Fox News is not a news channel - it is a propaganda channel that should be regulated.

[xocet]

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Watching Fox News is similar to being in a theater with someone constantly screaming - "The theater is on fire!" - while lighting matches. No matter how calm one is when one takes one's seat, eventually the warning will be heard, the smoke will be smelt, the fear will be felt and the exit will be run for. (How many stochastic terrorists have been motivated by Fox? The number seems likely not to be zero.)

Here are just a pair of examples of the propaganda spread by Fox News:

REPORT: Fox Promotes Birther Myth In At Least 52 Segments
April 27, 2011 8:53 AM EDT ››› JUSTIN BERRIER, MELODY JOHNSON, JULIE MILLICAN, CHELSEA RUDMAN, & ERIC SCHROECK

Following potential Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's embrace of theories regarding President Obama's birthplace, Fox News has significantly ramped up its coverage of birther conspiracies. A Media Matters review of Fox News' opinion programs found that in recent weeks, the network devoted nearly two hours and 20 minutes to the issue, and in the vast majority of the cases, the hosts either espoused birther conspiracies or did not challenge or correct false claims about Obama's birth that aired on their shows. By contrast, when possible GOP presidential candidate and Fox News host Mike Huckabee similarly questioned -- but subsequently walked back -- Obama's origins, Fox devoted just over five minutes of coverage to Huckabee's false claim that Obama was raised in Kenya.

In Recent Weeks, Fox Has Dramatically Increased Its Coverage Of The Birther Conspiracy

As indicated below, in recent weeks, Fox News has significantly increased its coverage of those who falsely claim that President Obama may have been born outside of the United States. In fact, Obama was born in Hawaii -- a fact that has been repeatedly confirmed by official records and Hawaii Department of Health officials. As Media Matters has noted, several Fox News figures have embraced the birther conspiracy theory, while others have repeatedly failed to debunk false claims about Obama's birth. So widespread was Fox's coverage of Trump's embrace of birtherism that some Fox News hosts reported on and joked about the birther conspiracy theory in segments not relating to Trump.

...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/04/27/report-fox-promotes-birther-myth-in-at-least-52/179060

A History Of Death Panels: A Timeline
March 22, 2011 10:17 AM EDT ››› KAREN FAMIGHETTI

In honor of the one year anniversary of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Media Matters presents a timeline of one of the most disgraceful and pernicious myths about the law--death panels.

Betsy McCaughey Launches Health Care Debate With A Lie

McCaughey Helps Spread Falsehood Through Conservative Media

PolitiFact Debunks McCaughey's Claim

Fox News, Right-Wing Figures Continue To Push False Claim

...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/03/22/a-history-of-death-panels-a-timeline/177776

A person in a theater would be stopped if there were no fire, so should Fox News be regulated as there seems to have yet to have been an actual fire.

[hr]

On Edit: It is interesting to observe the responses to this OP. Regulation can have a broad meaning. No one has addressed the idea of regulating the yelling of "Fire!" in a theater where there is no fire. How is that regulation justified? I see complete silence on that topic and a plethora of attacks.

Suppose that Fox News decided to broadcast in the fashion of Radio-Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM). Would that be acceptable? Does the following statement hold any merit?

The use of propaganda in the Rwandan genocide : a study of Radio-Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM)
Gulseth, Hege Løvdal

...

Genocide does not start with the murder of masses of people, it starts in peoples’ mind. Before the weapons comes the image, before you can eliminate your enemy, you must define it. Both prior to and during the Rwandan genocide, the radio station Radio-Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) was used as an instrument to create a Tutsi enemy image. This thesis demonstrates that this enemy image was created through the use of different propaganda techniques that resemble the seven characteristics that Spillman and Spillman (1991) connect to the syndrome of the enemy image.

...

https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/13569

Fox News has done an exceptional job of painting liberals, progressives, President Obama et al as the enemy.

Is there a creative solution that can maintain free speech, but restrict not necessarily the use but the effectiveness of pure propaganda?

Fox News is a corporation. Are corporations people? Do corporations deserve free speech in the same way that citizens do? Is it that subconsciously we essentially all accept the idea that corporations are people even though when asked directly we would deny that corporations are people? These are merely questions for discussion. It would be interesting to read your responses.

[ffr]

1. Two words

Republis congress.

[procon]

16. cable providers should move the Fox channel from the news category to the

Cartoon section, or maybe mix it in with the infotainment shows in the home shopping groups, even the religious programming would be a better fit for their brand of propaganda BS.

[Hutzpa]

2. The sooner they get stripped of News from fox the better it will be for everyone.

Let them be known for what they really are, which is Fox Propaganda Entertainment Network.

[JaneyVee]

3. Is someone regulating FOXNews?

[sabrina 1]

4. Yes, you are correct. Murdoch is the propaganda arm of the Global Corporate Power brokers. News is

what they want to SUPPRESS.

The petition should ask that Fox be denied the right to call themselves a News Channel. Let them spew their garbage, but do not allow them to pretend they are something they are not.

[calimary]

43. YES. They need to be classified differently.

If they call themselves "Fox", or "Fox Entertainment" or "Fox Propaganda" then seems to me they're okay. The whole truth-in-advertising thing steps in here. They are simply NOT qualified to call themselves a "News" channel. It doesn't fit with the product they serve 24/7/365.

[Scootaloo]

5. Well, that would require a regulatory body being able to regulate

[CBGLuthier]

6. This is the kind of nonsense that anything with the word Democrat in its name should be ashamed of.

The idea that anything calling itself news needs to meet some kind of government test is the beginning of a slippery slope towards the end of the first amendment. Who decides what is really news or a news organisation?

Shameful unconstitutional bullshit.

[DFW]

9. That is valid only up to a point

Obviously, progressives wishing to shut down Fox have their counterparts in reactionaries wanting to shut down MSNBC, even though MSNBC is nowhere near the monolithic mouthpiece for the left as Fox is for the right.

Even so, any organization showing nothing but soft porn just on the safe side of obscenity law enforcement would probably run up against legal action if it called itself Vox News. What about a broadcaster running only videos of so-called "Christian" or "Muslim" hate preachers telling how God says it's alright to "act against" non-believers? Bill O'Reilly could have been charged as an accessory to the murder of Dr. Tiller and not raised too many eyebrows at DoJ.

Fox did go to court to defend their right to lie and still call themselves "News," and they did win. However, their channel does not disseminate News in any modern sense of the word. They disseminate lies and propaganda, and their factual reporting is usually limited to stock quotes and sports statistics. At the very least, calling themselves "News" violates the Truth in Advertising Act, a court case that has yet to be brought.

Granted, the First Amendment sets a justifiably and necessarily high hurdle for legally impeding freedom of speech. However, even the United States has incitement laws and others that take into account that a society must have at least some safeguards against mass dissemination of hate propaganda and deliberate lies whose only intention is to cause damage to certain groups or segments of the country.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. No, Fox News didn't go to court to defend their right to lie

The story you're thinking of was a local Fox network affiliate (very different than Fox News on cable), and the lawsuit was over the contract termination of a news team.

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

[onenote]

25. Internet Myth: Fox did not defend the right to call themselves News.

The case that this myth is based on didn't even involve the Fox News Channel. It was a lawsuit brought against a Fox-owned broadcast station that hired a husband and wife team of investigative reporters and after disputes over the content of their reporting fired them without cause. The reporters sued for wrongful termination; all of their claims were dismissed before trial on the facts and law except for a claim based on Florida's "whistle blower" statute. The plaintiffs prevailed before a jury on that claim and the station appealed to the next level state court which ruled that the whistle blower statute only applied where the whistle blower was fired for alleging that the employer was violating a law; the FCC "news distortion" policy does not have the force of law, so the court reversed. Ultimately, the couple brought their complaint to the FCC which ruled against them, holding that the matter involved an editorial dispute that the agency was constitutionally barred from adjudicating.

[840high]

34. X+10

[NYC Liberal]

7. No.

[Rex]

8. Not regulated, just not a news channel.

Evidently there is not a law against calling yourself whatever the fuck ya want to on TVEE. I thought there was too.

[Wella]

10. Most MSM channels fit the description of propaganda channels: they call it "the narrative"

Clean news is really hard to get in the mainstream.

[progressoid]

11. No. Should we also regulate EWTN (the Catholic Cable channel) and the 700 Club?

They're full of propaganda and bullshit too.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Cringingly embarrassing, anti-First Amendment nonsense.

I do, however, defend your free-speech right to espouse this utter crap.

[JonLP24]

44. There is something that should be opposed

It is all the media consolidation taking place, not only is it bad for the consumer but more centralizes the flow of information & for the most part, whatever is being spoon fed by the major networks & their local affiliates becomes a key part of the national dialogue. With fewer choices & more control by consolidators who are wealthy and the news already has a history of portraying things dishonest regarding the populists in comparison to the wealthy who have the money to discredit them.

