WaPo Publishes Column Calling on Cable Companies to Shut Down Fox News, Newsmax, OAN: 'Incited Sedit

[BigBearJohn]

Washington Post columnist Max Boot is calling on cable providers to consider dropping networks including Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News.

“Anyone who cherishes our democracy should be grateful to the management of Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites for their newfound sense of social responsibility,” Boot wrote. “We should expect at least the same level of responsibility from broadcast media — and in particular from Fox News, which has the largest reach on the right.

Boot took particular aim at Fox personalities including Mark Levin, whose hour-long Life, Liberty & Levin airs each Saturday and Sunday, and Lou Dobbs, who hosts the hour-long Lou Dobbs Tonight on Fox Business Network. Both hosts were vocal in urging President Donald Trump and his supporters to try to reverse the results of the 2020 election. He also cited a report that Ashli Babbitt, who was killed during the pro-Trump unrest in the Capitol on Jan. 6, was an “avid viewer” of Fox hosts including Tucker Carlson.

If Fox refuses to direct its hosts to moderate their rhetoric, Boot argued, “large cable companies such as Comcast and Charter Spectrum, which carry Fox News and provide much of its revenue in the form of user fees, need to step in and kick Fox News off. And if smaller competitors such as One America News and Newsmax continue to incite viewers, they, too, should be booted off.”

SOURCE: https://www.mediaite.com/news/wapo-publishes-column-calling-on-cable-companies-to-shut-down-fox-news-newsmax-oan-incited-sedition/

[Thekaspervote]

1. Kudos to WaPo! If comcrap would give us a choice to not have fux..we would jump on that!!

[mdbl]

50. Your idea is the best idea

give people the choice to drop right-wing propaganda off their channel lineup instead of forcing it on and torturing people who have cognitive thinking skills.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

87. That's what I'm doing already.

(Spectrum customer)

Local channels, C-SPAN, PBS and some other freebies along with 10 cable channels of my choice for $15 / month.

I picked CNN and MSNBC among the 10, but certainly not Fox or the other right-wing trash!

I also get everything from HBO Max, Showtime, TMC and Starz for another $25.

Back when I had 300+ channels a few years ago, I only watched about a dozen of them anyway!

[Ponietz]

2. Duh, zombie apocalypse isn't good for business

[TheBlackAdder]

69. On FiOS, there's no way to block those channels. You can set profiles, but need to keep activating.

.

I got sick of paying for FOX, Newsmax, OAN and Russia Times that I cancelled my entire Ultimate HD package.

.

[Walleye]

3. This might work. The return of the fairness doctrine is pie in the sky.

[Trailrider1951]

9. Return of the fairness doctrine will not affect cable "news" channels

It only applied to the broadcast airwaves. Return of the doctrine will, however, make the broadcast channels, as well as
AM and FM radio, present opposing opinions, rather than the steady diet of right wing bullshit.

[Walleye]

11. Exactly. There are too many different ways to get news to be able to apply the fairness doctrine IMO

[BComplex]

4. Amen!!! We might save our country. We'd definitely save some really bad assholes from

prison.

Maybe the military budget can compensate the cable companies as part of the war against russia. Because all it does is help our enemies to have those channels spewing that crap.

[Towlie]

5. Instead of an article about an article, how about the article?

 
←

WaPo: Trump couldn’t have incited sedition without the help of Fox News

You know what? If Twitter could insert warnings into Trump's posts like "this claim is disputed", I wonder if cable companies could do the same. Imagine if captions were added to Fox News shows notifying viewers when the speaker was lying.

[FakeNoose]

39. That won't happen because it's their own talking heads that lie the most

What needs to happen is the monopoly cable companies should take all of the biased news channels off of their basic package. Make everyone pay the premium to get Faux Noise, or MSNBC, or OANN or whatever channel they want. Not sure about CNN because even they can't claim to be "unbiased."

So once people have to pay for the bias they choose to listen to, it's going to be obvious that most of the customers are not willing to pay extra for Faux Noise. It's simple - it's capitalism in action - let the market decide.

I wish the same market principle could be applied to AM radio.

[radical noodle]

51. I'm okay with a little bias, like MSNBC and CNN

Flat out lies are a different story. But I already pay a premium for MSNBC while Fox was included in my basic package.

[BobTheSubgenius]

56. Now THAT is ridiculous and unfair!

We have somewhat more flexibility in Canada. Cable providers let you choose, but it's quite expensive to do it on a per-channel basis. I'm not sure how much these channels are individually, but I know that, to add HBO to whatever package you've chosen used to be $20 a month. I doubt if prices have come down.

