Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Liberal In Red State

(442 posts)
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 11:39 AM Mar 2023

With Murdock et al admitting that they lied to its audience, can't something be done by the FCC

by way of penalty, fines, or cancellation of Fox’s license? Can a network maintain a FCC license and knowingly lie to the public or spread lies/false information with impunity?

58 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
With Murdock et al admitting that they lied to its audience, can't something be done by the FCC (Original Post) Liberal In Red State Mar 2023 OP
FCC on regulates over-the-air stations. waddirum Mar 2023 #1
"Fox News" doesn't have a broadcasting license Cattledog Mar 2023 #2
But they call themselves "news" & present themselves as a news agency. CrispyQ Mar 2023 #9
Yes, it's called the 1st Amendment. nt MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2023 #11
Um, no, It's called abuse of the First Amendment whathehell Mar 2023 #15
Ummm, no, MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2023 #16
Ummm, I know what it's called. whathehell Mar 2023 #21
I don't need a civics lesson from you, MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2023 #22
Lol whathehell Mar 2023 #27
.... MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2023 #28
--------- whathehell Mar 2023 #30
I have a very firm grasp on what's possible, MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2023 #31
Is it possible we repeal the First Amendment so you can ban stuff tritsofme Mar 2023 #39
Lol..I don't know because I'm not in favor of repealing it.. whathehell Mar 2023 #40
True, I guess ignoring it when inconvenient is also an option! tritsofme Mar 2023 #41
Lol..Not at all whathehell Mar 2023 #42
Regulating the content of press coverage is pretty clearly tritsofme Mar 2023 #47
But is it the "press" or legitimate "news" if they are LIES? whathehell Mar 2023 #48
False advertising isn't legally actionable unless you can show damage to the plaintiff. brooklynite Mar 2023 #52
Have you informed the FCC of their ability? brooklynite Mar 2023 #44
See post #48 whathehell Mar 2023 #49
Apparently anyone can call themselves a news agency since Fox has been spewing lies for years. CrispyQ Mar 2023 #3
Yes. $1.6 Billion PLUS that! n/t Justice matters. Mar 2023 #10
This, as several commentatators have pointed out, whathehell Mar 2023 #32
Name the OFFICIAL definition of "news"... brooklynite Mar 2023 #45
Uh huh. Sure. Okay. whathehell Mar 2023 #46
Interesting how lack of regulation & deregulation seems to favor republicans. -nt CrispyQ Mar 2023 #53
Isn't that something? whathehell Mar 2023 #56
Yes, it's false advertising, at the very least. n/t. whathehell Mar 2023 #50
This message was self-deleted by its author whathehell Mar 2023 #51
They don't belong in the press pool bucolic_frolic Mar 2023 #4
at the very least never call on their reporters moonshinegnomie Mar 2023 #6
The FCC has zero authority over cable, satellite or the internet, MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2023 #5
New legislation from Congress would be required. Justice matters. Mar 2023 #7
And what license would you be talking about? MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2023 #8
Is there a regulatory commision in charge of cable? Prairie_Seagull Mar 2023 #12
.... MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2023 #14
People don't appear to understand this. Elessar Zappa Mar 2023 #20
Ronald Reagan was primarily responsible for ending the Fairness Doctrine, Firestorm49 Mar 2023 #13
The Fairness Doctrine as it existed would not have applied to FOX themaguffin Mar 2023 #17
The FD would have had zero affect on Faux, MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2023 #18
While Accurate, Not Certain ProfessorGAC Mar 2023 #23
Yes, we can Zeitghost Mar 2023 #34
No We Can't ProfessorGAC Mar 2023 #35
Your logic is flawed Zeitghost Mar 2023 #37
This is interesting Beachnutt Mar 2023 #33
Why are they included in the Whitehouse press corp? Beachnutt Mar 2023 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author Beachnutt Mar 2023 #24
Slippery slope Middlevoter Mar 2023 #25
If this were a left wing organization it would already have been shutdown and some officials Samrob Mar 2023 #26
Fox News is actively destroying the United States and getting away with it. Initech Mar 2023 #29
No, sorry. There is no loophole to the First Amendment that will let you suppress outlets you don't tritsofme Mar 2023 #36
Well said Zeitghost Mar 2023 #38
How many times is it necessary to explain that FCC has NO AUTHORITY over cable? brooklynite Mar 2023 #43
+100. MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2023 #57
It is very simple ripcord Mar 2023 #54
I'm in full agreement with the posters that say the FCC has no authority with the Fox network. bluestarone Mar 2023 #55
At the very least they should be required to publicly state what occurred ecstatic Mar 2023 #58

