What Foxnews does should be illegal. Why isn't it?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

They commit journalistic malpractice daily and willfully mislead millions. It is so unfair. After watching coverage under Bush and Obama it is clear they don't have one brand of coverage they apply evenly.

They were worshipful sycophants at the feet of embiciles during Bush, and now they are derisive, hateful, and lying about Obama and his staff.

It just feels like our country will never get well until something like the fairness doctrine is applied. And they should make these fuckers LEAD every show with correction from their previous show.

[Skinner]

1. First Amendment.

And, no, what they do should not be illegal.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. Then our country is lost

We will continue to see corporations use first amendment to blast their lies far louder than the truth can shout.

The corporate takeover of America is nearly complete. Instead of Foxnews dying a natural death, more mainstream media is emulating them. This is unhealthy. It is anti-democratic which is predicated on informed consent.

[treestar]

64. The only solution to bad speech is more speech

Now we have weapons to use to undermine Faux Snooze.

Tell people they aren't getting true information - point them to other sources.

Talk about how dumb Fox is and how wrong and keep it up.

[DireStrike]

159. "Speech" costs money. The rich have more.

It seems there is no message that can't be destroyed with enough noise. There may be no peaceful way out of this.

[treestar]

186. It's a lot better now than it was

Everyone can talk online. Before we just listened to the news and really had no way of talking to each other about it, except in person.

[RKP5637]

151. I agree with what you say, I've often felt similar, but once the first amendment is

eroded what would be applied against Fox could also be applied inversely against us. It's a two way street and what is judged/legally right or wrong is sadly often a question of who is running the regime. I know, it seems totally fucked up! I think the Fairness Doctrine should be brought back to help stop the Fox crap.

[dennis4868]

19. So it should be legal

to say you are presenting news and then lie about what the "news" is. Companies are not legally allowed to lie in advertising why is it that Fox is allowed to?

[GreenStormCloud]

92. Who determines what "truth" is?

Obviously your answer is the gov't. I don't like that answer. We get enough lies from the gov't as it is.

[Ranchemp.]

96. And, what's to prevent a repub. admin. from doing the same thing

to what they would perceive as a liberal news org.?

Like you, I don't trust the govt to monitor the news org for content.

[MythosMaster]

111. No we get the lies from politicians.

most Government agencies* cannot lie.














*Government agencies excluded form this list include, CIA, FBI, NSA, TSA.... and any that are part of the military industrial complex.

[GreenStormCloud]

114. IOW, excluded gov't agencies include ALL of them. N/T

[MythosMaster]

150. Paranoid much?

There are a lot of agencies that "don't lie to us". You just don't hear from them.

[Jackpine Radical]

118. Absolutely.

Much as I deplore the lying bastards on the right, and much as I have made email hay out of Fox News and their infamous lawsuit granting them unequivocal clearance to lie, I see any attempt to restrict speech as far worse in its potential. Do you want someone like Darryl Issa legislating the truth?

[LittleBlue]

53. This

/thread

[Puzzledtraveller]

60. hear, hear

[Packerowner740]

85. This about covers it.

Thanks for weighing in.

[ZombieHorde]

132. I completely agree.

I strongly dislike what FOXNews does, but outlawing it would be creepy, in my opinion.

[meanit]

138. Maybe not what they do,

but the way they do it should be regulated.

It's not the free speech that's the problem, it's the forum that FOX presents that free speech in. There is very little fairness at FOX. Opinions opposite to their own are presented by people who are basically shouted down by the hosts and like minded guests. Some opposing rebuttals are outright cut off if they don't like them. That is not debate for the public good. That is one-sided propaganda.

FOX and their ilk scream free speech to get away with what they do, but there is no real free speech at FOX. Only what they want you to hear.
The forum they provide is tainted and completely slanted to their own political agenda, and the lines between the real news and their opinions are completely blurred, on purpose.

FOX using the word "news" to describe what they present is a total fraud and they should not be allowed to use it.

[Rex]

196. True, it does trump poor taste and class.

Really, I've complained for years now that they should at least be forced to re-brand themselves as 'infotainment' and not 'news'. Maybe a disclaimer at the beginning of every hour...CNN could use one too and it looks like CBS wants one as well.

[Orsino]

204. The Zeroth Amendment:

Money talks.

And yes, media conglomeration on such a scale, and so utterly without consequnces for lies, should be illegal.

[Shrike47]

2. You know you're going to get '1st Amendment' as a response, don't you?

The solution is to buy your own news network.

[treestar]

70. Or direct people to the internet

There has never been more sources for news. Some people will wake up if directed to other places, so they at least can see the spin for what it is.

[MissMillie]

3. It certainly should be illegal to label it "news" (n/t)

.

[riqster]

4. This was litigated in the early Oughts.

There is no law requiring truth in the news.

[zbdent]

58. Actually, they won the court case

which gave FOX blanket protection to LIE ...

[reddread]

161. not sure it is exactly the way people are representing things

From FoxBGHSuit.com:
Fox appealed and prevailed February 14, 2003 when an appeals court issued a ruling reversing the jury, accepting a defense argument that had been rejected by three other judges on at least six separate occasions…
The whistle-blowing journalists, twice refused Fox offers of big-money deals to keep quiet about what they knew, filed their landmark lawsuit April 2, 1998 and survived three Fox efforts to have their case summarily dismissed. It is the first time journalists have used a whistleblower law to seek a legal remedy for being fired by for refusing to distort the news. Steve and Jane are now considering an appeal to the Florida state Supreme Court.


the problem isnt the 1st Amendment, the problem is the FCC, Fairness, public interest,
a lot of things.
it is being glossed over by defeatists.
the public deserves to expect better from their airwaves, no matter how deregulation and
parsing has been employed against those interests.
Demand better, and dont settle.
study the facts of how our stratified layers of corruption in courts rots our country.
Has the supreme court had any input on this whistleblower case?
obviously they had to keep pushing and do some pretty serious maneuvers to get their way.
it is not about free speech.
it is about the public interest.
it is about democracy.
anybody care enough to fight for it?
whats on cable tonight, anyway?