However, the other alternative is having all the news channels on offer, or none of them.

[radical noodle]

71. I could probably save money if I could pick

each channel I wanted, because I've ended up with tons of channels I have no use for. Basic is Fox, CNN, the religious channels, and the channels like TLC, TCM, TNT, WGN, Food, and HGTV. I opted out of sports and movies on cable but had to add for MSNBC and Discovery which came with a bunch of other stuff I never watch. Recently my cable provider has added OAN and Newsmax for free. It's crazy. Seriously, who wants to watch Dr. Pimple Popper, Sister Wives, or Desperate Housewives? I hope you folks in Canada are spared those, at least.

I actually only watch about 8 channels 95% of the time. The other 100s of them are a waste.

[ShazzieB]

81. Same here. I get a ton of channels that I will never watch.

It's always bugged me that, in order to have cable TV, I have to pay for all kinds of crap I don't want.

Yes, I can block stuff, but I still have to freaking pay for all of it! 😬

[cannabis_flower]

89. Perhaps they could at least

Labels it opinion. If it was labeled opinion at least people would know it’s not news.

[ancianita]

47. Yep, because Boot lays out a more informative timeline to back up his claim.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. The Model No Longer Makes Sense Anyway

Our system has almost 900 channels.
Why would cable companies need to pat carriage fees any longer
Three fourths of all homes have cable or satellite TV.
These channels cannot live without cable or satellite companies.
The cable companies should be charging them, not the other way around.
After all, it's not like these channels are commercial free. Let them prosper or fail based on their advertising revenue.
It makes no sense to pay them to carry.
Draw up a contract that says operator will carry the channel, originator retains copyright, and operator won't charge them for access but originator requires no fee.
If they refuse, companies like Faux suffer, not the cable companies.
They have no choice but to provide content for free, because no cable or satellite, no station.

[onenote]

63. The problem is, oddly enough, competition.

Back in the day, cable networks didn't charge cable operators; indeed, they often paid the operator a fee for carriage (in cash or in "ad avails&quot . But that was because the only game in town was the cable operator. But then direct broadcast satellite came along. And after that, the phone companies. Now almost everyone has a choice of 3 or 4 (or sometimes five) multichannel video program distributors: their incumbent cable operator, DirecTV, DISH, Verizon or AT&T and, possibly, a smaller overbuilder. This has shifted the leverage away from the distributor to the programmer, especially when the programmer has programming that a portion of the subscriber base considers "must have." For one of the distributors to refuse to pay or threaten to drop a channel like FoxNews is to risk losing a portion of their subscriber base unless every distributor did the same -- an action that would draw instant antitrust scrutiny under the Sherman Act. DISH tried fighting back against FoxNews' fee demands in 2015. The impasse lasted four weeks before DISH, having probably lost thousands of subscribers, caved.

A further limitation on Boot's idea: the distributors cannot simply stop carrying these channels without being in breach of their current contracts and the programmers aren't going to agree to any future contract that gives the distributor the right to stop carrying their service at will.

And on top of those issues, there is the fact that the contracts entered into between programmers and cable companies often "bundle" multiple networks. For example, the right to carry ABC television stations is often part of the same agreement as the rights to carry ESPN. FoxNews and Fox Business are bundled and it wouldn't be a stretch for Fox to include its regional sports networks or even its Fox Broadcasting channels in the same agreement.

[ProfessorGAC]

66. We Disagree

I get the whole contract thing.
I don't agree that there is sufficient competition to justify the carrier paying the originator.
We'll just leave that as it is.
It's ok to disagree, agreeably.

[onenote]

67. Not trying to be disagreeable.

But the facts are clear. I've represented a number of cable operators in carriage disputes with programmers. In some cases, where the distributor refused to pay up, the programming was pulled off. In every case, the distributor ends up caving and paying -- sometimes more than what was originally demanded. Why do they cave? Because the other distributors market directly to their customers to get them to change providers. And switch they do -- by the thousands in some cases. When a distributor compares the lost revenue from subscribers that switch providers ($50-$100 a month) to the couple of bucks they're trying to save, the math is obvious. And they have no leverage--the programmer may lose some eyeballs temporarily, which could cost it ad revenues and monthly fees, they get those back when the customer switches to a different provider.

