioned in one of my other posts, I've worked on first amendment cases involving cable content since the early 1980s -- cases decided years before the FD was repealed. Moreover, Congress enacted the Cable Act in 1984 wherein it expressly barred regulation of cable content other than obscene or indecent content.

[mzmolly]

63. I should have said widely available.

Fox (launched almost a decade after the FD was struck down) is both obscene and indecent.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/07/31/how-the-repeal-of-the-fairness-doctrine-gave-us-donald-trump/ < Even Nader was right about some things.

“The fairness doctrine is not only constitutionally permissible, it is constitutionally required,” Mr. Nader said. Its repeal, he added, means that broadcasters “can ignore crucial issues or present only one side” of debates, and that news judgment will increasingly reflect a business orientation. Mr. Nader said such issues as women’s rights, the health effects of smoking, and the safety of nuclear power plants would have come to far less public prominence had the fairness doctrine not been in effect.

Nader’s words were prophetic, as just under a year later, on August 1, 1988, Rush Limbaugh’s Sacramento, California-based radio program was syndicated nationwide…and talk-radio stations across the country soon began to run right-wing agitprop from dawn to dusk, flooding the public airwaves with shameless demonization of Democrats and progressives–and helping to create the media/political culture that allowed a candidate as vulgar as Donald Trump to seize control of the White House last November.

It is fascinating to see DU'ers defend the right for Fox to help overthrow democracy, while championing freedom in the process, however.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

74. Nobody here is defending Fox,

we're defending the 1st Amendment, so, please, don't be claiming something that's not true.

[mzmolly]

75. I'm not suggesting anyone here supports fox.

But asserting that we have to allow them unregulated access to American homes, regardless of their irresponsible, lie filled agenda is nonsense.

I agree with the OP that something must be done. The FCC is not the avenue, the FTC is not the avenue - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't create one. That said, we may be too far gone given we have insurrectionists in power as a result of not acting previously.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

76. ....

But asserting that we have to allow them unregulated access to American homes, regardless of their irresponsible, lie filled agenda is nonsense.

Currently under the 1A, yes, we do, that could change under a Been A Dick Donald admin, or any MAGA admin, which horrifies me to no end, that would give practically unfettered power to the repig FCC to determine what's allowed and what's not.
I would prefer that the 1A remains as it is over what could potentially happen with a MAGAt regime.

[mzmolly]

78. No we don't.

We wouldn't be on the precipice of a MAGA regime if we weren't watching half of the country being brainwashed under the guise of the 1A. The first amendment did not suffer under the fairness doctrine. Why not support something similar as it pertains to cable tv?

Trump has said aloud he wants to overturn the constitution. We actually have people willing to vote for him, regardless. Why? For the reasons we're discussing.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

81. Cable is privately owned and operated, therefore the govt cannot regulate what can and cannot

be broadcast.

Amendment I

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.

[mzmolly]

87. I've read it, thanks. That said, there is some regulation

at present. And there are limitations.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment/Permissible-restrictions-on-expression

... a few narrow categories of speech are not protected from government restrictions. The main such categories are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats.

We're also funding internet access as tax payers, https://www.ntia.gov/category/broadband-infrastructure-program#:~:text=The%20Broadband%20Infrastructure%20Program%20is,service%2C%20especially%20to%20rural%20areas. Most cable providers are using the internet to sell access. We have a right and responsibility to govern as it relates.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

88. Fair enough

and thank you for a civil conversation, it's refreshing, especially here on DU lately.

[mzmolly]

89. Thank you

as well.

[onenote]

98. I hope you're not suggesting that the internet should be subject to a fairness doctrine or content regulation.

DU would suffer greatly under such a requirement.

[mzmolly]

99. No. I'm suggesting that use of the internet for broadcasting

cable television could be an avenue to regulate, appropriately.

[onenote]

116. Cable operators sell internet access. But most of their subscribers get broadcast stations via cable, not internet.

And I'm still at a loss as to how selling internet access bootstraps into regulating the content of cable networks that are not broadcast and why it wouldn't also bootstrap in to regulating the content of internet sites, such as DU, that aren't broadcast.

[mzmolly]

117. Cable is accessed via the internet.

Most homes have a wireless connection.

I'm sure our regulators could provide a distinction between DU and cable entertainment, masquerading as news should this be explored at some point.

