General Discussion

Pretzel_Warrior

(8,361 posts)

203. reading for comprehension

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:36 PM

Nov 2013

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

207 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What Foxnews does should be illegal. Why isn't it? [View all] Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 OP

First Amendment. Skinner Nov 2013 #1

Then our country is lost Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #10

The only solution to bad speech is more speech treestar Nov 2013 #64

"Speech" costs money. The rich have more. DireStrike Nov 2013 #159

It's a lot better now than it was treestar Nov 2013 #186

I agree with what you say, I've often felt similar, but once the first amendment is RKP5637 Nov 2013 #151

So it should be legal dennis4868 Nov 2013 #19

Who determines what "truth" is? GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #92

And, what's to prevent a repub. admin. from doing the same thing Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #96

No we get the lies from politicians. MythosMaster Nov 2013 #111

IOW, excluded gov't agencies include ALL of them. N/T GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #114

Paranoid much? MythosMaster Nov 2013 #150

Absolutely. Jackpine Radical Nov 2013 #118

This LittleBlue Nov 2013 #53

hear, hear Puzzledtraveller Nov 2013 #60

This about covers it. Packerowner740 Nov 2013 #85

I completely agree. ZombieHorde Nov 2013 #132

Maybe not what they do, meanit Nov 2013 #138

True, it does trump poor taste and class. Rex Nov 2013 #196

The Zeroth Amendment: Orsino Nov 2013 #204

You know you're going to get '1st Amendment' as a response, don't you? Shrike47 Nov 2013 #2

Or direct people to the internet treestar Nov 2013 #70

It certainly should be illegal to label it "news" (n/t) MissMillie Nov 2013 #3

This was litigated in the early Oughts. riqster Nov 2013 #4

Actually, they won the court case zbdent Nov 2013 #58

not sure it is exactly the way people are representing things reddread Nov 2013 #161

With television available in almost every home or public place, meanit Nov 2013 #141

Yep. History is important-reminding us of how we got here. riqster Nov 2013 #184

The negating... deathrind Nov 2013 #5

Thanks a lot, Ronald Reagan. nt Jamaal510 Nov 2013 #31

FOX is cable, not public airwaves, therefore fairness doctrine doesn't apply. GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #95

That is what I said... deathrind Nov 2013 #106

People view FOX because they think it is the news. meanit Nov 2013 #145

Apparently it is illegal... CanisCrocinus Nov 2013 #6

In Canada BainsBane Nov 2013 #8

Not quite. Fox News is available in Canada Captain Stern Nov 2013 #15

This ain't Canada. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #22

I think only Canadians should be thanking their lucky stars for that. n/t lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #34

Yes, I'd sure hate to have Canada's problems. Scuba Nov 2013 #39

I agree that there are problems in our country, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #43

Yes, but why be grateful for our problems? Scuba Nov 2013 #46

I never said I was grateful for our problems, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #52

A question: some might conclude you just "lied" about Fox News being illegal in Canada onenote Nov 2013 #123

Goebbels's legacy is alive and well at Fox News. Lint Head Nov 2013 #7

No, it shouldn't be illegal. nt. NCTraveler Nov 2013 #9

No it should not be illegal. MicaelS Nov 2013 #11

I don't mean crackpots shouldn't be able to say whatever they want Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #13

I bet you would really like the idea of a "Journalist License". MicaelS Nov 2013 #37

Nope. Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #45

No license or prison. meanit Nov 2013 #147

Who decides who is the crackpot? During the Bush years, all liberals were "crackpots." Dash87 Nov 2013 #56

People who demonstrably push lies repeatedly Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #63

And just who should determine that? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #68

What liberal news orgs.? Kingofalldems Nov 2013 #71

There are plenty of them on the internet, along with blogs and websites, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #75

During the Bush years, we were all liars. Bush's truth became the truth. Dash87 Nov 2013 #81

And we will all be crackpots again when a Republican gets in the WH meanit Nov 2013 #149

I have toyed with idea of requiring them to announce every day that they sometimes lie, Shrike47 Nov 2013 #12

This is my problem with it, exactly. Overwhelm people with falsehoods Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #17

Reasonable people are smart enough to know what's true and what's bullshit, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #33

Factually, many Americans AREN'T smart enough Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #44

The FoxNews ratings are so low, the percentage who watches is under 1%. Bluenorthwest Nov 2013 #55

Actually, FOX has the highest cable news ratings. GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #98

But cable is far below Network broadcast news viewership. Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #115

Link? N/T GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #137

Link ieoeja Nov 2013 #144

Thank You. I am better informed now. N/T GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #148

So, you would outlaw Faux Snooze because you think they falsly report the news, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #62

LOL noiretextatique Nov 2013 #102

Notice I said reasonable, I don't consider the teabaggers reasonable. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #105