Here's one example -- estimates are that the cable operator lost 5000 subscribers a week. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sinclair-mediacom-settle-dispute-129389

[ProfessorGAC]

70. Still We Disagree

While those may be facts, they're rooted in the very business model I see as flawed.
There are legitimate business methods to market method around that.
And, there are swaths of the country that do not have choices. So, your example doesn't apply universally.
We have two choices. Comcast or DTV If someone tries Dish, there is no high speed internet. That's hardly competitive.
Last, it's also a fact that the biggest driver in selecting a supply carrier is price.
People sacrifice channels for price every day, all around the country.
And, I think that's further accelerated by streaming.
I don't think you're looking at the overall business model.
I believe your perspective is, while from valid experience, trapped in the existing model

[pandr32]

7. Dare I hope?

There is a growing desire among the not-indoctrinated to deal with the undue influence of right-wing media. We've all seen its poisoning effect on the minds of relatives, coworkers, and (former) friends. We've all seen the videos of ordinary people spewing ridiculous nonsense as fact during interviews, rallies, protests, and finally the filming themselves while they storm our Capitol while bragging they are taking back our country and stopping the steal.
We live on Hawaii Island and because of the fact Fox News (and other right-wing sources of so-called news) is carried here we see many people wearing MAGA hats and just two days ago a large group of local people protesting the Covid-19 vaccinations as they begin on our island. Why?
When people shoot themselves in the feet quite willingly enough is enough.

[RainCaster]

8. The FCC needs to restore the Fairness Doctrine of the 80s

The last paragraph of the WaPo article states. I agree.

[Dem4Life1102]

21. Doesn't apply to cable networks

FCC only regulates broadcasting stations.

[RainCaster]

33. Yet...

The FCC is trying to regulate the internet, so they can also manage cable/satellite programming as well.

[Dem4Life1102]

45. Highly unlikely

The internet was developed by the government and still uses public resources. Cable services and networks are completely private property.

[LiberalArkie]

54. The cable services do use public frequencies and are regulated. The transmissions are (hopefully)

contained within a coaxial cable. But the RF is still regulated.

[Dem4Life1102]

57. What public frequencies?

[LiberalArkie]

58. Basically 50mHz to around 450mHz. I think digital is the same.

Through those cables is RF (Radio Frequency). RF is regulated.




"https://www.kinta.tk/wp-content/uploads/R5vDBm/electromagnetic-spectrum-regulation. jpg"

[Dem4Life1102]

59. And how do cable networks

use these frequencies?

[TexasProgresive]

62. The only way to regulate cable is to do it like land line telephone service was regulated.

The signals carried by fiber optic and coaxial cable is completely not broadcasted. Those signals are running through private property. Even WIFI is pretty much exempt as those signals are generated by ISPs who are just a common carrier. I am sure the ISPs have to meet certain FCC regulatory restrictions having to do with power and area covered, but content would not be covered.

I am not sure how to regulate cable and internet content. If you have a comprehensive plan please lay it out.

I live in a rural area without cable. Satellite is an option. I have used broadcast TV for years. I refuse to go with satellite or various internet TV services because of some of the content they deliver. No FAUX Snooze or those other far right wing channels, no 20 different sports channels and so forth. I am not giving my dollars to support content I don't agree with or want.

We have 3 channels for streaming on TV and computers; Prime, Britbox and Acorn.

[ChazInAz]

34. Couldn't that be changed?

After all, cable didn't exist when the FCC was created and the Fairness Doctrine formulated.

[Dem4Life1102]

43. Not likely

Tha authority for the FCC was the the airwaves used by broadcasters are owned by the public.

[James48]

78. The authority

Was regulating commerce. The commerce clause. Since radio waves didn’t stop at state borders, the FCC could regulate interstate commerce.

The same thing COULD apply to FCC regulating interstate cable programming, IF Congress decided to make such a law, and IF the Supreme Court would go along with it. That’s the wildcard today. Supreme Court has been backtracking on some commerce clause claims, and might upset the Apple cart if Congress tried to regulate cable and internet.

At least- this right-wing court might, right up until there is a right-wing riot trying to take over the Court building...

[intheflow]

79. Yeah, I'd love to know if the justices have been talking

across party lines about the insurrection.

[Dem4Life1102]

85. Read this

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2004/02/can-the-fcc-crack-down-on-cable.html

[James48]

86. That isn't the question.

That is the state of current law- the FCC can’t regulate it, because it’s outside the jurisdiction, based on current law.

That doesn’t mean Congress can’t attempt a new authority to regulate, based on a new law. Congress CAN try another attempt, if it so desired, to regulate based on Commerce Clause, if the signal crosses state lines, (which it often does).