[onenote]

118. I've worked in the cable industry for 40 years. You are mistaken about the technology.

[mzmolly]

120. You should notify

cable tv providers.

https://www.directv.com/insider/what-is-tv-streaming-and-how-does-it-work/#:~:text=Live%20TV%20streaming%20means%20you,YouTube%20TV%20or%20Hulu%20Live.

I have to log in through my internet provider to watch cable and stream television shows. Even when I had a fiber connection, I had to access programing through an internet connection.

Perhaps we're debating semantics and the definition of 'cable' television.

[onenote]

123. Cable television.

We could argue semantics. There is a statutory definition of cable service. DirecTV isn't cable service. Streaming service isn't cable service. Internet access service isn't cable. Indeed, there would be no fight over the FCC's authority to adopt net neutrality regulations if the fact internet access service was offered by, among others, cable television providers, made internet access service "cable service." No, the fight is over whether internet access is subject to FCC regulation turns on whether internet access is a "telecommunications service" or an "information service".

Leaving that aside, the reason that cable systems have to get local franchises, but DBS does not, is that cable systems reach consumers with wires -- either coaxial cable or fiber optic cable -- laid in the public rights of way. A portion of the capacity of those wires is used to deliver cable service, primarily video. A portion is used for voice and a portion is used to provide internet. It reaches the home through a wire. Once in the home, the cable service portion typically is delivered via a coaxial cable that runs from a navigation device -- historically referred to as a cable box or cable converter -- to the back of the set. Separate, streaming services, such as netflix, disney+, MAX, YouTubeTV, get to the set via a wire from the cable company that delivers internet access to a modem. The connection between the modem and the tv set can be a wired connection, although more often it goes from the modem to a wireless router that delivers the streaming service to a "smart TV" that can receive a wireless signal. But the streaming services are not cable service and aren't regulated. To be sure, there are some cable systems that are converting from the traditional coaxial cable technology to an IP protocol technology, although those services don't use the Internet, they use a portion of the capacity of the cable to deliver an internet protocol signal to a modem, separate from the portion used for access to the world wide web.

Bottom line: If you want the content of video services like Fox News that are delivered by cable operators via coaxial cable to be regulated because cable also delivers streaming services via the internet then you should also be fine with the content of those streaming service, and of all other internet-delivered services, to be regulated.

[mzmolly]

124. I'm fine with defining cable television

prior to regulating regardless of how services are transmitted. We're capable of that.

[onenote]

97. There are those who would argue that the first amendment did suffer under the FD

Many stations shied away from covering any controversial topics to avoid having to worry about offering a "competing view" -- particularly since there might be a multitude of competing views. Chilling speech is one way that the FD arguably impeded the free exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of the first amendment. I don't recall anyone suggesting that the wall street journal should have been subject to a fairness doctrine like rule -- if someone wanted a different perspective they could read a different newspaper. And if people wanted a different perspective from Fox News, they could watch another cable channel.

[mzmolly]

100. Yes, The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute made

similar arguments. I happen to agree with the counter perspective.

[onenote]

96. depends on how you define widely available

By 1987, there were well over 42 million cable subscribers in the US, representing around half of all television households. Most areas of the country had access to cable, even though penetration levels varied.

And while the repeal of the FD often is cited as the reason Fox News came into being, a more significant reason was the enactment of the 1992 Cable Act, which gave broadcasters "retransmission consent" rights and promoted the growth of direct broadcast satellite as competition to cable. Retransmission consent allowed broadcasters to demand compensation from cable and satellite companies that wanted to include a station in its line-up. That compensation could be cash or, as it turned out, could be carriage of another programming channel created by the broadcaster. Fox created Fox News. Cable operators, fearful of losing customers to satellite, capitulated. Another significant factor was the merger of Turner and Time Warner in 1996. Time Warner was one of the larger cable companies and dominated in the top media market, New York. For reasons relating to antitrust concerns, it became important for Time Warner to add another news channel to its systems to offset CNN's dominance. And, of course, adding Fox was a way to provide conservative balance to what was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as CNN's less conservative point of view -- in other words, to provide balance. The world in which folks only had 3 or four tv channels was transformed and balance was defined by the entire line-up, not by the content of a particular channel

[mzmolly]

101. Less than half of American households had access to cable in 1987.

Also, Fox did not exist when the FD was overturned, as you know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Fox_News

Yet we see the consequences of deregulation in their dangerous, white nationalistic, propaganda which some feel should remain unchecked.