[meanit]

141. With television available in almost every home or public place,

the ramifications of having no law or regulation requiring truth in the news are staggering.

People who saw the possibility of this happening with the rise of TV in the 1950's came up with the Fairness Doctrine among other things to help to keep TV from being abused.
But all that stuff was repealed by Reagan.

And here we are today.

[riqster]

184. Yep. History is important-reminding us of how we got here.

Here's a short primer on those days: http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Ignoreland-lyrics-R-E-M/000542FA2D8CE77B48256894001F6DDB

And http://m.

&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DzuknsRV5kDI

[deathrind]

5. The negating...

Of the Fairness Doctrine is how they get away with. They are banned from doing what they do in Canada on public airwaves. I disagree with the First Amendment argument protecting their right to mislead. One cannot yell fire in a theater because of the potential injury cause by the ensuing panic. But honestly injury or death causes by either acute or chronic actions in the end is still injury or death.

[Jamaal510]

31. Thanks a lot, Ronald Reagan. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

95. FOX is cable, not public airwaves, therefore fairness doctrine doesn't apply.

People view FOX because they want to. You wish to deny people to watch what they want and demand that they watch only those outlets that agree with you. Dictatorships do that.

[deathrind]

106. That is what I said...

One can pay for misleading non factual news just like they can for adult rated material.

[meanit]

145. People view FOX because they think it is the news.

Many, many people still go by the idea that "they can't say it on the TV if it isn't true".

And FOX does their best to keep up that deception.

[CanisCrocinus]

6. Apparently it is illegal...

...in Canada:

http://www.skepticmoney.com/fox-news-banned-from-canada-law-forbids-lying-on-broadcast-news/

[BainsBane]

8. In Canada

Not the US

[Captain Stern]

15. Not quite. Fox News is available in Canada

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/foxcanada.asp

[Ranchemp.]

22. This ain't Canada.

Thank the lucky stars for that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. I think only Canadians should be thanking their lucky stars for that. n/t

[Scuba]

39. Yes, I'd sure hate to have Canada's problems.

Healthcare for all, sane gun laws, truth in news reporting, and only a fraction of their tax dollars wasted on military protection for international corporate interests. Thank your lucky stars we don't have that!

[Ranchemp.]

43. I agree that there are problems in our country,

but I stand by my post, this ain't Canada.

[Scuba]

46. Yes, but why be grateful for our problems?

[Ranchemp.]

52. I never said I was grateful for our problems,

quit putting words in my mouth.

[onenote]

123. A question: some might conclude you just "lied" about Fox News being illegal in Canada

Should your post be deemed a crime?

The answer to my question is the same as the answer to the OP: No. First Amendment.

[Lint Head]

7. Goebbels's legacy is alive and well at Fox News.

Per The First Amendment the Nazi reference is appropriate here.

[NCTraveler]

9. No, it shouldn't be illegal. nt.

[MicaelS]

11. No it should not be illegal.

Too bad Unrec is no longer around, I'd Unrec your post times a billion.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

13. I don't mean crackpots shouldn't be able to say whatever they want

But they shouldn't be accorded respect and privileges of the press. They shouldn't get press passes to WH. They shouldn't be able to call themselves "news".

[MicaelS]

37. I bet you would really like the idea of a "Journalist License".

No "official" government approved license, no reporting. A license you could use to throw people in prison if they didn't report like you wanted.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

45. Nope.

[meanit]

147. No license or prison.

But honesty and integrity would be nice.

Not to much to ask, is it?

[Dash87]

56. Who decides who is the crackpot? During the Bush years, all liberals were "crackpots."

Even worse, we were "unpatriotic freedom-haters." The government should never decide who gets a voice.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

63. People who demonstrably push lies repeatedly

Should be considered crackpots or at least someone ruled by agenda and not pursuit of truth.

I love Michael Moore to death. But he shouldn't be granted a press pass and probably wouldn't even ask for one.

[Ranchemp.]

68. And just who should determine that?

And what would prevent an incoming repub. admin. from doing the same thing to liberal news orgs.?

[Kingofalldems]

71. What liberal news orgs.?

[Ranchemp.]

75. There are plenty of them on the internet, along with blogs and websites,

which we know damn good and well the repukes would love to shut down if they could.

[Dash87]

81. During the Bush years, we were all liars. Bush's truth became the truth.

The problem is, this would allow for press stacking and cause groupthink. The press would stop challenging an administration out of a fear of being accused of lying, allowing for the government to take their voice away.

The concept of "lying" in a polarized nation like ours is too subjective. To each side, the other side are the liars, are agenda-driven, etc.

[meanit]

149. And we will all be crackpots again when a Republican gets in the WH

thanks partly to FOX news being allowed to do what they do.

[Shrike47]

12. I have toyed with idea of requiring them to announce every day that they sometimes lie,

But in reality, that would violate their right to free speech and ours too.

I am concerned that because there is so much untruth out there, people stop believing in truth or fact and decide everything is just a matter of opinion. Hence, there is no global warming.

The anti-science approach worries me.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

17. This is my problem with it, exactly. Overwhelm people with falsehoods

And it becomes very difficult for people to have accurate information for public good and for making political decisions.

[Ranchemp.]

33. Reasonable people are smart enough to know what's true and what's bullshit,

you don't give enough credit to the american people.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

44. Factually, many Americans AREN'T smart enough

Empirically, Foxnews creates a misinformed percentage of Americans. And they are the "legitimizing" echo chamber that allows demonstrably false stories to even bleed over to coverage in mainstream media.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. The FoxNews ratings are so low, the percentage who watches is under 1%.