CrispyQ

(36,225 posts)
9. But they call themselves "news" & present themselves as a news agency.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 11:46 AM
Mar 2023

So they're allowed to lie, not only in what they report, but also in how they identify themselves. ???

whathehell

(28,968 posts)
15. Um, no, It's called abuse of the First Amendment
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 12:02 PM
Mar 2023

which, by the way, is not absolute. We have laws against things like libel, slander, crying "fire" in a
crowded, non-burning theater -- You get the idea.

whathehell

(28,968 posts)
21. Ummm, I know what it's called.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 12:14 PM
Mar 2023

What you apparently don't know is that it's not "absolute", as it contains exceptions of the type listed.

MarineCombatEngineer

(12,092 posts)
22. I don't need a civics lesson from you,
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 12:18 PM
Mar 2023

I'm very well aware of the exceptions, the bottom line is that the govt. has zero authority to regulate the content of cable, satellite and the internet.

whathehell

(28,968 posts)
27. Lol
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 12:47 PM
Mar 2023

Sorry, but it seemed you might. The current legal status of the internet, cable and satellite TV s not the "bottom line" as the law is a living thing and it's interpretation can change over time.

MarineCombatEngineer

(12,092 posts)
28. ....
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 12:51 PM
Mar 2023
The current legal status of the internet, cable and satellite is not the "bottom line" as the law is a living thing and it's interpretation can change over time.



The bottom line at this time is that the FCC has zero content control over those pay per view platforms and will more than likely remain that way, rightly so.

whathehell

(28,968 posts)
30. ---------
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 01:06 PM
Mar 2023

"At this time" is the OPERATIVE phrase, bro - Your idea of what's "likely" to change is simply an opinion. That being the case, you needn't keep repeating yourself..You have a firm grasp on the present, what you seem to lack is an understanding of the possible.

MarineCombatEngineer

(12,092 posts)
31. I have a very firm grasp on what's possible,
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 01:09 PM
Mar 2023

and with this SCOTUS, it's quite probable that this will remain as it is.

tritsofme

(17,322 posts)
39. Is it possible we repeal the First Amendment so you can ban stuff
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:22 PM
Mar 2023

you don’t like? Sure!

I guess it’s also possible that Congress passes a bill mandating pigs have wings.

Both seem rather unlikely.

whathehell

(28,968 posts)
42. Lol..Not at all
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 05:08 PM
Mar 2023

Again, there seems to be a lack of understanding about the limits on the 1st Amendment
The Founders knew nothing about modern technology, so things like the "regulation of cable TV" are matters of legal interpretation, e.g. " Is this covered by the 2nd Amendment, or is this an exception in a way similar to that Libel, Slander, and some other things.

.
.


tritsofme

(17,322 posts)
47. Regulating the content of press coverage is pretty clearly
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 05:20 PM
Mar 2023

not like prohibitions on libel or slander.

Again, there seems to be a lack of understanding about the limits on the 1st Amendment

lol, it seems quite the opposite. You seem to have a very wild imagination as to how narrow the First Amendment is.

whathehell

(28,968 posts)
48. But is it the "press" or legitimate "news" if they are LIES?
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 05:30 PM
Mar 2023

The ruling when Fox News was sued, was that Fox could not be held liable as it was "entertainment" as opposed to "news" The obvious argument to that, is a challenge to their right to the title "news", e.g. Fox News.