[onenote]

115. No. Approximately one-half had cable. More than half had access to cable.

Not everyone with access chose to subscribe. Same is true today. In fact, the number actually subscribing has been declining.

[mzmolly]

121. By access I mean the ability to view

cable television in their homes, for whatever reason that was. Personal choice or not.

It's good the numbers are declining.

[Jose Garcia]

126. The Fairness Doctrine never applied to Cable TV

[Elessar Zappa]

39. No, thanks.

For one, the FCC only regulates the airwaves. Two, we have the first amendment and I think it’s a good thing it exists.

[SocialDemocrat61]

42. The FCC only regulates broadcast stations

They have no oversight of cable networks.

[gab13by13]

53. Google Fox v Monsanto

Fox is allowed to fire reporters who refuse to lie on TV.

[onenote]

61. My guess is that Fox v Monsanto is not the case you are thinking about

I suggest you google "Fox v Monsanto" and see what case comes up. Its a case by someone named Susan Fox against Monsanto and has nothing to do with Fox News.

What I imagine you are thinking about is the "whistleblower" case brought by Jane Akre and her husband against WTVT, the Fox-owned broadcast station in Tampa, FL. The suit, which was brought in state court, alleged that the station's decision not to renew her and husband's contract with the station when it expired was retaliation for resisting the station's efforts to "distort or suppress" a story they were working on about Monsanto's use of recombinant bovine growth hormone and refusing to broadcast what they alleged were inaccurate and dishonest versions of the story. The jury ruled against them on all claims except for Akre's claim under Florida's whistleblower law. On appeal, the state appellate court reversed, finding that the state whistleblower law applied where the claim related to an alleged violation of "law, rule, or regulation." Akre's claim related to an alleged violation of the FCC's "news falsification" policy and the state appellate court held that the news falsification policy, which is not codified in statute or the FCC's rules, did not constitute a "law, rule or regulation" under the Florida statute. Akre subsequently unsuccessfully sought to have the FCC revoke WTVT's license, with the Commission finding that conflict between the station and Akre was an "editorial dispute ... rather than a deliberate effort by [WTVT] to distort news." This unsurprising result is consistent with the FCC's longstanding policy of not second-guessing editorial decisions in deference to the first amendment.

So that's the case I think you were referencing. Didn't involve Fox News. Turned on a question of state law. Didn't come to any conclusions as to the truth or falsity of the reports that WTVT sought to "suppress".

[gab13by13]

77. Yes, thank you,

There is much left out of your fine analysis. Monsanto pressured the local Fox affiliate to change the story the husband and wife had written. Fox changed the story to put Monsanto in a better light. The husband and wife refused to air the altered story and were fired.

It seems pretty obvious to me, maybe not to the court, that the 2 reporters were fired because they wouldn't lie on TV.

[spanone]

56. FCC doesn't regulate cable television.

I agree you should not be allowed to present LIES as NEWS.

[ForgedCrank]

62. Advocating for

government control over the press?
Na, that would never backfire. No way anyone would ever abuse such a power.

[TexasDem69]

94. I don't want the government telling news organizations

What they can or cannot report. I assume the Founding Fathers agree since we have the 1st Amendment. And the 1st Amendment is the reason the British model of censorship doesn’t work here—it’s unconstitutional

[Torchlight]

66. And we shall know the talking heads and sea-lions by their fruit

I think it goes on because so many damned people want news much as they want religion or politics: a salad bar of easily digestible bits of trivial gossip, lacking context, we can then repeat at dinner parties to better maintain a respectable level of obligatory but annoying engagement in things.

Somewhere along the line, the different hosts from the different channels became commercially-branded celebrities in their own right, and from an outsider view, the amount of baited and breathless gossip about the hosts themselves often seems to be afforded greater discussion than the issue at hand. The objective, even boring messengers made themselves into the colorful, dramatic message. It's a good sell for commercial buys, I guess.

[Captain Zero]

73. 2025 Plan puts the FCC directly under TSF

If he is elected.

In which case all news that doesn't look like Fox 'News' soon will.