To use the term 'American people' in relation to the FoxNews audience is like using the term 'huge crowd' to describe a full elevator.

[GreenStormCloud]

98. Actually, FOX has the highest cable news ratings.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/11/12/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-november-11-2013/215161/

FOX ratings leads in all categories.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

115. But cable is far below Network broadcast news viewership.

[GreenStormCloud]

137. Link? N/T

[ieoeja]

144. Link

....NBC.... ....ABC.... ....CBS.... ....FNC*....
9,252,000 8,060,000 7,365,000 2,650,000

Source: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/category/evening-news-ratings


* I got the FNC ranking from another post lower down. And that was for a Talk show, not a News hour. Apparently, none of the Cable News shows rank very high even among the shows on their own stations. Which means the FNC number should actually be much, much lower. But we can go with the Talk show if you prefer since they are still crushed by evening news broadcasts.

[GreenStormCloud]

148. Thank You. I am better informed now. N/T

[Ranchemp.]

62. So, you would outlaw Faux Snooze because you think they falsly report the news,

ok, lets take this further, a law gets passed that allows the govt to shutdown a news org. that they deem unfit for broadcast, Faux gets shut down, now, a repub. gets elected president, (shudder) and they use the same law to shut down news org. that they deem too liberal to broadcast.
Sure you want to go down that road?

I don't and I'll wager that 99.9% of Americans don't either.

[noiretextatique]

102. LOL

there a lot of ill-informed people in america. just look a the tea party imbeciles, valiantly fighting for the 1%, against their own best interests.

[Ranchemp.]

105. Notice I said reasonable, I don't consider the teabaggers reasonable.

[noiretextatique]

157. Fair enough...and agreed. Nt

[dennis4868]

26. They sometimes lie? Sometimes?

Plus, they have a license to provide news...facts! They don't do that. That should be illegal. Companies are not legally permitted to lie in advertising. Fox News should not be able to do what they do. It is illegal.

[Laelth]

14. Our 1st Amendment is both a blessing and a curse.

I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and I meant it. As such, I support the 1st Amendment and the right to lie, as Fox News so regularly does, but there's no denying that our unique devotion to free speech carries a high cost. That cost is that we have to tolerate Faux News.



-Laelth

[bowens43]

16. So you want to live in a country where news is regulated by the government? No thanks.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

21. The news is regulated by the government

[Ranchemp.]

47. The news is regulated by the Govt?

Since when?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

49. There are images and video and language even "the news" is

Forbidden from broadcasting.

[Ranchemp.]

54. Words and images, yes,

but content of story, no.

[Puzzledtraveller]

65. Boggles the mind doesn't it?

Especially to see it suggested here on DU. Well, of course it must be all good if your opinions and beliefs are represented in majority and government approved. They would be singing the blues were it that the tables were turned.

[Ranchemp.]

72. This is the kind of shit I would expect out of authoritarian regimes, like the now defunct

Soviet Union, not on a progressive website.

[Ranchemp.]

18. It's called the 1st Amendment,

you know, that pesky right that allows you to speak freely without fear of govt. retribution.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

20. The first amendment is not an unlimited right

[dennis4868]

27. No it is not...

There are plenty of limits of the freedom of speech.

[Ranchemp.]

29. True, but there are very few limitations on free speech,

as it should be.
My suggestion to you is, to quote the late great George Carlin,

"There are 2 knobs on the TV, one to turn it off, and one to change the channel."
Nobody's forcing you to watch Faux Snooze, if you do, it's by choice.

Try it, it does wonders for the blood pressure

[Pretzel_Warrior]

32. This isn't about me. I rarely watch it. This is about the public good

And the publis square. Their lies and hate should not be allowed to masquerade as news.

[Ranchemp.]

41. As I said, if you don't like it, and I don't mean you specifically,

then don't watch it, but those that do have just as much right to watch Faux Snooze as Faux Snooze has to air it's side of the news, however wrong headed it may be.

[truedelphi]

129. Exactly. n/t

[Decaffeinated]

117. Fascism... But for the public good...

Isn't that always the excuse?

Don't worry. We know what's best for you...

Makes me sick.

[treestar]

66. on politics it is

we simply have to continue to speak and say that Fox is editorializing, misleading and not news.

[Agnosticsherbet]

23. Journalistc malpractice is not a limiting clasue on the First Amendment.

In our Modern Corporatist Consumer based economy, they provide a service that people pay money for.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

24. then kill MSNBC too for the other side of the coin? n/t

[dennis4868]

28. Some shows on MSNBC

have a liberal agenda but they don't lie. Big difference than what FOX News does.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

30. Sure. If they can be shown to be misleading Americans with phony facts

And promoting false info that is coordinated with the Republican Party.

[Puglover]

84. The difference is I don't hear Maddow lie.

She freely admits she is left leaning. She doesn't cloak her views as "news".

[Pretzel_Warrior]

89. Exactly! Does MSNBC even do "news breaks" with

Brett Baer types? I don't watch TV at all and can't remember.

And does the word "news" show up in the cable network's name? No it does not.

[ErikJ]

25. Canada wouldnt allow Fox News in- bald-face lying is illegal there

for their news outlets. Like it should be.

[Jamaal510]

38. They don't know how lucky they are... eom

[Dr. Strange]

51. Snopes says...

FALSE.

[ErikJ]

67. see post #42

[Dr. Strange]

88. And this is precisely why this kind of law would be bad.

According to your link, Kennedy claimed (in 2011):

The provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom.

But the CRTC approved Fox News for Canada in 2004:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/crtc-approves-fox-news-for-canada-1.492643

So, should Kennedy be arrested?

