Business Insider: It's time that Fox News is considered a political organization, not a news network

[Pluvious]

One would think that the extraordinary Trump/Fox/GOP
relationship would be of interest to the FEC

Unfortunately it’s been neutered so badly by Republican appointees

Fox Corporation CEO Lachlan Murdoch recently stated that the conservative network would act as "the loyal opposition" to the Biden Administration. The younger Murdoch's statement confirmed what many have known all along: that Fox News only dabbles in news, and is primarily a political organization.

With this acknowledgement, it's time that Fox News is legally treated like a political organization and no longer as a news outlet.

Financial aid

The most important aspect for reclassifying Fox News comes in the business model. By designating Fox as a political entity, cable providers would then stop paying Fox News to air its content. Like every other cable outlet, Fox News is paid a fee from TV providers (such as Fios, Xfinity, DirectTV, etc.) for each subscriber called a carriage fee. It's estimated that an average household pays roughly $2 per month, totaling approximately $1.8 billion a year in carriage fees to the network. Each cable provider is responsible for negotiating its fees with each network and those negotiations and contracts are confidential.

If Fox News were rightly considered a political operation, the fees they collect would be considered political contributions, contributions you'd make if you have even a basic cable package. It's okay for a media organizations to have opinion programs, but by its own CEO's words, Fox News is no longer interested in being a media outlet, but the loyal political opposition to the current administration.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-cable-political-organization-subscription-network-tucker-carlson-hannity-2021-3

[onecaliberal]

1. It's a domestic terror cell.

[The Wizard]

2. They worked hand in glove with the Trump cartel

to overthrow the government by force.

[Takket]

3. oh really?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16141843

and this, admittedly, creates a MASSIVE slippery slope. Who gets to judge whether a organization is a political entity or part of the Press, and how does that effect the content they are allowed to put out? Because 2021's "fuck you" to Fox News could be 2024's GOP president's "every organization except fox, newsmax, and OAN are not news and are all Democratic party entities and so they don't get first amendment protection and they are all shut down now".

THAT BEING SAID

Fox news is CLEARLY a political network coordinating with the GOP (Discovery should be able to show that relatively easily. We already saw in yesterday at the Jan 6 hearing) on talking points to disseminate propaganda, and the Founding Fathers NEVER intended that.

The argument posed in the OP is fascinating thought because it doesn't really censor or "shut down" fox news, does it? So does the first amendment even apply? No one is stopping them and tucker and hannity from being on the air, right? You are just not allowing them to use the false cloak of "Press" to maintain their "safe from political fiance laws" status to make billions.

Whatever the outcome the battle in court has massive Constitutional implications and will likely take years, and end up at SCOTUS (uh-oh...). So buckle up, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

[crickets]

4. Maybe, just maybe, FOX has stepped too far over the line this time.

It's going to be interesting watching how they fare when the real public hearings start.

[Thomas Hurt]

5. How about the Ministry of Alternate Truth*?

[Grasswire2]

6. It's time that press credentials for WH are denied FOX and OANN and other propaganda purveyors.

Just shut them down. Pull the press passes.

Allowing them entry just diminishes the legit journos there.

[Evolve Dammit]

7. Can't FCC revoke their license? They were prohibited from UK broadcasting. original Fake News

[MarineCombatEngineer]

8. Cable channels are not licensed by the FCC,

matter of fact, the FCC has no content authority over cable, satellite or the internet and of course, there is that pesky 1st Amendment to contend with also.

[Evolve Dammit]

31. Used to be you couldn't swear or show couples in same bed. Archie Bunker was first time you heard a

toilet flush. There were basic rules on what you could say and show.
There was also fact-based/ presented news. Cronkite, Rather, etc. I'm wondering how the media became the wild west with no rules, particularly portraying themselves as a news outlet such as Faux News does? Then they quickly say, no, we're just entertainment. Seems wholely unregulated and it was not always the case. Brian Williams was exiled after making up a combat story. Rather run out on a rail for following a bogus story about Bush. But Faux hosts lie continuously and constantly and are clearly GOP supporters for 25 years or more. What has changed?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

32. That was all on public airwaves, which aren't pay to watch

Brian Wiiliams was outed by the veterans who were actually on the helicopter that he claimed was forced down due to enemy fire and his bosses took the appropriate action because they have morals, unlike Faux exec., who have no compunction to allow them to bald face lie, knowing that they're protected under the 1A.