How 'bout them apples?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

79. Yes, and that scares the hell out of me. nt

[mzmolly]

102. Well according to many here, the FCC has no authority

to regulate cable tv so I guess we're in the clear.

[tritsofme]

103. They could certainly seek to promulgate the sort of speech restrictionist policies you seem to prefer.

They just will have different targets.

[mzmolly]

105. Well then, let the FCC act now - BEFORE the election.

That way, we may still have a democracy come Jan 2025.

[tritsofme]

106. The courts would knock down them down in either case.

Because what you and Trump want to do isn’t constitutional.

[mzmolly]

107. Sounds like you're saying we can't regulate.

Much like those who support unfettered access to guns, suggest.

[tritsofme]

108. That's exactly right. The First Amendment protects us from those with the authoritarian urge to impose government

censorship.

[mzmolly]

110. You confuse censorship with adequate

regulation.

[tritsofme]

111. I'm not confusing anything at all, it is very transparent.

[mzmolly]

112. It is indeed.

eom

[DFW]

104. As I recall, this was already fought out in a court case many years ago.

I don't know if it was a claim of violation of the Truth in Advertising Act (calling themselves "News" or whatever), but as I remember it, they were brought to court (before a Republicans judge, of course) for knowingly lying and calling it news.

The judge said that lying and calling it news was protected under the First Amendment (free speech, doncha know), and they could say whatever they wanted to.

I think it was in Ohio, but this goes back something like 20 years, and I probably have some of the details mixed up.

[onenote]

130. A myth that refuses to die.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/sep/10/facebook-posts/facebook-post-claims-fox-admits-they-lie-have-righ/

see also: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-switch/

If Fox News has been held to the right to lie, why did they settle a libel case brought by Dominion for $737 million?

It's possible you are thinking about the more recent case ( 2020 ) out of the southern district of new york in which Fox News was sued by Karen MacDougal alleging Tucker Carlson defamed her by accusing her of extorting now-President Donald J. Trump out of approximately $150,000 in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair between McDougal and Trump. The suit was dismissed on two grounds: that the statements at issue were rhetorical hyperbole not factual assertions and thus could not be defamatory under a long line of precedent and that the plaintiff had failed to establish "actual malice", a prerequisite for a defamation case against a public figure. The case was focused on Carlson's program, which is not a news program but is an opinion commentary program. The judge did not at any point say that lying and calling it news was protected by the first amendment.

[Pluvious]

113. Related video... ( "News Does Not Have to Be True" ) 4 minutes

[Pluvious]

114. One friend's reaction...

"What annoys me more is how the company provided free TVs (and maybe some money for cable bills when that was fairly new) to businesses that would agree to set the TVs to FOX News."

Explains a lot...

[sakabatou]

119. Didn't Murdoch label Fixed News as "entertainment" instead of "news"

as a way to skirt around the law?

[onenote]

125. No

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

122. they are careful how they phrase lie, talk radio too: "some are saying that Biden has a tail".

"I'm just repeating what I heard...." and they don't go back and correct the hearsay

[Jose Garcia]

127. If you give the government a new power, someday

Trump or someone like Trump will wield that power. Who thinks that is a good idea?

[sop]

128. "The First Amendment protects the right to make false statements in many circumstances,

including when the speaker is a news organization. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held in favor of strengthening and protecting freedom of the press. The scales tipping this way dates back to 1964, when the Supreme Court first laid the groundwork for a myriad of historic decisions protecting freedom of the press under the First Amendment."

"In New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark defamation action against a newspaper, the Court concluded that 'even half-truths' and 'misinformation,' are protected speech. Protected speech cannot be restricted nor punished. The only relevant exception to the Court’s holding and would render a news speech 'unprotected' is proof of 'deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.'"

"Since then, countless decisions followed suit, mirroring the rationale set out by the Supreme Court, as well as expanding upon the already powerful protections of speech. Likewise, in general, courts have routinely adhered to the general expectation that the news will not be liable."

Not too long ago Fox News was sued for alleged “Campaign of Deception” & "Disseminating of Disinformation to Deny & Downplay the Danger of Coronavirus." This Law Review article lays out all the issues in this suit, it's an interesting and informative read:

https://lawreview.syr.edu/fake-news-v-the-first-amendment-fox-news-gets-sued-for-alleged-campaign-of-deception-disseminating-of-disinformation-to-deny-downplay-the-danger-of-coronavirus/