[ErikJ]

116. That was the American Fox News.

Canada will not allow a Canadian version of Fox News.
--------------------------
.....However, in its decision, the CRTC said Fox News offers little Canadian coverage and is not "partially or totally competitive with any Canadian pay or specialty service." It added that the channel would "significantly boost digital penetration in Canada" and increase the availability of digital services in the country.

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. if such laws were passed - they would be far more likely to be used against progressives than

against reactionaries. Since we can never be certain what political tendency may dominate at any given moment in history - the only policy to insure our freedom of speech is protected is to insure everyone's freedom of speech is protected. Freedom of speech is created not for the purpose of protecting speech that no one has a problem with. It not created for the purpose of protected speech that everyone agrees is true. It is created precisely for the purpose of protecting speech that angers people. It is created precisely for the purpose of protecting speech that many people will denounce as lies. Even Stalin supported free speech - for those who agreed with him.

[Puzzledtraveller]

69. Well said.

[Sheepshank]

36. Courts gave them permission to lie, since it was in the name of entertainment.

and that is the biggest trragedy of all....that people *beleive* they are news, and not entertainment.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/25/797064/-Fox-News-admits-they-lie-and-distort-the-news-so-why-so-pissy

http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public

[HijackedLabel]

40. Because, freedom.

The worst excuse ever invented.

[ErikJ]

42. Regulators Reject Proposal That Would Bring Fox-Style News to Canada

As America's middle class battles for its survival on the Wisconsin barricades -- against various Koch Oil surrogates and the corporate toadies at Fox News -- fans of enlightenment, democracy and justice can take comfort from a significant victory north of Wisconsin border. Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canada regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.

Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the U.S. airwaves. When Stephen Harper moved to abolish anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio. Harper's proposal was timed to facilitate the launch of a new right wing network, "Sun TV News" which Canadians call "Fox News North."

Harper, often referred to as "George W. Bush's Mini Me," is known for having mounted a Bush like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general. He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity.

Harper's attempts to make lying legal on Canadian television is a stark admission that right wing political ideology can only dominate national debate through dishonest propaganda. Since corporate profit-taking is not an attractive vessel for populism, a political party or broadcast network that makes itself the tool of corporate and financial elites must lie to make its agenda popular with the public. In the Unites States, Fox News and talk radio, the sock puppets of billionaires and corporate robber barons have become the masters of propaganda and distortion on the public airwaves. Fox News's notoriously biased and dishonest coverage of the Wisconsin's protests is a prime example of the brand of news coverage Canada has smartly avoided.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Of course they are protected by the first amendment as they should be. They are not protected

from the realities of competitive media markets however. FoxNews is not widely watched. It's just not. They are a tiny, aged, niche audience that is never even 1% of the population. They are not even worth the energy to think about them. Clearly you have been watching and others here watch, so out of the 200k viewers they have during the day how many of them are shouting at the screen like you are? Same things all go for Morning Joe, no one watches him, if I had to go on tv with audiences that small I'd be mortified. Mortified.
So gain some perspective on FoxNews. I"m soooo tired of the excessive attention to them from people on our side of things. Their actual viewership does not warrant it.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

59. I do agree with you

That their viewership is small compared to those watching CBS evening news, etc. I guess I am repulsed that they can use the word "news" to describe what they do.

I don't currently have TV. When I see anything re: FoxNews it is usually here or via MediaMatters or Coffee Party on my FB feed.

[Douglas Carpenter]

73. " Fox News continues to be the hands-down ratings winner across the board in cable news."

As previously stated, Fox News continues to be the hands-down ratings winner across the board in cable news. The network often posts better ratings than CNN and MSNBC combined and was the 7th most-watched cable channel overall during primetime in Q3. Its competitors didn’t even break the top 30, with MSNBC at #31 and CNN at #34.

Bill O’Reilly remained the reigning champ of the network, with his 8pm hour dominating the rest of Fox’s primetime lineup. In total viewers, the top three shows on Fox last quarter were The O’Reilly Factor (2.540M); The Five (1.871M); and Special Report w/ Bret Baier (1.788M).

As for the 25-54 demo, Sean Hannity’s 9pm show broke into the top three. The O’Reilly Factor was still #1 (402K), Hannity was #2 (316K) and The Five was #3 (302K) in that category.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/q3-2013-cable-news-ratings-fox-1-overall-msnbc-2-in-primetime-cnn-2-in-total-day/

[ieoeja]

143. "Cable" is not "Broadcast"

And Broadcast news far outranks Cable news. The CBS, NBC, and ABC evening news shows crush FNC, CNN and MSNBC.

Where to begin? None of the top "shows" you list were news segments. All of them were talk shows.

The least or your top three talk shows had 1,788,000 viewers. Which means the top news hour of any Cable news stations is smaller than that. But if you want to include talk shows on news stations, then we can go with your 2,650,000 viewership as the top ranked Cable news show. So we have:

....NBC.... ....ABC.... ....CBS.... ....FNC....
9,252,000 8,060,000 7,365,000 2,650,000

[Douglas Carpenter]

189. well that does shed a less scary light on the whole thing. I suppose what I find disturbing is the

number of places even well outside continental United States where I have seen Fox News blasting away -- like bars, airport lounges, hair salons and even hospital waiting rooms. And I doubt that the kind of person who regularly watches Fox News differentiates between opinion shows and news shows.

[Dash87]

50. I don't agree. Fox News consists of mostly opinions. Opinions should never be illegal.

I don't think even purposefully misleading should be illegal. It's up to the rest of the gutless media to call them out, which they never do.

[meanit]

119. Then FOX news should not be labeled as "news"

it should be labeled as "opinion".

But they pass it off as news in order to deceive, which they have undeniably had great success at doing. Other networks are not going to call them on their bullshit; they are under no obligation to tell the truth anymore than FOX is. And FOX is making BIG money at what they do, along with promoting an agenda that will make them even MORE money.