Fair enough...and agreed. Nt noiretextatique Nov 2013 #157

They sometimes lie? Sometimes? dennis4868 Nov 2013 #26

Our 1st Amendment is both a blessing and a curse. Laelth Nov 2013 #14

So you want to live in a country where news is regulated by the government? No thanks. bowens43 Nov 2013 #16

The news is regulated by the government Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #21

The news is regulated by the Govt? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #47

There are images and video and language even "the news" is Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #49

Words and images, yes, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #54

Boggles the mind doesn't it? Puzzledtraveller Nov 2013 #65

This is the kind of shit I would expect out of authoritarian regimes, like the now defunct Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #72

It's called the 1st Amendment, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #18

The first amendment is not an unlimited right Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #20

No it is not... dennis4868 Nov 2013 #27

True, but there are very few limitations on free speech, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #29

This isn't about me. I rarely watch it. This is about the public good Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #32

As I said, if you don't like it, and I don't mean you specifically, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #41

Exactly. n/t truedelphi Nov 2013 #129

Fascism... But for the public good... Decaffeinated Nov 2013 #117

on politics it is treestar Nov 2013 #66

Journalistc malpractice is not a limiting clasue on the First Amendment. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2013 #23

then kill MSNBC too for the other side of the coin? n/t ProdigalJunkMail Nov 2013 #24

Some shows on MSNBC dennis4868 Nov 2013 #28

Sure. If they can be shown to be misleading Americans with phony facts Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #30

The difference is I don't hear Maddow lie. Puglover Nov 2013 #84

Exactly! Does MSNBC even do "news breaks" with Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #89

Canada wouldnt allow Fox News in- bald-face lying is illegal there ErikJ Nov 2013 #25

They don't know how lucky they are... eom Jamaal510 Nov 2013 #38

Snopes says... Dr. Strange Nov 2013 #51

see post #42 ErikJ Nov 2013 #67

And this is precisely why this kind of law would be bad. Dr. Strange Nov 2013 #88

That was the American Fox News. ErikJ Nov 2013 #116

if such laws were passed - they would be far more likely to be used against progressives than Douglas Carpenter Nov 2013 #35

Well said. Puzzledtraveller Nov 2013 #69

Courts gave them permission to lie, since it was in the name of entertainment. Sheepshank Nov 2013 #36

Because, freedom. HijackedLabel Nov 2013 #40

Regulators Reject Proposal That Would Bring Fox-Style News to Canada ErikJ Nov 2013 #42

Of course they are protected by the first amendment as they should be. They are not protected Bluenorthwest Nov 2013 #48

I do agree with you Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #59

" Fox News continues to be the hands-down ratings winner across the board in cable news." Douglas Carpenter Nov 2013 #73

"Cable" is not "Broadcast" ieoeja Nov 2013 #143

well that does shed a less scary light on the whole thing. I suppose what I find disturbing is the Douglas Carpenter Nov 2013 #189

I don't agree. Fox News consists of mostly opinions. Opinions should never be illegal. Dash87 Nov 2013 #50

Then FOX news should not be labeled as "news" meanit Nov 2013 #119

Cable, Satellite, Broadcast television, and Network Radio are obsolete. hunter Nov 2013 #57

Cable does not use any bandwidth. GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #112

Really now... hunter Nov 2013 #121

Pssst! (Yes, it does ....) oldhippie Nov 2013 #153

It doesn't use public spectrum onenote Nov 2013 #170

Spectrum and bandwidth are two different things ...... oldhippie Nov 2013 #175

Lying is not a crime, Kelvin Mace Nov 2013 #61

journalistic malpractice? define please cali Nov 2013 #74

Journalistic malpractice? To lie about facts repeatedly to push agenda Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #76

how is that illegal? cali Nov 2013 #83

To say I am offended as a human by what Foxnews does Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #86

It is contempt for the 1A Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #91

Holy shit. Coming from you, that's just..... remarkable. cali Nov 2013 #139

Done with you. Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #140

My only issue with faux noise is that they are labeled news when in fact they are just opinion kydo Nov 2013 #77

Thanks. That's really what I was getting at. Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #79

Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would NOT affect FNC in the slightest way. cherokeeprogressive Nov 2013 #173

You can say what ever you want as long as you don't slander someone liberal N proud Nov 2013 #78

Agree about needing to destroy them. Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #80

"Unfortunately, I think there is a segment of the population who WANT to believe their lies" Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #133

Enjoying DU? Especially the gungeon? Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #134

Hmmm. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #136

I live in Ecuador. Puglover Nov 2013 #82

A lie can travel around the world before................. ErikJ Nov 2013 #87

Maybe not yours, but what about your other citizens who liked what they wrote? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #93

Not if what was said was libelous Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #94

So you want the media to get gov't approval for anything they say. GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #90

You're missing the point. ALL lies whether Pravda, People's Daily, FoxNews Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #97

You truly do not understand the First Amendment. GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #100

+ 10,000 n/t truedelphi Nov 2013 #128

Start with politicians. Dr. Strange Nov 2013 #103

^^^THIS^^^ cherokeeprogressive Nov 2013 #174

No, people who think like you are the problem. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #109

Authoritarian is as authoritarian does. Puzzledtraveller Nov 2013 #99

Thanks for the kick Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #101

a fairness doctrine would prevent most of the abuses we see beachbum bob Nov 2013 #104

I called it malpractice. As in not doing the job journalists are trained to do Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #108

research what newspapers beachbum bob Nov 2013 #142

Absolutely. We had none of these problems when the fairness doctrine was in place BlueStreak Nov 2013 #127

The Fairness Doctrine didn't apply to cable and IMO it shouldn't Hippo_Tron Nov 2013 #154

Perhaps not that exact set of restrictions, but some regulation is appropriate BlueStreak Nov 2013 #156

I don't think there's a good public interest argument to apply the Fairness Doctrine to cable Hippo_Tron Nov 2013 #162

What's the difference? In either case, you have the option of turning it off BlueStreak Nov 2013 #165

The difference is you wouldn't have MSNBC or FNC if you DIDN'T PAY FOR CABLE. Broadcast TV is free. cherokeeprogressive Nov 2013 #176

I don't pay for Fox. It is forced into my house. I cannot stop that. BlueStreak Nov 2013 #178

It's a meaningless argument unless you are unable to control the urge to tune to FNC. cherokeeprogressive Nov 2013 #181

Do you have an option to buy MSNBC but not buy Fox? BlueStreak Nov 2013 #185

I don't know and I don't care. I don't watch MSNBC, FNC, or ANY other politically oriented channel. cherokeeprogressive Nov 2013 #187

The Fairness Doctrine, as has been pointed out many times, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #193

I assume this isn't a serious question. nt Logical Nov 2013 #107

If you really wanted to get technical Blue_Tires Nov 2013 #110

Fox News Channel (the cable channel referred to by most of the posters) does not have a FCC license. kelly1mm Nov 2013 #190

First Amendment. HooptieWagon Nov 2013 #113

They are violating the terms of their license to use our public airwaves Chrom Nov 2013 #120

+1 ErikJ Nov 2013 #125

Fox News Channel does not use the public airwaves ..... oldhippie Nov 2013 #180

What license? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #194

For as long as it exists, we have to keep hammering away at Fox's owners' priorities for Americans. ancianita Nov 2013 #122

Good info Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #131

There was no need for this thread to have more than the first reply, onenote Nov 2013 #124

That is funny and ironic of you Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #126

Their highest rated show draws a little more than 1% of the nation Boom Sound 416 Nov 2013 #130

Let's add to the Patriot Act and fix that problem right now hack89 Nov 2013 #135

The problem isn't the First Amendment, it's the market-based model of journalism in this country markpkessinger Nov 2013 #146

While Canada has an interesting law governing any entity that calls itself "news," we do not Warpy Nov 2013 #152

I'm with Pretzel_Warrior on this one PureProgress Nov 2013 #155

This is a really scary post. delta17 Nov 2013 #166

Wow, your first and you're spouting this nonsense. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #167

This post doesn't bother me onenote Nov 2013 #169

You're a joke. Go away. nt Codeine Nov 2013 #182

THIS... cherokeeprogressive Nov 2013 #188

Yes Catherine Vincent Nov 2013 #158

What they do - saying the stupid shit that they do - is legal. Initech Nov 2013 #160

no more than CNN and CBS and all the rest, though reddread Nov 2013 #163

it can't be. we live in a democracy where your free to lie all you want. spanone Nov 2013 #164

Totally Correct TheSarcastinator Nov 2013 #168

welcome to DU gopiscrap Nov 2013 #177

Brilliant post. arcane1 Nov 2013 #183

Is that you, Hannity? What is this, like your 4,000th handle? Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #191

Well, you are a great one to speak about caring for this country, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #195

Thanks for kicking my thread, O'Reilly. Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #197

Any more insults you want to throw around? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #198

The Right Wing of politics. I'd like to gut that. Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #199

Take away my guns? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #200

Thank you for the kick. You need to read Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #201

You don't want a discussion, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #202

reading for comprehension Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #203

How about thinking comprehension? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #205

your original post asked a simple question: why is not illegal for Fox to do what they do onenote Nov 2013 #206

Great post, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #192

For the same reason why Westboro Baptist Church can stand on a street corner... Earth_First Nov 2013 #171

Solution: Make News Media Tax Exempt like Religion ZX86 Nov 2013 #172

corporations give huge money to republicans and sometime Democrats gopiscrap Nov 2013 #179

As the SCOTUS wrote in a unanimous opinion signed by Marshall and Douglas: onenote Mar 2022 #207