Even thing that Congress wants to make a law about COUlD be regulated, IF the courts buy the argument that Congress makes for why they have the power to regulate it, and if the Courts agree it doesn’t interfere with other Constitutional rights. Not always an easy case to make, BUT you don’t know until you try.

[Dem4Life1102]

88. "If the courts buy the argument"

That’s the key phrase. And there is a little thing called the first amendment that might get in the way.

I like to deal with what is, not with what might be.

[SunSeeker]

10. K & R

[callous taoboy]

12. After Faux etc. gave rise to Drumpf and denigrated Hillary, I quit T.V. in 2016. n/t

[Lonestarblue]

13. I'm a Spectrum cable user. I will be writing to ask for a package without Fox.

If enough people contact their cable providers, we might have some impact. I’m posting the WaPo article on FB and asking anyone who reads to contact their cable company and demand the option to remove Fox.

[bucolic_frolic]

14. Laws against slander and libel exist, so why not incitement or sedition?

Trump may yet get his restrictions on the press, just not quite the variety he would like.

[TryLogic]

35. Yes. And why not laws against spreading false information that endangers life, health, or

national security?

[jpljr77]

15. I can't believe I'm doing this: I DISAGREE

There should be repercussions for those Fox News personalities that actually incited violence (Levin and Dobbs) and those that fueled the narrative for so long (Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham and others). But shutting down an entire news network -- which, by the way, featured plenty of counter-narrative over the last few months -- seems awfully slippery-slopey.

I don't watch Fox voluntarily, so I'm not defending a product I like, but we have to do a better job at combating their propaganda than simply silencing them. That's what these militia types want, you know?

[PatSeg]

17. I can remember some years back

when I had to pay extra for a package that included MSNBC. I don't remember what cable company it was now. Maybe cable companies could do something like that - If you want Fox News, upgrade to a different package. If people want their right-wing nuttery, make them pay for it.

[aggiesal]

29. Fox Corp. was willing to take a loss as long as they got their message out ...

Fox News is offered on the basic plan, because Fox Corp. gave it away for free as long as the cable/satellite companies put it on their basic plans, so it didn't cost Cable/Satellite a dime.
Wonder why McDonalds always had on Fox News? Because it is free!

I don't know how it is now, whether Fox or the provider charge for the content.

[PatSeg]

36. Yeah, Fox is all over the place

So many businesses have their TVs turned to Fox all day long. It probably increases their ad revenue.

[Caliman73]

49. They aren't shutting down. Someone is asking cable companies to stop broadcasting.

There is a difference.

I understand the side you are arguing. This is censorship by cable companies.

We can certainly have a discussion about the power of the large cable companies like Spectrum, Cox, Viacom, etc... We also need to have a discussion about Twitter, Facebook, and Google with regards to social media.

The problem that I see is this. Fox, Newsmax, and OANN are not little ragtag leftist channels that operate on a shoestring, trying to get the word out on the establishment and capitalism. They are coordinated, right wing, propaganda, funded by billionaires, with the sole intent to maintain their own power.

That these companies are being pressured and it is having an effect, is actually a good thing. Right wing propaganda is not "free speech", it is a platform for incitement to violence.

I have said this many many times here. We have always had a divide, always between conservatives and liberals, and others from each end of the spectrum. Thing is, we always argued using the same facts. Right wing media has so poisoned the discussion, that a whole segment of the population is not operating in the same reality.

It is a double edged sword to stop carrying those networks. I understand that, but again, this is not a "good faith" debate we are having. This is right wing discourse, designed solely for propaganda, which will use liberal ideas to circumvent the arguments. We know that we have better arguments, but liberalism doesn't allow for the media to actually make those arguments. Liberalism takes the position of neutrality. Most of the media is owned by corporations and conservatives as well so conservatives get much more airtime. This is the news consumer putting pressure on the corporations that carry the right wing propaganda, to stop supporting it.