[Archae]

14. The biggest problem is no one can define exactly what is "news."

There's a preacher named Rick Wiles, he runs an outfit called "TruNews."
And his versions of "news" are Jack Van Impe-style "It's the Endtimes, Jesus is coming soon" stories.
You can see much of his stuff here:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/rww-blog-posts

The criteria for what is news is so vague, actual far-left communists can call their site "news," as can far-right Nazis.

Fox is propaganda, no question.
But not 100%.

[treestar]

15. There's no way to regulate it

Just keep speaking out against it.

It is entertainment/opinion, not news.

[Orsino]

19. Fairness Doctrine. Enforce divestiture. Break up media monoliths.

All sorts of regulation is technically possible--but perhaps you meant that no such regulations will make it out of Republucan-controlled committees, in which case I agree.

[tammywammy]

20. The Fairness a Doctrine only applied to broadcast channels not cable. n/t

[Orsino]

21. Since a new one would have to be created anyway, why would we omit cable? n/t

[tammywammy]

23. You'd want to expand the FCC's powers?

Should all cable channels be treated like broadcast channels?

[Orsino]

24. Fuck, yeah.

Would be consistent with the restoration of Title II status of Internet service. Technology has continued to evolve since the Fairness Doctrine, and media's hold on us had increased.

We could regulate. We just don't.

[treestar]

31. Technically the media has no hold on us

We could all ignore it. That is why we hear the term "sheeple." It's a tough nut to crack. So mny people follow it without question.

[Orsino]

32. I think you've just agreed that media do have an enormous hold on us. n/t

[onenote]

26. Well, hell then. Let's include newspapers and the Internet while we're at it.

[Orsino]

27. Yes. When I say to bust up media monoliths, I mean all of them.

Content regulation would nearly take care of itself if we have the guts to ensure diversity of opinion in the marketplace of ideas.

[progressoid]

30. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

A diversity of opinion in the marketplace of ideas does, sadly, include Fox.

Ironically, Fox is the king of content regulation. They only allow their point of view.

[Orsino]

33. No contradiction at all.

Fox News might or might not become less biased or more accurate with the break-up of its umbrella corporations, but it would not be so ubiquitous, and therefore it would be repeatedly fact-checked by competition that would become more visible.

That's exactly what diversity of opinion should mean.

[onenote]

38. I was referring to your call to impose the Fairness Doctrine on cable

and, presumably, on the Internet (by virtue of your contention that it would be consistent with Title II regulation of the Internet. And apparently newspapers as well.

My guess is that you haven't really throught this through. Do you really want the government to force DU to make room for RW posters? To require as a matter of law that a newspaper publish a certain number of columns or letters to the editor espousing different viewpoints?

And Title II doesn't give the government authority to regulate the content of telephone messages, but on the positive side, if it did, then we wouldn't need the NSA to listen in on our calls, the FCC could do it.

[Orsino]

39. DU is a customer, not an ISP, and certainly not a media monolith.

It's an example of some of the variety we could see across all media.

[onenote]

40. So you are saying cable operators and ISPs should be required to transmit varying points of view

Not that the channels they carry or the content of the websites travelling over an ISP have to comply with any Fairness Doctrine type obligations.

Well, Fox should love that since it would protect them from being dropped by a cable system and give them a right to complain if they weren't carried.

[Orsino]

42. That's a fair sacrifice.

My goal is not to erase Fox News, but to surgically remove it from its enormous corporate umbrella, and to place it into context as just one of many possible outlets for news.

But we don't have to pretend that a web site is a TV network, at least not until the day that as many Americans are watching news that way. Then we would need a Fairness Doctrine tailored to include it.

Step One has got to be a willingness to force divestiture.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Lots of hateful crap on religious TV, don't care for that but I do support the First Amendment

This is utter bullshit you are posting. Chilling, fascistic bullshit.
It's also such a huge waste of time. People on 'our side' seem fixated on FoxNews and I think that serves FoxNews. They have a very small, niche audience with an aged and narrow demographic. If you combine the entire audience of all cable commentary programming or news, Fox, CNN and MSNBC the total viewers still don't add up to the viewership for any one of the three broadcast networks.
318 Million Americans. In their best hours around 3 million of the 318 million watch Fox. Of those 3 million, 2.5 are either too young to vote or too old to persuade.
The best sauce and swiftest cure for FoxNews is mockery.
"Rhetoric does not get you anywhere, because Hitler and Mussolini are just as good at rhetoric. But if you can bring these people down with comedy, they stand no chance."- Mel Brooks

[WillowTree]

29. Agreed. What's that old saying?

They're allowing FSN to live rent-free in their heads. Giving over way too much energy to it that could better be spent doing things that have even a 1% chance of benefitting someone.

[CK_John]

18. How long before people learn the difference between over the air (TV/radio) and Cable that

you pay to bring into your home or business.

[onenote]

22. Two Words: First Amendment

It's sad that people who call themselves progressives are so out of tune with one of the greatest progressive jurists of all time: William O. Douglas --

Here's Douglas on the First Amendment, broadcasting, and government-imposed "responsibility":

"My conclusion is that TV and radio stand in the same protected position under the First Amendment as do newspapers and magazines. The philosophy of the First Amendment requires that result, for the fear that Madison and Jefferson had of government intrusion is perhaps even more relevant to TV and radio than it is to newspapers and other like publications. That fear was founded not only on the spectre of a lawless government but of government under the control of a faction that desired to foist its views of the common good on the people. In popular terms that view has been expressed as follows:

'The ground rules of our democracy, as it has grown, require a free press, not necessarily a responsible or a temperate one. There aren't any halfway stages. As Aristophanes saw, democracy means that power is generally conferred on second-raters by third-raters, whereupon everyone else, from first-raters to fourth-raters, moves with great glee to try to dislodge them. It's messy but most politicians understand that it can't very well be otherwise and still be a democracy.' Stewart, reviewing Epstein, News From Nowhere: Television and the News (1972), Book World, Washington Post, March 25, 1973, pp. 4-5.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING v. DEMOCRATIC COMM., 412 U.S. 94 (1973)(Douglas concurring).


While broadcasting is subject to licensing in order to manage spectrum use and avoid interference, it is subject only to minimal oversight when it comes to content. And non-broadcast media, whether cable, print, Internet, are not subject to licensing. The reasons were cogently stated by Chief Justice Hughes 75 years ago:

"The struggle for the freedom of the press was primarily directed against the power of the licensor. It was against that power that John Milton directed his assault by his "Appeal for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing." And the liberty of the press became initially a right to publish "without a license what formerly could be published only with one." While this freedom from previous restraint upon publication cannot be regarded as exhausting the guaranty of liberty, the prevention of that restraint was a leading purpose in the adoption of the constitutional provision."

Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 451 (1938).


Then there are the words of Justice Louis Brandeis: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”— Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927).

Finally, in 1974, a unanimous Supreme Court put it even more succinctly: "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." (Miami Herald v. Tornillo).

[Codeine]

28. Not this shit again. nt

[MineralMan]

35. The First Amendment is either the law of the land or it is not.

We are, and must be, free to voice our opinions in this country. If you make it possible to regulate the freedom of others, I can guarantee those others will restrict yours in turn.

Counter such speech with truth, not censorship. What you do will come back and bite you on the ass later.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

36. The First Amendment says we can't do that.

Yes, Fox News is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the GOP. But like it or not, propaganda is protected speech. You counter their lies with the truth; the remedy for bad speech is not suppression but more speech. Dictatorships suppress the speech of those they disagree with and we do not want to go there.

[Throd]

37. Alex, I'll take "Things that make DU look stupid" for $500

[JonLP24]

41. Propaganda is bad for you

and Fox News is hardly alone in this but regulation in how it would written because it strikes me as something that easily becomes a slippery slope with picking & choosing who to regulate. 24/7 news networks sell the news because the business models depends on people viewing & in comes the advertisers almost everything is presented in a way which actually isn't the way it is actually is. I never watch it because I don't have access to those channels, thankfully. But I noticed a Obama not showing up at a rally in France come out of nowhere on DU & it all originated during I was actively reading GD all day that day from a France journalist critical of Obama not showing up which I imagine was picked up on and they were so obviously beating that drop over and over because of how many DUers were posting critiques of the criticism over something thank ranks pretty low as things to be concerned about but for some reason it was sold.

[tritsofme]

45. This authoritarian drive to silence opponents with government power is beyond scary.

You are not a liberal, in any sense of the word. There are plenty of other authoritarian regimes and dictatorships across the world with plenty of people like you where you will feel much more at home.

Consider that, or take a civics class.

[Throd]

46. I'm appalled by how many can't see how this might be used against us at a future date.

The government that has the power to silence people you hate also has the power to silence YOU.