Many, many people are still under the impression that "they can't say it on TV if it isn't true".

Little do they know....

[hunter]

57. Cable, Satellite, Broadcast television, and Network Radio are obsolete.

Those avenues of propaganda ought to be shut down and the bandwidth opened up for free, universal, common carrier, high speed internet access.

Anyone can drive on our public streets and highways, the same ought to be true of our radio spectrum and internet connections.

[GreenStormCloud]

112. Cable does not use any bandwidth.

You really, really, should know more about what you are talking about.

AM radio can't be used for high speed internet, due to the laws of physics.

[hunter]

121. Really now...

... I'm VERY well acquainted with "the laws of physics."

Me and Ma Nature are very close. I'm documented, even in a few ways Ma Nature couldn't care less about.

There's nothing "natural" about the way the radio spectrum or glass fiber are managed.

[oldhippie]

153. Pssst! (Yes, it does ....)

Cable uses bandwidth. Not "over the air" public radio frequencies bandwidth, but bandwidth on the cable, nonetheless. All electronic information transfer uses bandwidth of some type or other.

And AM radio could be used for high speed internet, but it isn't due to the laws of physics, it's that it would be impractical and uneconomic. It wouldn't be pretty.

[onenote]

170. It doesn't use public spectrum

Two entities can't both use the same spectrum simultaneously without causing interference. Cable is a closed system and the presence of one cable system doesn't preclude another system from serving the same area. And if using "bandwidth" is enough to regulate cable, then its enough to regulate the Internet.

Bad argument. Bad idea.

[oldhippie]

175. Spectrum and bandwidth are two different things ......

Bandwidth is used whenever information is transferred. Spectrum is different. You are thinking of the "public airwaves" RF spectrum. There are others.

And, actually, two entities can both use the same spectrum at the same time without causing harmful interference (there is interference, but it can be made statistically insignificant.) The GPS transmissions are built on this principle. All the satellites broadcast on the same frequencies (spectrum) but use a different PRN (pseudo random noise) spreading sequence to mitigate the mutual interference, thus improving the overall system spectrum efficiency.

I spent 43 years as a telecommunications engineer, including working on the GPS spectral design. Believe me, the internet uses bandwidth. Lots of it. And if the govt wants to regulate it, it will find a way.

[Kelvin Mace]

61. Lying is not a crime,

only lying about blow jobs is.

[cali]

74. journalistic malpractice? define please

Yes, it's unfair. No, it's not illegal.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

76. Journalistic malpractice? To lie about facts repeatedly to push agenda

Which others such as Jon Stewart, Media Matters, and others have done a good job of cataloging in the past.

[cali]

83. how is that illegal?

you actually think that should be criminal.

it figures that YOU have nothing but contempt for the first amendment.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

86. To say I am offended as a human by what Foxnews does

And that I wish they weren't legally able to call themselves a news source is not "contempt for the first amendment". Why are you always so hateful toward me and other DU'ers you disagree with on some issues?

[Ranchemp.]

91. It is contempt for the 1A

You would like a law to silence what you deem to be unfit for broadcast, that's wholly against what the 1A stands for.

This is exactly what the defunct Soviet Union did, they didn't allow any opposing views on their brand of "news".

[cali]

139. Holy shit. Coming from you, that's just..... remarkable.

YOU make stuff up out of whole cloth and stuff those words in my mouth- words that I never said.

Now that is HATEFUL. And you do it over and over and over.

Why are YOU so hateful and deceitful???

[Pretzel_Warrior]

140. Done with you.

[kydo]

77. My only issue with faux noise is that they are labeled news when in fact they are just opinion

Sprinkled with right slanted versions of the news. In the real world we call that Entertainment. In the warped mind of the bat shit crazy right it is called news.

It's like that limpballs guy on the radio. That fat cyborg is only programed to spew the most bat shit crazy gibberish money can buy. But sadly our right to free speech protects that stuff. But on the radio limpballs is labeled talk radio or entrainment and other then in his circle of loons nobody takes him or his clones seriously.

I would be totally keen on the idea of reinstating a Fair Doctrine and making faux noise have to re-name themselves or comply with real world news regulations.

We can hate the fake news channel all we want but they do have a right to exist so long as our rules are written the way they currently are.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

79. Thanks. That's really what I was getting at.

I am all for the nutty street preacher spewing his hellfire talk, KKK marching and getting protested against, and right wing radio loons. I am NOT ok with it being called NEWS.

[cherokeeprogressive]

173. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would NOT affect FNC in the slightest way.

Since FNC doesn't broadcast over public airwaves, they are not subject to the Fairness Doctrine and can call their network whatever they want. It's been pointed out countless times here at DU every time the subject of the Fairness Doctrine comes up.

[liberal N proud]

78. You can say what ever you want as long as you don't slander someone

They are real good at stretching that slander to the edge.

The answer is to educate people to the scam that the 1% are running with FOX and then destroy their view ship.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

80. Agree about needing to destroy them.

Unfortunately, I think there is a segment of the population who WANT to believe their lies.

[Ranchemp.]

133. "Unfortunately, I think there is a segment of the population who WANT to believe their lies"

Which is absolutely their right to do, but you seem to want to take away that right.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

134. Enjoying DU? Especially the gungeon?

[Ranchemp.]

136. Hmmm.

I think I have only 2-3 posts in the GCRKBA group, and, yes, I am enjoying the back and forth of DU.
Nice try painting me as a, whatever you were trying to paint me as.
How about sticking to the subject at hand.

[Puglover]

82. I live in Ecuador.

Our libel laws are very real and very strong. President Correa sued several RW papers for libel and won.

I don't feel like my freedom is being stepped on at all.