At best, it's False Advertising, which is legally actionable, and at worst, interference with
our democracy by way of deliberate misleading its citizens.

whathehell

(28,968 posts)
49. See post #48
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 05:41 PM
Mar 2023

in answer to your first, um "question" about a definition of "news".

As to the FCC, and the legal establishment generally, it's hardly had time to digest and consider the deliberate election lies of Fox "News"

CrispyQ

(36,225 posts)
3. Apparently anyone can call themselves a news agency since Fox has been spewing lies for years.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 11:43 AM
Mar 2023

???

Newsmax & OOAN are also allowed to call themselves news stations. ???

At the beginning of every show they should have to put up a spoken & written message stating that they knowingly lied about the facts & that the 2020 election wasn't stolen.

whathehell

(28,968 posts)
32. This, as several commentatators have pointed out,
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 01:21 PM
Mar 2023

Last edited Wed Mar 1, 2023, 02:46 PM - Edit history (2)

is the sticking point.

Fox has been sued for lying more than once. The ruling?.. it's "ok" for Fox News to lie as Fox News is "entertainment"...The obvious argument is, if it's "entertainment", why is it allowed to bill itself as "News"?....This misleads the public, and amounts to False Advertising, something that IS actionable by law.

As was pointed out by MSNBC's David Jolly yesterday, if they choose to lie, they should call themselves " Fox Programming", or something, as it's not " news"


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #3)

MarineCombatEngineer

(12,092 posts)
5. The FCC has zero authority over cable, satellite or the internet,
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 11:44 AM
Mar 2023

there is no license to operate on those venues, they're pay per view therefore, the govt. has no authority to censor, fine, etc.

Prairie_Seagull

(3,229 posts)
12. Is there a regulatory commision in charge of cable?
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 11:51 AM
Mar 2023

There sure as hell should be. If the congress is the only regulator then, what?

By the way if the reason why the FCC can regulate 'over the air' stations is that their signals penetrate the human body then the same rules should apply for satellite stations?

Admittedly I should look into this more.

MarineCombatEngineer

(12,092 posts)
14. ....
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 11:53 AM
Mar 2023
Is there a regulatory commision in charge of cable?


Yes, there is, it's called the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

Firestorm49

(4,002 posts)
13. Ronald Reagan was primarily responsible for ending the Fairness Doctrine,
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 11:52 AM
Mar 2023

which required both views to be presented in media. This nurtured the beginning of FOX Entertainment. News? Debatable!

Truth in advertising in general as well as a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine
( initiated in 1949] are badly needed, but in this era of moron leadership by the Republican Party, it simply won’t happen, because what is “right” is wrong in their eyes. What ever happened to the Federal Communications Commission?

If nobody has the clout to reign in an out of control coup praising media network, then we’ll just have to continue down this mess that we’re already in with no abatement.

MarineCombatEngineer

(12,092 posts)
18. The FD would have had zero affect on Faux,
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 12:06 PM
Mar 2023

they operate on cable, of which the FCC has zero content authority.

ProfessorGAC

(64,413 posts)
23. While Accurate, Not Certain
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 12:21 PM
Mar 2023

The FD was abolished well before the preponderance of the population consumed TV & radio by means other than terrestrial broadcasting.
Whether the FD would have been extended, were it still extant, is unknowable. But, it's not something we can say with certainty would not have occurred.
So, while your statement is inarguably true, the elimination of the doctrine obviate any poss8ble future outcomes of it.

Zeitghost

(3,796 posts)
34. Yes, we can
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 01:50 PM
Mar 2023

The FD is an FCC regulation for OTA broadcasting. OTA broadcasting is regulated because there are a limited number of frequency bands that can be used making it a limited public good which can be regulated by the federal government.

No such limitation exists with cable/satellite/internet so therefor there is no compelling public interest the government needs to protect through regulation. It's not that the FCC/Federal government has chosen not to regulate the content of these providers, it's because they can't.

Because the FCC has never had authority over these types of media and never will so long as there is a 1st amendment, we can be sure that the FD would have never applied to them had it not been eliminated.

