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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

yellowwoodII

(616 posts)
Sun Dec 1, 2019, 11:51 AM Dec 2019

Fox News

What can be done about Fox?

I talked to a good friend yesterday. I really respect her in so many ways. And yet, whenever she opens her mouth, Fox News comes out. I noticed this in the runup to the Iraq war. She is completely under their spell.

The station is really evil.

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

leftieNanner

(15,114 posts)
3. Correct
Sun Dec 1, 2019, 12:10 PM
Dec 2019

Ask Shep Smith.

It doesn't run in Canada, I believe, because they have a law against BS calling itself news.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

DFW

(54,397 posts)
8. Not quite the same here in Germany, but close enough
Sun Dec 1, 2019, 12:42 PM
Dec 2019

The one restriction to free speech on the books here is the prohibition of Nazi propaganda, or something that closely resembles it. Murdoch tried for a license for a German Fox "News" here, but they took one look at the US version and said forget it.

malaise

(269,022 posts)
6. No - it is not whatever we call it - it is very important
Sun Dec 1, 2019, 12:15 PM
Dec 2019

Just call it Fox - drop the news. Never mention news about Fox. That gives them credibility.

DFW

(54,397 posts)
9. A legal challenge was mounted some years ago.
Sun Dec 1, 2019, 12:49 PM
Dec 2019

The lawsuit based itself (I think, cold be wrong about the details) on the Truth in Advertising law, which the lawsuit said Fox "News" was violating by knowingly calling lies "news." Their defense was the First Amendment, which, they claimed, gave them the right to say anything they wanted over the airwaves, and call it whatever they wanted. The (Republican-appointed, of course) judge agreed with the Murdochs, and that was the end of the lawsuit. It was decided in Ohio, as far as I know.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
7. No one can stop someone from believeing what they want to believe.
Sun Dec 1, 2019, 12:36 PM
Dec 2019

Many of these conservatives are bigots. Many of them are afraid that the US is no longer that all white country they think they remember.

Maraya1969

(22,482 posts)
10. Reinstate the fairness doctrine.
Sun Dec 1, 2019, 01:13 PM
Dec 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]

The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the Court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.

The fairness doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

Martin Eden

(12,869 posts)
15. It's very difficult to shake a belief system formed during years of swallowing propaganda
Sun Dec 1, 2019, 03:03 PM
Dec 2019

There's no telling what kind of wedge will begin to pry them away from the lies and distortions. It varies from person to person and some folks are beyond help.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Fox News