[certainot]

94. and it's not necessary. fox is the cartoon cliff noted for RW radio, which would be easy to destroy

with a little effort from dem party and progressive orgs.

without rw radio to do the unchallenged repetition fox could no longer do what it does.

most like levin, hannity, ingraham are rw radio too and began there, where they get away with a lot worse lying and racism for more hours to larger audiences as they parrot their king limbaugh and each other.

when limbaugh croaks his 600 stations owners are going different directions with different hosts and they're all going to try to outdo each other

and thanks to AI advances it has become very likely that large scale transcription and analysis of talk radio, including listing or advertisers without listening, will force the ad industry, which wants those tens of millions of ears, to democratize political talk radio and push many to other formats where that's not possible

without talk radio all those tv networks become pretty marginalized and useless - they all piggyback or serve to feed 1500 radio stations

it wouldn't take much of a radio boycott effort to start the end of rw radio

[ace3csusm]

16. I would be happy with just holding them accountable, When Tucker Carlson

was sued their defense was that his show was not news and no word take what he say's serious...But yet people do and they know it either control your programing or lose your broadcast license also no entertainment show that you claim should be on a news channel...We Wapo screws up they bring down the chopping blocks...I remember hearing a reporter who wrote an untrue report and was fired, why arent news host held to the same level especial the high rating guys. Tucker, Hannity and Ingram are the biggest un truthful shows i have heard of spreading lies yet their only punishment is un scheduled vacations...

[Dawson Leery]

18. I do not like the idea of mass censorship.

On the other hand, a private company is not the government AND the networks in question have incited sedition and will continue to do so.

[martalcd]

19. I've been saying this should happen for years...

Fox should never have been allowed to run roughshod over the facts for 20+ years.

[flying_wahini]

20. FCC needs to pull licensing anytime insurrection is encouraged.

Period. Make News station report only truthful news. Period.

[dware]

96. The only problem with that is that cable and satellite

aren't licensed by the FCC, so there is no license to pull.

[lindysalsagal]

22. At a bare minimum, they should come with warnings like tobacco: "This Is Not News: It is Unconfirmed

It is the unconfirmed opinions of those with special interests and has not been supported by serious investigation."

[Volaris]

27. Yep and the host should have to read that statement on air,

Before and after every commercial break.

Or the FCC yanks your license.

Rush, Levin, and most of fox would be off the air in about 6 days.

[dware]

97. What FCC license?

FCC has no licensing authority over cable or satellite, so, no license to yank.

[AmBlue]

31. At the VERY least!

"Watching this station has been proven harmful to your health and is anti-thetical to American democracy..."

[MyMission]

61. For entertainment purposes only

If you're entertained by right-wing, racist rants and commentaries. No sedition allowed!

[uponit7771]

77. +1

[BadGimp]

23. Fat Chance!

While I agree completely with the objectives and context, there is almost no way this happens.

Consumers can make this happen with proactive efforts but no way the networks take this action on their own.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

24. Yep. They are an imminent threat and clear and present danger

to the security of the United States.

[DeminPennswoods]

25. At least take Fox News off basic cable subscriptions

To get MSNBC, you have to pay for another level of service. Make Fox News the same, or, since it's viewers are so avid, put it on an extra premium cable package.

[Hulk]

26. At the very least they ought to make it optional so that people can pay for it

... instead of a basic plan. You can't get MSNBC in a lot of hotel rooms but you can always get Fox

[barbtries]

38. several times

i have been in hotel rooms and fox was the default. if i couldn't figure out how to switch it to msnbc, i complained.

[Initech]

28. Newsmax and OAN can go eat shit for all I care.

[AmBlue]

30. Can we add HATE radio nationwide to this list?

Americans are being hit from all angles with non-stop lies and alternative facts and reality.

All of it MUST stop!

[calimary]

32. Max Boot no less.

A conservative voice speaking a BIG truth for once.

DAYUM! Couldn't agree more enthusiastically, loudly, or vehemently!

Visions of a new Indivisible "ask" dancing in my head...

[barbtries]

37. good idea.

send these freaks back to the fringe where they belong.

my mother was a die-hard republican and she laughed at the john birch society. apparently when i was about 5 years old, i tried to join it, i think from an ad in a magazine. every time my mother told the story she'd laugh and roll her eyes when she said "john birch society." i was so young i don't recall doing it and had no idea what they were about. i wonder where along the rings of the outer fringe they'd land today.

there's free speech, but there shouldn't be free propaganda.

[dalton99a]

41. Kick

[samsingh]

42. agreed

[orangecrush]

44. KICK

[Pepsidog]

46. Bezos should buy News Corp or go after them like Murdoch did to take control of WSJ.

[appmanga]

48. Charter...

...wouldn't even be the third best cable system in Kazakhstan

[Oscarthegreat]

52. Long overdue

I'd be against it if any of them provided even a little bit of news. However, they are strictly propaganda and incitement vehicles, dedicated to disseminating lies to their feeble minded audience using the templates provided by the Nazi and Soviet propaganda machines, where facts and reality are never even a remote consideration.