ProfessorGAC

(64,413 posts)
35. No We Can't
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:19 PM
Mar 2023

You obviously didn't read my post completely.
What we can't know is whether the authority would have expanded as the preponderance of consumption was non-OTA.
It is NOT impossible that Congress would have expanded the FCC's reach had the doctrine still been in place.
With the FD no longer existing there was little reason to legislatively expand their scope as there would be no obvious public interest served by doing so.

Zeitghost

(3,796 posts)
37. Your logic is flawed
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:58 PM
Mar 2023

A congress that won't impose the FD on OTA, where they have clear constitutional authority to do so would not have expanded the FD to outlets for which they have no clear constitutional authority to regulate content.


And even if they wanted to, which they clearly do not; they can't, because as I pointed out earlier their authority to regulate comes from the physical limits of OTA bandwidth. Any content regulation of the internet or PPV cable and satellite would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Response to Liberal In Red State (Original post)

 

Middlevoter

(13 posts)
25. Slippery slope
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 12:30 PM
Mar 2023

I think every news outlet on the world has released incorrect info and outright lies. It's all about ratings. I can't think of a single one that has a perfect record.

Samrob

(4,298 posts)
26. If this were a left wing organization it would already have been shutdown and some officials
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 12:31 PM
Mar 2023

and pundits fined and/or imprisoned.

Right now, the FBI is the most worrisome entity to watch. It appears to me, from the comments at today's Garland testimony, the Trumpians are completely in control of events and are going to latch on to the China lab controversy to go after Fauci, Biden, and science in general. The main job of the House and Senate GOP is to divert attention away from everything Trump did or didn't do that was either criminal or anti-democracy or pro-Russia or insurrection related.

It's called, throwing shit against the wall. The MAGAs are so dead set against Biden and his support of Ukraine that we might get the Defense budget cuts the left has been longing for over decades. Understand this about Ukraine: Had Trump not been against Ukraine and pro Russia, most of the GQP would have been for helping Ukraine without bitching about it. The MAGAs hate to see Putin or Trump compared to Zelenskyy. It actually makes them sick but they won't tell you.

In the meantime, the GQP is trying to help Putin and Russia by making China the target for regime change. SMH

Initech

(99,912 posts)
29. Fox News is actively destroying the United States and getting away with it.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 12:55 PM
Mar 2023

How??? How is that possible? All of these scumbags need to be locked up and their terrible policies need to be reversed now.

tritsofme

(17,322 posts)
36. No, sorry. There is no loophole to the First Amendment that will let you suppress outlets you don't
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:49 PM
Mar 2023

like.

You can encourage people to stop watching, discourage advertisers, etc.

But you can’t use the government to shut them down

brooklynite

(93,847 posts)
43. How many times is it necessary to explain that FCC has NO AUTHORITY over cable?
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 05:09 PM
Mar 2023
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.....abridging the Freedom of Speech or of the press.


The ONLY reason FCC can impose regulations on broadcasters is because its part of the lease agreement for Government-owned broadcast frequencies.

And it doesn't matter what anyone here THINKS should be possible. The FCC, The President, the Congress and the Courts don't agree.

ripcord

(5,084 posts)
54. It is very simple
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 06:57 PM
Mar 2023

The government controls broadcast frequencies for the public need, they can be used by the federal and state governments in times of emergency. Cable doesn't use the public air waves and was installed using private money by for profit companies so the FCC has no right to regulate their content.

bluestarone

(16,720 posts)
55. I'm in full agreement with the posters that say the FCC has no authority with the Fox network.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 08:08 PM
Mar 2023

What i would love to see is the TRAITORS that listened to Fox, and believed what these 4 or 5 fox idiots were saying, would subpoena EVERYONE of them at their trial. I see that as the ONLY thing that could be a possible? (not sure) That would make things pretty interesting though.

ecstatic

(32,566 posts)
58. At the very least they should be required to publicly state what occurred
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 10:20 AM
Mar 2023

Multiple times a day for the next 3 months or so. They shouldn't be allowed to sweep everything under the rug.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»With Murdock et al admitt...