[Evolve Dammit]

33. So all internal management decisions, but what happened to regulation? Are you saying cable is just

exempt because you pay for it? Not familiar with the laws (or lack thereof) that allow all the vile crap that gets spewed 24/7 on hate radio, cable, internet "dark sites" etc. Zero truth and blatant conspiracy bullshit in many cases. Wild west.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

35. Yes.

Cable companies operate pursuant to franchises granted by state and local governments. And under the express terms of the Communications Act, neither the FCC nor state and local governments may, with narrow exceptions for "obscene" material, impose requirements regarding the provision or content of cable services.

[Evolve Dammit]

38. Thanks for that. What they are doing meets the definition of "obscene" as it is tearing us apart.

Lies, constant attacking of anything to help average Americans, hate speech, anti-immigrant attacks, conspiracy theories, embracing coup as "patriotic", support of election result denial and planning of election fraud seems pretty "obscene" to me.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

40. I can't argue that, but that's all protected under the 1A.

It's frustrating I know.

[Evolve Dammit]

41. Agree on that. Limbaugh poisoned minds for 45 years and his "model" spawned hundreds of

copycats. It was not responded to, and here we are. 45 awarded him the Medal of Freedom. Real freedom comes with a price as you know. This version of "freedom" is not what we fought for. It's a real "false flag." They want zero regulation, zero government, no diversity, just white people and keep them angry at anything progressive, "librul" or inclusive.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

42. You nailed it.

[onenote]

9. Fox was not prohibited from UK broadcasting

Another myth that is repeated as fact on DU with regularity.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/england-banned-fox-news/

[Evolve Dammit]

29. "surrendered their license". OK, they are gone. Perhaps England has more discerning viewers.

[onenote]

37. They're back via the Internet with Fox International

[MarineCombatEngineer]

36. BTW,

I used this post from you about revoking Faux's broadcast license.

onenote (36,385 posts)

184. No the FCC doesn't license cable companies.

Cable companies operate pursuant to franchises granted by state and local governments. And under the express terms of the Communications Act, neither the FCC nor state and local governments may, with narrow exceptions for "obscene" material, impose requirements regarding the provision or content of cable services.

Petition Against Fox: Removal of the Broadcasting license issued by the FCC

Posted on Mar. 8, 2015

[Mr. Sparkle]

10. How the democrats have done nothing about this fake news channel since the 90's, boggles the mind!

its like a 24 hour attack machine against them/us. They poison politics, poison society and imho bare a large amount of responsibility for deaths from covid with their misinformation feast.

In a normal country they would all be languishing in jail.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

11. And just what do you suggest the Dems do that won't violate the 1A? nt

[Mr. Sparkle]

15. Regulate cable Tv and the radio airwaves,brink back the fairness doctrine.

Right now between Jan 6th and their covid misinformation campaign i would get the justice department to prosecute them for the resulting lose of life, and for their part in the insurrection .

I would remove Murdocks citizenship and ban him from ever owning any companies.

The rights BS flourish's in unregulated spaces, these should have targeted since the 90's.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

16. Absolutely no to the FCC regulating those venues,

you have to pay to view those venues, so if you don't like it, don't watch it, besides, the FCC is expressly forbidden to regulate those venues, unlike over the air broadcasting and the SCOTUS would strike down any law regulating cable, satellite or the internet on 1st Amendment grounds, especially this SCOTUS.

Beside, just what do you think would happen if and when the pukes regain power?
Do you want them to have that power to regulate what is or isn't permissible?
I know I wouldn't.