[ErikJ]

87. A lie can travel around the world before.................

truth can even put its shoes on. Good for Ecuador.

[Ranchemp.]

93. Maybe not yours, but what about your other citizens who liked what they wrote?

Wasn't their freedom stepped on?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

94. Not if what was said was libelous

[GreenStormCloud]

90. So you want the media to get gov't approval for anything they say.

Fairness doctrine only applies to broadcast. FOX is cable, therefore does would not fall under the fairness doctrine.

What you want has been tried in every dictatorship that has existed in modern times. Most famous example was Pravda. I don't want to live in a reborn USSR.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

97. You're missing the point. ALL lies whether Pravda, People's Daily, FoxNews

Should not be allowed. There are a million voices declaring their views freely in the US, and there are multitude of NEWS outlets that freely make their choices about what news to cover and how to cover it. What they don't do is lie. And when they promote a lie, they are hit with amazing controversy such as CBS 60 minutes.

Foxnews lies for a living. Everything they do is built on gaming our system including having staffers defend their lies on message boards and blogs. They are a cancer and should be removed.

[GreenStormCloud]

100. You truly do not understand the First Amendment.

You want the gov't to determine what the truth is and to outlaw those that the gov't claims are liars. That is what tyrants do.

[truedelphi]

128. + 10,000 n/t

[Dr. Strange]

103. Start with politicians.

ALL lies ... Should not be allowed.

If you really believe this, then start with politicians. No lies on the campaign trail or during office. Fines and prosecutions for "no new taxes" and "you can keep your health care plan" etc.

Then AND ONLY THEN should we talk about journalism.

[cherokeeprogressive]

174. ^^^THIS^^^

[Ranchemp.]

109. No, people who think like you are the problem.

You've failed to answer my question, what's to prevent a repub. admin applying the same standard to what they would deem a liberal news org.?

[Puzzledtraveller]

99. Authoritarian is as authoritarian does.

Why stop with Fox?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

101. Thanks for the kick

[beachbum bob]

104. a fairness doctrine would prevent most of the abuses we see

btw, there is no such thing as journalistic malfeasance....nothing prohibits propaganda. That bill of rights thingy

[Pretzel_Warrior]

108. I called it malpractice. As in not doing the job journalists are trained to do

I suspect we'll see FoxNews on steroids when Glenn Greenwald's anti-government propaganda machine gets going.

[beachbum bob]

142. research what newspapers

Printed 150 yes ago.....the problem isn't fox news channel but the poor saps that watch it

[BlueStreak]

127. Absolutely. We had none of these problems when the fairness doctrine was in place

That was very possibly the greatest single bit of damage done by Reagan, and it is rarely mentioned.

For those too young to remember that, it was prevailing practice that, because the airwaves are considered part of the commons, anybody broadcasting had an obligation to present opposing points of view. Even if somebody bought time on a network to make a partisan point, the network had to provide access to others who wished to express a different point of view.

[Hippo_Tron]

154. The Fairness Doctrine didn't apply to cable and IMO it shouldn't

I support bringing back some form of fairness doctrine for broadcast networks. Cable, on the other hand, is something that people make a conscious decision to purchase and there should be no law preventing people from purchasing BS propaganda masquerading as news, if that's what they want to watch.

[BlueStreak]

156. Perhaps not that exact set of restrictions, but some regulation is appropriate

There were historically limits on the concentration of media power. One entity could not own more than a certain number of newspapers, radio stations, teevee stations, etc. I think there is still merit to this, and that SHOULD be applied to the cable industry.

For example, under the Fairness doctrine, local stations were required to offer time to spokesmen who believed that a news account was inaccurate or unfair. This same doctrine (with some safeguards) should apply to all news outlets today.

I really don't see how cable is any different from over-the air. If I have a teevee and a cable package, then the content is in my house whether I invite it or not. Nobody specifically purchases MSNBC or Fox. It is part of a package, and consequently is no different from the same content coming in through radio waves.

If a producer knew that he would have to offer time to somebody who would be able to tell the other side directly to his audience, I believe that would change the way these partisan media outlets do their job. If radio stations were obligated to give a spokesman 5 minutes at the end of every Rush Limbaugh hour to set the record straight, this would force him to be a lot more accurate in his speech.

[Hippo_Tron]

162. I don't think there's a good public interest argument to apply the Fairness Doctrine to cable

There's an extremely finite range of frequencies on broadcast television and radio and broadcasters over those frequencies should have an obligation to serve the public interest in exchange for the monopoly that we grant them.

So I agree that there should be a spokesman who gets 5 minutes to set Limbaugh straight at the end of every show. But I also think that if he wants to air a version of his show on Sirius XM that doesn't have a spokesperson correcting him, he should be free to do that.

Media concentration is another matter...

[BlueStreak]

165. What's the difference? In either case, you have the option of turning it off

[cherokeeprogressive]

176. The difference is you wouldn't have MSNBC or FNC if you DIDN'T PAY FOR CABLE. Broadcast TV is free.

You invite MSNBC and FNC into your house by paying for cable.

[BlueStreak]

178. I don't pay for Fox. It is forced into my house. I cannot stop that.

Yes, I could cut the cable. But likewise, I could cut my antenna to stop the over-the-air stuff from coming in. What's the difference? There is no difference practically speaking.

I might agree with you if I was allowed to purchase selected cable stations a la carte. In fact that is the ONLY condition under which your argument has any legs. And a la carte is not an option.

[cherokeeprogressive]

181. It's a meaningless argument unless you are unable to control the urge to tune to FNC.

In my area, we have Direct, Dish, and Charter Cable. All have parental controls allowing the blocking of channels.

The same general argument you're using could be used in the context of the food you buy, the clothes you wear, the soaps you use, and numerous other things. You object to some of their content, or how they're made, or who makes them, but you buy them anyway.

