General Discussion

onenote

(46,143 posts)

130. A myth that refuses to die.

Thu Jun 20, 2024, 06:52 PM

Jun 2024

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

130 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is Fox News Allowed To Spread Falsehoods? Seriously, where is the FCC? [View all] Joinfortmill Jun 2024 OP

Cause it's on cable tv Fullduplexxx Jun 2024 #1

And because the company describes its self as "entertainment" not news Attilatheblond Jun 2024 #12

Referring to "Entertainment" as "News" is fraud... PeaceWave Jun 2024 #17

If that was true, why do you suppose such a lawsuit has not been filed and then won? tritsofme Jun 2024 #20

Dominion sued Fox and won. mzmolly Jun 2024 #23

Because of very specific lies that directly damaged them. tritsofme Jun 2024 #25

Right. But Fox has damaged far more mzmolly Jun 2024 #29

Not in the legal sense. tritsofme Jun 2024 #93

The dominion cases was settled mzmolly Jun 2024 #109

So far as I know, there have been no legal attempts to make them scrub "News" from their title Attilatheblond Jun 2024 #21

Go to any airport in Texas...TVs (hundreds of them) are all set to Fox 24/7 PeaceWave Jun 2024 #28

I didn't see any TVs at SAT or El Paso when I flew two weeks ago. LeftInTX Jun 2024 #32

Try DFW...You'll see what I'm talking about. PeaceWave Jun 2024 #41

I fly out of DFW numerous times a month TexasDem69 Jun 2024 #92

Fraud according to who? MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #37

Fraud according to anyone who considers 'news' mzmolly Jun 2024 #47

So, I ask again, MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #50

None at this time. mzmolly Jun 2024 #52

Thank you and I certainly wouldn't want such a law on the books. MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #57

The Fairness Doctrine wasn't pro-censorship. mzmolly Jun 2024 #64

The FD is not what you think it was as explained by onenote many times here on DU over the years. MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #67

I understand and don't need to defer to onenote mzmolly Jun 2024 #70

BTW, did you know that I can pick up a camera and claim I'm an independent news journalist MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #55

That would depend on the method of delivery. mzmolly Jun 2024 #65

What method of delivery? MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #68

If you sell it to a news station mzmolly Jun 2024 #69

.... MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #72

self-correction.... Think. Again. Jun 2024 #54

Fox News was not banned in the UK. MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #58

Yes, thank you.. Think. Again. Jun 2024 #59

Perhaps we have a way forward mzmolly Jun 2024 #71

Yes, things got bad when reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine... Think. Again. Jun 2024 #80

Reagan did not abolish the FD, MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #82

Yes, reagan's FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, correct. Think. Again. Jun 2024 #83

Correct MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #84

I wouldn't know, I'm not Obama. Think. Again. Jun 2024 #85

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. MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #86

Has anyone done so with E! Entertainment News or ESPNews? TheProle Jun 2024 #95

That's not relevant to the FCC as it's still cable, whatever the content is. themaguffin Jun 2024 #90

Because the First Amendment. Thankfully it protects us all from authoritarians promoting government censorship. tritsofme Jun 2024 #2

The FCC can only regulate obscenity on the public TV & Radio channels. Jacson6 Jun 2024 #3

Perhaps we need a new regulatory body? mzmolly Jun 2024 #24

The Truth Police? marybourg Jun 2024 #26

Is that what the FCC is? mzmolly Jun 2024 #30

Not at all. But you're not satisfied with them. marybourg Jun 2024 #43

I'm not dissatisfied with the FCC. mzmolly Jun 2024 #45

+1! CrispyQ Jun 2024 #4

"Congress shall make no law......." brooklynite Jun 2024 #16

Lying is a public nuisance, private Cable TV and FCC laws be damned! bucolic_frolic Jun 2024 #5

This right here is Exhibit A on why we have the First Amendment. tritsofme Jun 2024 #6

"FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater. Try it some time. bucolic_frolic Jun 2024 #9

Ah yes, an incredibly poor analogy that is of course the favorite of speech restrictionists and authoritarians. tritsofme Jun 2024 #11

We'll see how free speech is when tRump overturns the constitution. mzmolly Jun 2024 #49

I'm not too keen on the argument that we have to destroy the Constitution in order to save it. tritsofme Jun 2024 #91

Bad example Fiendish Thingy Jun 2024 #15

No. After you say something you can be marybourg Jun 2024 #27

What content should the government be allowed to censor? sarisataka Jun 2024 #14

That reminds me: it's time to turn off DU and start scrubbing the kitchen floor. NT mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2024 #7

I'm getting more and more of those same feelings here at DU lately. Let's tell more of our storys and.... usaf-vet Jun 2024 #10

This is a stupid story and it only gives DJT more screen time. These two points should have been the focus of the story. usaf-vet Jun 2024 #8

Article written by three recent law school graduates who should be given a failing grade. onenote Jun 2024 #13

Well stated. Thank you for your accurate post. n/t John1956PA Jun 2024 #18

Why can't we just have a simple law that everything I like is protected and everything I don't is banned? brooklynite Jun 2024 #19

We need a Ministry of Truth sarisataka Jun 2024 #22

NPR did a story on this issue in March. mzmolly Jun 2024 #31

There is no authority for the government Mountainguy Jun 2024 #33

Clearly the Dominion lawsuit shows Johonny Jun 2024 #34

Who do you think can sue them for a lot of their statements? onenote Jun 2024 #129

Yeah, let's give the FCC the power to determine what's real or fake news. MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #35

You can thank Ronald Reagan for the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. Laffy Kat Jun 2024 #36

The Fairness Doctrine was overrated and was destined to be ruled unconstitutional. onenote Jun 2024 #38

How so? nt Laffy Kat Jun 2024 #40

I've edited my post to provide more context. onenote Jun 2024 #44

It might prevent faux news mzmolly Jun 2024 #46

It never applied to cable and it would be struck down by the court immediately if there was any attempt to do so. onenote Jun 2024 #48

It was overturned prior to cable being available. mzmolly Jun 2024 #51

i've been working in the cable industry since 1981. The FD was struck down in 1987. onenote Jun 2024 #60

I should have said widely available. mzmolly Jun 2024 #63

Nobody here is defending Fox, MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #74

I'm not suggesting anyone here supports fox. mzmolly Jun 2024 #75

.... MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #76

No we don't. mzmolly Jun 2024 #78

Cable is privately owned and operated, therefore the govt cannot regulate what can and cannot MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #81

I've read it, thanks. That said, there is some regulation mzmolly Jun 2024 #87

Fair enough MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #88

Thank you mzmolly Jun 2024 #89

I hope you're not suggesting that the internet should be subject to a fairness doctrine or content regulation. onenote Jun 2024 #98

No. I'm suggesting that use of the internet for broadcasting mzmolly Jun 2024 #99

Cable operators sell internet access. But most of their subscribers get broadcast stations via cable, not internet. onenote Jun 2024 #116

Cable is accessed via the internet. mzmolly Jun 2024 #117

I've worked in the cable industry for 40 years. You are mistaken about the technology. onenote Jun 2024 #118

You should notify mzmolly Jun 2024 #120

Cable television. onenote Jun 2024 #123

I'm fine with defining cable television mzmolly Jun 2024 #124

There are those who would argue that the first amendment did suffer under the FD onenote Jun 2024 #97

Yes, The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute made mzmolly Jun 2024 #100

depends on how you define widely available onenote Jun 2024 #96

Less than half of American households had access to cable in 1987. mzmolly Jun 2024 #101

No. Approximately one-half had cable. More than half had access to cable. onenote Jun 2024 #115

By access I mean the ability to view mzmolly Jun 2024 #121

The Fairness Doctrine never applied to Cable TV Jose Garcia Jun 2024 #126

No, thanks. Elessar Zappa Jun 2024 #39

The FCC only regulates broadcast stations SocialDemocrat61 Jun 2024 #42

Google Fox v Monsanto gab13by13 Jun 2024 #53

My guess is that Fox v Monsanto is not the case you are thinking about onenote Jun 2024 #61

Yes, thank you, gab13by13 Jun 2024 #77

FCC doesn't regulate cable television. spanone Jun 2024 #56

Advocating for ForgedCrank Jun 2024 #62

I don't want the government telling news organizations TexasDem69 Jun 2024 #94

And we shall know the talking heads and sea-lions by their fruit Torchlight Jun 2024 #66

2025 Plan puts the FCC directly under TSF Captain Zero Jun 2024 #73

Yes, and that scares the hell out of me. nt MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #79

Well according to many here, the FCC has no authority mzmolly Jun 2024 #102

They could certainly seek to promulgate the sort of speech restrictionist policies you seem to prefer. tritsofme Jun 2024 #103

Well then, let the FCC act now - BEFORE the election. mzmolly Jun 2024 #105

The courts would knock down them down in either case. tritsofme Jun 2024 #106

Sounds like you're saying we can't regulate. mzmolly Jun 2024 #107

That's exactly right. The First Amendment protects us from those with the authoritarian urge to impose government tritsofme Jun 2024 #108

You confuse censorship with adequate mzmolly Jun 2024 #110

I'm not confusing anything at all, it is very transparent. tritsofme Jun 2024 #111

It is indeed. mzmolly Jun 2024 #112

As I recall, this was already fought out in a court case many years ago. DFW Jun 2024 #104

A myth that refuses to die. onenote Jun 2024 #130

Related video... ( "News Does Not Have to Be True" ) 4 minutes Pluvious Jun 2024 #113

One friend's reaction... Pluvious Jun 2024 #114

Didn't Murdoch label Fixed News as "entertainment" instead of "news" sakabatou Jun 2024 #119

No onenote Jun 2024 #125

they are careful how they phrase lie, talk radio too: "some are saying that Biden has a tail". BlueWaveNeverEnd Jun 2024 #122

If you give the government a new power, someday Jose Garcia Jun 2024 #127

"The First Amendment protects the right to make false statements in many circumstances, sop Jun 2024 #128