[Brainfodder]

53. Have to include RADIO in this as well!

[MrModerate]

55. Or they could stop lying, although that's probably contrary to their business model. n/t

[Hermit-The-Prog]

60. Bundling of channels is a problem. People pay for things they don't want.

[keithbvadu2]

64. So that same 43% would approve a democrat shutting down Fox news?

“Freedom of the press may be guaranteed in the Constitution. But a plurality of Republicans want to give President Trump the authority to close down certain news outlets, according to a new public opinion survey conducted by Ipsos and provided exclusively to The Daily Beast.”

So that same 43% would approve a democrat shutting down Fox news?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-poll-43-of-republicans-want-to-give-trump-the-power-to-shut-down-media?via=twitter_page

[Blue Owl]

65. That would be the main step towards healing this "divided America" the M$M keeps going on about

[Mr. Ected]

68. I take this as THE greatest issue confronting us today

When the plane is crashing, a mother should oxygenate before helping her baby with oxygen. If you can't take care of yourself, you can't take care of the baby. Same principle here. Had Donald Trump not been an idiot, he could have wrought a HELLUVA lot more damage than he did. And he arrived on the scene compliments of FOX, of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Carlson, Levin & all the other pundits that must be on Russian payroll. We need to pull this weed out, roots and all, if we are ever to survive as a nation. All other worthwhile policy choices we make would only be rendered to smithereens if another, more focused, more politically savvy replacement for Trump is in the wings for the GOP.

[uponit7771]

76. +1

[kimbutgar]

72. I agree consumers should have to pay a premium for propaganda

And we need a fairness doctrine and header saying opinions not verified facts.

[Lock him up.]

74. They R as guilty as the domestic terrorists they incite 24/7.

Fully complicit of the CP officer's murder too.

[uponit7771]

75. YES !!! If we want shit to come together then at the ***LEAST*** fringe FAUX News to the trash bin

... of info outlets

[Nitram]

80. They can't "shut down" Fox. They are too big.

[Meowmee]

82. Good idea

[turtleblossom]

83. To do that, one would have to after their corporate sponsors. Money is speech, remember?

[Cha]

84. Hold those Seditious Assholes Accountable!

[SmartVoter22]

90. The word 'news' must be protected.

Print ( newspapers, magazine, etc) & OAB (Over-ther-air free TV broadcasts) are required to validate, with two experts in the topic, before they can make a declarative statement of fact as news.

The courts ruled that cable news is; a paid subscription entertainment service.
This is what news is and isn't.

The FCC should pass an emergency rule, in light of the Jan 6th capitol attack, by forcing all cable news to scroll a constant banner stating, "This is Opinion" when they are not reporting any factual, two-expert sourced and validated information.

I'd like to see "This is Opinion" banners scrolling along, hour after hour, day after day until the right wing learns what is simple English, something that the rest of us understand and can differentiate.
The word news must be protected.
Scrolling banners would turn off millions to the insidious crap from the likes of Lou Dobbs, his prodigy Maria Bartiromo; Sean Hannity, Judge Whats Her Name and every other show on those channels.

It won't infringe on their right to broadcast, but it would bring the cable news closer to what is required, by law, of all print media and over-thee-air (OAB) free broadcast networks.

We need reform of the FCC to allow them to force calrification of 'fact' or 'fiction' for viewers.

[FakeNoose]

91. YES! This would put Faux Noise out of business

Or at least it would make it obvious to even the stupidest Americans what Faux is doing - applying their own right-wing spin to everything, everything, everything that gets reported as straight news on other channels. The Faux spin is what has damaged so many previously intelligent Americans and turned their brains to mush.

What is labeled as news must really BE news. If it isn't news (substantiated by at least 2 separate sources) then it's opinion and it must be labeled as such. That would be a big start in setting things right. However it's going to take a lot of vigilance to keep Faux on the straight-and-narrow path. They really don't want to be news, they want to be right-wing spin only, 24/7.

[colsohlibgal]

92. Hope It Happens

In lieu of that there should be a truth filter.....when an outright lie is spouted out a message on the screen should point that out. Everyone is entitled to their own set of opinions but not their own set of facts.....even “alternative facts”.

[yuiyoshida]

93. OMG Could you imagine if we had

Decent intelligent Truthful news we could Trust again?

[cstanleytech]

95. Not going to happen as the cable companies are struggling to retain customers already

and they are not about to risk losing more.