[BlueStreak]

185. Do you have an option to buy MSNBC but not buy Fox?

No, of course you don't. So you are forced to accept those electrons into your house. It is absolutely no different than over-the-air. You have the option to not watch any over-the-air channel you don't like. There is no difference. That cable argument has always been BS.

The nanny function argument is nonsense as well because the same parental technologies exist for cable and over-the-air.

[cherokeeprogressive]

187. I don't know and I don't care. I don't watch MSNBC, FNC, or ANY other politically oriented channel.

My television serves one purpose and one only... that's to entertain me rather than to infuriate me and frankly, I have no way of telling one electron from another. I pay for satellite TV because it gets me what I want, and I disregard the rest. It's like buying a magazine. I know I won't find everything in it to be of interest, but if there IS something I'm interested in, I'll buy the mag, read what I want, and the rest? It's of no consequence... but I had to pay for it anyway.

My nanny in the context of what television I watch is my thumb, and it does a pretty damn good job.

[Ranchemp.]

193. The Fairness Doctrine, as has been pointed out many times,

would not apply to Faux Snooze, which broadcasts on Cable.

[Logical]

107. I assume this isn't a serious question. nt

[Blue_Tires]

110. If you really wanted to get technical

you might try putting forward the legal argument that Fox doesn't serve the public interest which could theoretically result in their FCC license being yanked...This has been accomplished against a couple of Neo-Nazi radio stations, but I haven't heard of any successful case since the early 80s.

But in reality? No way that happens, for a multitude of reasons...

[kelly1mm]

190. Fox News Channel (the cable channel referred to by most of the posters) does not have a FCC license.

Fox news (radio) and independent fox news stations (the ones that show the simpsons etc.) do, but that was not what this OP was about.

[HooptieWagon]

113. First Amendment.

Let's be honest, Fox isn't the first to present a highly-slanted version of events or even to outright lie. The practice far pre-dates even the invention of the printing press.
I don't think it's possible, let alone legal, to get them to stop. What can be done is to force them to stop claiming they are a news organization. Slap them with enough libel, slander, and defamation lawsuits; and force them to admit they are an "entertainment organization" (ie: propaganda). The fact-check groups (Politifact, Snopes, Media Matters) are a big help in debunking Fox lies, especially in regards to viral email and facebook posts.

[Chrom]

120. They are violating the terms of their license to use our public airwaves

In receiving a license from the FCC to use our public airwaves, Fox News agrees to use our public airwaves to serve the public interest.

Lying and promoting hate do not serve the public interest.

I wish some lawyer would take up the case and force the loss of their license.

[ErikJ]

125. +1

And the RW has almost monopoly on the public radio waves. Less than 5% of talk radio is liberal. Most big cities dont even have a single liberal oriented radio talk show anymore while they all have many RW talk show stations.

[oldhippie]

180. Fox News Channel does not use the public airwaves .....

.... as has been pointed out numerous times. Please do try to keep up.

FNC does not have an FCC license. They are on cable.

Lordy.

[Ranchemp.]

194. What license?

Faux transmits on Cable, the FCC has no control over Cable and no license is required.

[ancianita]

122. For as long as it exists, we have to keep hammering away at Fox's owners' priorities for Americans.

I know it's tedious to keep seeing this, but we need to remind Fox viewers that the longer they take to undo their viewing mistakes, the more money Fox makes for this guy.

He has appeared on his own network Fox News, to lay out his policy prescriptions for America:

NO to health care reform, Obama's bank tax, and financial regulatory reform,
YES to fiscal austerity, and cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs.

Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, grandson of the King of Saudi Arabia, head of the Kingdom Holding Company, and, according to Forbes, the 22nd richest person in the world, knows what's good for 'murica.

Thanks to a DU'er for hipping me, a couple of years ago, to his policy statements.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

131. Good info

[onenote]

124. There was no need for this thread to have more than the first reply,

the one made by Skinner.

The fact that it has over 120 and they aren't all simply agreements with Skinner is very disappointing in a site whose members largely profess to being "progressive."

[Pretzel_Warrior]

126. That is funny and ironic of you

[Boom Sound 416]

130. Their highest rated show draws a little more than 1% of the nation

Don't give them more credit than they deserve.

[hack89]

135. Let's add to the Patriot Act and fix that problem right now

I am sure the government will use that power wisely.

[markpkessinger]

146. The problem isn't the First Amendment, it's the market-based model of journalism in this country

Moyers pointed this out in a segment recently -- that other Western democracies spend significant sums on funding inderpendent, public news sources, and thus are free, when necessary, to report what people need to hear, rather than merely what they want to hear. The market-based model does nothing but encourage confirmation bias.

[Warpy]

152. While Canada has an interesting law governing any entity that calls itself "news," we do not

What we can do is force truth in advertising, force them to change their name to "Fox Propaganda." Right wing pooheads would try to force the same thing on MSNBC, of course, and they might succeed, although the presence of fact checkers on MSNBC and their absence on Pox might make all the difference in the world.

Canada has successfully kept Pox out for years. I wish we could. The second best thing would be telling all those old, white addicts exactly what's being pumped into their empty heads.

(and before anybody howls, that's their demographic: old white folks)

[PureProgress]

155. I'm with Pretzel_Warrior on this one

FoxNews should be illegal. We've passed the tipping point with the right and gone too far to worry about the 1st amendment. We need to start rounding up these criminals and putting them in prisons if we are to save our country. Journalists, politicians, and the bankrollers on the right. Jail them all before it is too late. This isn't a game anymore, and we can't afford to lose to them. The sooner we start imprisoning them for crimes against democracy the sooner we can save our great country!

[delta17]

166. This is a really scary post.

"Gone too far to worry about the 1st amendment." Sorry if the Bill of Rights is inconvient sometimes. What other rights do you want us to stop worrying about?