[Mr. Sparkle]

17. As opposed to the free for all now?

It can be done, and could and should have been done over the last 25 years. The current situation is only going to get worse in the culture wars. The rights media resembles the Rwandan radio station thought largely responsible for the Rwandan genocide in 1994.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

18. The 1st Amendment demands free speech,

and propaganda, hate speech, etc are protected under the 1A, as it should be.

I may not like what one has to say, but I will defend their right to say it as long as it doesn't violate the very narrow exceptions to the 1A.

I would and will oppose any effort to regulate free speech period.

[Mr. Sparkle]

21. You are equating free speech with a dangerously run business who kills.

They are not comparable.They can have all the free speech they want, preferably in a jail cell.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

23. Respectfully,

we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

[Mr. Sparkle]

43. Agreed!

[Evolve Dammit]

34. Good analogy

[smirkymonkey]

24. +1000

[Divebus]

45. The SEC

The Securities and Exchange Commission has the ability to sue people for "false and misleading information". Just ask Elon Musk. Bring Fox to court and have them prove their information was not false. They can't, not under oath. The result would be a cease and desist with a financial penalty which gets worse every time they're back in court. Fox will run out of things to say if they're forced to prove their stories.

Of course, the Banana Republicans will sue CNN every two minutes for telling the truth and there's a surprise penalty for bringing false claims, so everyone will need good fact checking.

Fox "News" and the "Entertainment" branches should be split up so they're not on the same channels with the same branding. People can't tell the difference if it's "News" or "Opinions".

But that's only one possible avenue. My preferred solution requires air strikes.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

46. .....

But that's only one possible avenue. My preferred solution requires air strikes.

Agreed, with this:


AC-130 Gunship, lovingly known as Spectre, or as it was first called, Puff the Magic Dragon, or Puff for short.

If not that, then how about this:



A-10 Thunderbolt, otherwise known as the Warthog.

I think either would get the job done nicely.

[Johonny]

12. True

[Initech]

13. After learning their involvement in the Capitol, I'd go a step further...

And declare them a terrorist organization. They are for white nationalists and enable white nationalists.

[Evolve Dammit]

30. Agreed.

[UCmeNdc]

14. K&R

[Harker]

19. "Loyal opposition to the Biden administration"?

I think not,

[MarineCombatEngineer]

20. Opposition? Yes,

loyal?
Only to the Mango Menace, not the country.

[Harker]

22. They'll survive him somehow, I'm sure.

Endless enemies.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

25. No doubt.

They're like a bad nightmare, they just keep coming back to haunt your mind.

[radius777]

26. As much as I loathe FOX, this is a slippery slope

that could also be used against liberal/left leaning and anti-Trump news outlets, eg MSNBC.

We live in a divided country and the market has decided that it wants opinion journalism more than 'straight journalism'.

Therefore the answer to FOX is for liberal outlets to hit back harder and convince more people that our arguments are correct.

[onenote]

39. It also doesn't work

The payments made by cable/satellite distributors are not "contributions" -- they are payments for the purchase of a service. Imagine a newspaper that only ran stories favorable to one political party. Would the price paid by readers be "contributions"? What about a company that manufactured and sold politically-themed goods -- t-shirts, bumper stickers, books, etc all aimed at promoting one political party -- would the payments to them be deemed "contributions"? I doubt the law would be so interpreted.

[radius777]

44. Exactly. The fact is, politics and news

are intertwined, a product (infotainment) that is purchased and consumed.

As long as it doesn't directly affect a campaign then it is merely capitalism and not a political contribution.

[sarcasmo]

27. GOP Media

[MagickMuffin]

28. And therein lies the rub, they get paid whether paying customers can choose what they pay for

So, basically everyone pays for a service that they do not watch.


I've always wanted the cable channels to let the customers decide what they want in their packages.


I would not want any Christian broadcasting, Fox "news" that would be mostly what I would get eliminate from my package. However, that is not the case.

We gave up on cable. Have control over what we consume. We feel much better about it.