[Ranchemp.]

167. Wow, your first and you're spouting this nonsense.

Well, enjoy your stay.

[onenote]

169. This post doesn't bother me

Since its so clearly a troll.

On the other hand, the OP isn't a troll, and that post is very disturbing.

[Codeine]

182. You're a joke. Go away. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

188. THIS...

is some funny, funny shit.

Quit your day job. You have a future in comedy, I can see it. You're going far.

[Catherine Vincent]

158. Yes

They were devisive and hateful with Clinton too. I finally had to turn them off. Of course when Bush was selected, it was the total opposite.

[Initech]

160. What they do - saying the stupid shit that they do - is legal.

What isn't legal is the government obstruction they get away with.

[reddread]

163. no more than CNN and CBS and all the rest, though

when people start fighting (for) the media, and not just blaming low level prostitutes for doing their evil jobs,
we will make some headway.

[spanone]

164. it can't be. we live in a democracy where your free to lie all you want.

even if you own a large media corporation....that's the deal

[TheSarcastinator]

168. Totally Correct

I agree completely! The Fairness Doctrine is absolutely the equivalent of outlawing the espousal of anything we deem a lie. The only way to make any kind of real progress in this nation, the only way to make real change, is to outlaw the communication of beliefs that disagree with ours. This is a reasonable, intelligent position that in no way could ever come back to bite us in the ass at a future date. As for the Constitution and the First Amendment; forget 'em. We've already essentially obliterated the right to privacy and look how well that has worked out!

Carry on, patriot.

[gopiscrap]

177. welcome to DU

[arcane1]

183. Brilliant post.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

191. Is that you, Hannity? What is this, like your 4,000th handle?

you numbskulls at FoxSpews have been outed time and again. Go back and spit at Shepherd Smith and leave the DU comments to people who actually care about this country.

[Ranchemp.]

195. Well, you are a great one to speak about caring for this country,

you want to gut the 1A, what other Rights are you uncomfortable with and would like to gut?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

197. Thanks for kicking my thread, O'Reilly.

I appreciate it. When does your book Killing Brown People come out?

[Ranchemp.]

198. Any more insults you want to throw around?

I know it's hard to justify what you propose, especially when it goes against everything this country stands for, so I understand the insults and I'm ok with it, I've been insulted by far better people.
So, are there any other Rights you'd like to gut?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

199. The Right Wing of politics. I'd like to gut that.

Especially the religious right. Oh, and I want to take away your guns. Just to piss you off.

[Ranchemp.]

200. Take away my guns?

What makes you think I own guns, other than the gun I carry on duty, which belongs to the Federal Govt.?

You sure do make a lot of assumptions about people you know nothing about.

You need to sit down and read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and learn what this great nation is all about.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

201. Thank you for the kick. You need to read

The U.S. Code in its entirety. Get back to me when you've finished and we can discuss.

[Ranchemp.]

202. You don't want a discussion,

you want people to agree with you, and judging by the replies here, you're in the minority on this issue.

BTW, did you know that the govt. (FCC), has no say over how Faux "reports" the news? Know why? Because the FCC has no authority over cable networks, cable isn't public airways.
So, what law would you charge them with? Assuming that you weren't laughed out of court.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

203. reading for comprehension

the entire premise of my original post title was that it obviously is NOT illegal at present but should be. Recapping my post title "What Foxnews does SHOULD be illegal...". Make sense? Hope so.

Currently, there is nothing you could charge them with. One would have to introduce new legislation. But that would assume this corrupt shitbag of Republicans would even entertain something that diminishes their lying megaphone--which they wouldn't.

I was ranting. I am perfectly aware of the first amendment protecting free speech. It does not change the fact that it is morally reprehensible what Foxnews does. The only thing we CAN do which received plenty of agreement on the thread was to continue railing against them and exposing them for the lie factory they are so they become completely deligitimized. It is a work in progress, but we will keep up the fight.

Thank you for your rudimentary conversation on the topic.

[Ranchemp.]

205. How about thinking comprehension?

What makes you think the Democrats would go along with such a law? You think they would want a future repub admin to have that kind of power?

[onenote]

206. your original post asked a simple question: why is not illegal for Fox to do what they do

You just don't like the answer, which is that its not illegal because it is protected by the Free Speech and Press clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

No Congress is going to pass the law you seem to desire and it won't simply be because of repub opposition. And if some future Congress did pass it (and a future president did sign it), it would be enjoined by the first court that reviewed it and that decision would be upheld, unanimously all the way up the line to the Supreme Court.

Your initial reaction to those of us who pointed out the obvious fact that it would be unconstitutional to make Fox News "illegal" was to declare that if we're right, "our country is lost." It is refreshing therefore to see you adopt a different stance in your latest post -- one that acknowledges that, in effect, that what Fox does is constitutionally protected and that the best response to their speech, is more speech exposing what they do.

As a unanimous Supreme Court stated (in a decision written by Burger, but signed onto by, among others, Marshall and Douglas): "A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated."

[Ranchemp.]

192. Great post,

and just the deservedly right amount of sarcasm to a brilliantly stupid thread.
I applaud you.

[Earth_First]

171. For the same reason why Westboro Baptist Church can stand on a street corner...

and the very reason why you and I can.

I can, you can AND they can choose whether or not to pay attention to it.

That's life under The Constitution.

[ZX86]

172. Solution: Make News Media Tax Exempt like Religion

No outside business interest and 15% content devoted to review/rebuttal.

Problem solved.

[gopiscrap]

179. corporations give huge money to republicans and sometime Democrats

they right the laws and they won't shit in the sandbox they play in!

[onenote]

207. As the SCOTUS wrote in a unanimous opinion signed by Marshall and Douglas:

"A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated."