Isn't it time we took down Fox "NEWS"?

[Rosco T.]

Every time they lie,
Every time they distort,
Every time they demean, disparage, degrade a public figure.

A few THOUSAND complaints to the FCC on the incident, every time, every day.

We might be surprised at what happens...

I myself would like to see legislation as in Canada, the UK and other places and if a 'news' organization lies, they get FINED and have to put forth a public apology/correction...

[oldhippydude]

1. the problem is that fokkks is cable.... not broadcast

therefor the FCC has no jurisdiction...

[Occulus]

10. Then isn't it time we GAVE the FCC jurisdiction?

[actslikeacarrot]

14. If we did that...

...I think some really good shows on cable would go the way of the dodo. I suggest we keep doing what we are doing, confronting them with the truth whenever they lie.

[Occulus]

16. The problem with that mentality is that

a lie can travel 'round the world while the truth is putting on its pants.

If we insist on telling the truth while insisting upon letting them lie, we will lose in the end. That is an unavoidable consequence of following your way of thinking.

[onenote]

43. The courts have held that cable has first amendment rights closer to those of newspapers than

broadcast.

So "giving" the FCC the jurisdiction faces two insurmountable hurdles:

Having Congress change the Communications Act.
Having such a change survive judicial review.

[brooklynite]

77. As long as you're prepared for a Republican FCC to do the same thing to MSNBC or Current...

[Rosco T.]

23. I don't care if it's cable, sat or rabbit ears.. a lie is a lie, slander is slander n/m

[LeftInTX]

39. Fox Radio, isn't that part of the FCC?

[Vincardog]

51. I get them delivered through the air at my house. Dish TV.

[JaneyVee]

2. Imagine what society would be like if we replaced all RW media with educational programming instead

[onenote]

44. Imagine what society would be like if the Constitution allowed the government to make those

kinds of decisions (and thus could replace all educational programming with RW programming if they so chose).

[pbrower2a]

83. In contrast to FoX Propaganda Channel

Infomercials would be educational!

[virgogal]

3. I haven't watched Fox News in about 10 years. I suggest you do the same.

Problem solved.

[Occulus]

11. Consider this choir member preached.

Now, use that same brilliance to get people who have been avidly watching Fox for ten years to stop believing what they've been fed.

Not so easy but, since you're the one with the solutions, I'm sure we can count on you.

[AlreadyDoneThat]

53. Normally I agree, but

As soon as the race was called for Obama, I hit Faux News and caught 20 minutes of the most hilarious comedy ever seen. That, I'm sure, will go down in history and be re-played for years to come. 8 years from now when you're watching it re-played and laughing your arse off, remember, I told you so..... I'm still smiling.

[hrmjustin]

57. Welcome to DU!

[Iggy]

4. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnn.........

Here we go again... wish I had $10 for the 1,000's of posts where re: the "vast power of FAUX News over normal people", blah, blah, blah is claimed.

you ignore the obvious evidence otherwise right in front of your nose.

Obama crushed the GOP. just how did he do that, given the enormous power (according to you and numerous others here) of bullcrap media??

[Occulus]

13. One election is not proof of any final and irrevocable undoing of

thirty-odd years of propaganda.

It continues, in spite of.

The fight against the overwhelming influence of Fox and its ilk is still having its groundwork laid. Your "we're done now" attitude is years, perhaps decades, premature.

[Iggy]

33. Agreed, However

You have zero proof FAUX News and the rest are doing anything more than preaching to the choir.

The notion they are "converting" tens of thousands of liberals to raving right wing loonies is nonsense. again, the proof is the most recent election. anecdotal stories "my liberal cousin became a conservative after watching FAUX News for one week" is hardly empirical evidence of a larger trend.

[AlreadyDoneThat]

54. Preaching to the choir is a good analogy, but

my brother-in-law has turned from just stupid to a total nut-job unable to function in the real world after 10 years of AM radio/Faux news. All the positions that he takes on the issues are just him parroting what he hears, but he never could have thought them up for himself. 15 years ago, he had plans to put solar on his roof and a little hydro electric on his creek, now, if you bring up the subject he'll call you a socialist, commie, liberal, tree hugging Nazi and maybe come to blows with you. I do blame a lot of that on Faux, I can't stand to be near him now.

[onenote]

45. Fox News has been propagandizing for 30 years?

How did they do that with a channel that only began operating 16 years ago?

[Occulus]

60. You, too.

Reread the part where I said "and its ilk".

This has been going on since at least the 1980s. In fact, you can take the effort all the way back to Reagan at least, and possibly Nixon.

[ProfessorGAC]

55. Do You Actually Look At Their Ratings?

There used to be a small minority of people who actually watch Faux. Now the minority is much, much smaller.

You credit their influence far too much.

First, 30% of people don't pay attention at all.

Then, 30% of those left don't care until just before an election.

Finally, 53% vote for the other side, and the of the other 47%, 80% of them wouldn't support the liberal agenda if there was no Faux news anyway.

So, you're worried about the 20% of 47% of 40%. Of whom only 50% actually watch Faux.

The numbers are easily inferred from social and media polling.

Seems like much ado about nothing.
GAC

[Occulus]

59. I said "and its ilk"

Did you miss that part?

Apparently.

[rainin]

80. Oh yeah?

Bullcrap? yawn? I'm glad you live in such an insulated world. Mine has quite literally been broken by Fox News. Those who watch it share no common ground with those who know it is propaganda.

The powerful in this country aren't afraid of a little set back. They still control the message so they control most of what democrats can accomplish. They'll regroup and learn lessons from this loss. It doesn't matter that we won if we ignore the effectiveness of a well-crafted message. Fox is dangerous.

I'm so glad this poster gets it. Apparently, there are many who get it and I am very glad that it is getting vigorously discussed.

I like the idea of sending letters. Keep sharing ideas. I'm in.

[jody]

5. Good idea. We could reinstate the Sedition Act from 1798 so government can

fine and imprison anyone who criticizes Congress and the president.

I hope no one remembers it was Jefferson and Madison who led the fight against the sedition act with their Kentucky and Virgina resolutions.

[hrmjustin]

9. Are you defending Foxnews?

I think the poster is right. We should do everything in our power to take them off the air. They are liars.

[oldhippie]

18. They are not on the air ...

"We should do everything in our power to take them off the air."

Maybe we should try something else?

[hrmjustin]

19. I mean like complaints and boycotts. Sorry for not being clearer.

[AlexSatan]

36. Actually jody is defending freedom

What happens if a far RWer gets in charge of the FCC and decides things on the left are "lies"?

[hrmjustin]

40. Point taken!

[Occulus]

15. The Sedition Act has fuck-all to do with the OP

[jody]

42. Please read the Sedition Act. OP has every thing to do with it because the OP wants to punish

anyone, "Every time they demean, disparage, degrade a public figure."

That's precisely what the Sedition Act did.

It was pushed through by the Federalists and objected to by Jefferson and Madison.

Jefferson and Madison went on to create the party we know today as the Democratic Party.

[naaman fletcher]

47. results of jury service

At Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:52 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Please read the Sedition Act. OP has every thing to do with it because the OP wants to punish
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1938596

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This seems like a right wing rant as ever.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:01 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is probably the most retarded alert I have ever seen. The alerter should be banned for a month for wasting our time.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's a point of fact in an argument, not inappropriate or over the top. but what do I know? I'm wracked with sorrow over the power of a dim-shimmy to chase off decent folks like SalmonChantedEvening from DU with their aggressive, venomous and well-designed lunacy.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[jody]

49. Recently a post said of me "You are a disgusting, sick person." I alerted and

"Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'd block the RW Libertarian gun nut jody from this thread if I could. Too bad I was on a jury for a reply to them instead."

I've been here since the beginning of DU and have never found it so hard to discuss political issues that divide and polarize voters as now.

I hope it doesn't begin to destroy a unique forum that encourages debate on both sides of political issues.

[former9thward]

6. If you are wishing for legislation like Canada and the UK

then you wish the First Amendment was eliminated. That is what prevents such legislation. Those countries don't have a First Amendment.

[Rosco T.]

25. untrue

they can still say anything the like, if they lie and get tagged, the have to fess up to lying PUBLICLY and pay a fine.

they can turn right around and lie again, if they are that stupid.

They can say what they want, they also have to be RESPONSIBLE for it.

[former9thward]

35. Nope.

I know what their law is. It would not be permitted in the U.S. because of our Constitution. They don't have constitutional free speech protection. You seem to want to ignore that.

[samsingh]

7. yes

[socialindependocrat]

8. My repuke friends support "the rules"

they bitched and said that the Pres. was a socialist and Obamacare would give free health care to those without insurance
I said we already give free treatment to those without insurance - what's the difference?

they supported business leaders for making any rule they wanted.
they are in power - they get to make the rules.
Now we see that they have cut wages and benefits and sent more money up the line.
Now we wake up and fight back

What if Romney had won the election
Would you still sit there and say that all the lie they spewed and
any voter suppression was just a part of politics?

You've got Teabaggers spewing all sorts of misrepresented data as fact.
You've got Congress stuck in the mud and doing nothing for the $180K we pay them.

It bothers me that so many people can say things that would be ruled as hate crimes
and still you support their right to be bigots and liers.

It worries me that some people only watch FOX and they still get to call it a NEWS station.

what really pisses me off is that I have spent the past 50 years thinking about what this country would
be like if Pres. Kennedy hadn't been assassinated and I worry that we are in a similar position with
the RW assholes in this country.

doesn't this stuff bother you?

[sarcasmo]

12. Make them put up a truth ticker.

[Cleita]

17. Yes, news as a vehicle to keep the populace informed

is essential to our democracy so that people can make the right decisions in how the nation should be run and whom should be running it. So we need the whole truth to the best of their ability, not propaganda and lies.

[Turn CO Blue]

20. I have daydreamed trying to organize 20M people to each buy $50 stock & then proxy votes

we all give our votes to one proxy representative for the group -- the idea being to organize a less-than-friendly takeover that way...

Just daydreaming obviously as their stock is prob worth billions and getting 20M people organized would be a sky-high order (moveon.org has 7M and aarp has 40M) so again, a tall order.

[AlexSatan]

37. That is how to do it

in America. Most other ideas sacrifices our rights.

[mick063]

21. We must collectively work very hard

We must discredit them at every opportunity.


In almost every political conversation, I link Fox News to the extremism of the GOP.

I never allow for Fox News to be used as a credible source by those attempting political argument. I just cut them off and say the information is invalid considering the source.




I will go to my grave contributing to the credibility destruction of Fox "News."

[loudsue]

22. I agree. Cable or no, it's a different animal when they are causing the whole country to have

disinformation about what is really going on. If we complain loudly and often to the FCC AND faux's advertisers, then maybe something with get better.

[Jonny]

26. Hair Splitting

Yes, the poster is right.

There was some sort of journalism law in effect, which was reversed. I don't remember the name of it, but I am sure some in this discussion do (fairness doctrine?)

The problem is that Fox News calls itself a news organization and shows what it claims to be FACTS to its viewers.

It shows lies instead.

What is needed is a law that says if you announce to the public that you are a news organiztion, or are claiming to report on events to the general public than you must be required to tell the truth.

If you tell lies instead, than you must label each story or piece as "opinion" or be fined and forced to submit a correction.

The difference between private cable and public broadcast is fine hair splitting, and pointing out that Fox is on cable is not a constructive addition to the argument.

Neither is citing the "Freedom of Speech" amendment constructive.

Fox News has makes claims in a public forum. Yes public... and their claims are false.

This is not an individual person standing on a soapbox in the square spouting opinions.

This is a large corporation broadcasting, yes broadcasting, hundreds of falsehoods each week.

I believe the bill of rights grants rights to people, not corporations.

[onenote]

46. So you would have been okay with Nixon's prosecution of the New York Times

(a corporation) for publishing the Pentagon Papers?

Would you support allowing the government to decide what books and movies Barnes and Noble or Amazon (corporations) sell or what books and movies publishing houses and movie studios (also corporations) make?

[graham4anything]

27. As I now ONLY watch Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC and none of the others...

the downfall will be ratings, ratings, ratings being so low

all of political talk chat stations are not doing well, when compared to say sports, shows, movies, etc.
(yes MSNBC is rising compared to other political but still total ratings suck for all)
in this day of corporate profit wanting, soon enough it will change

But as I posit'd the other day

With the coming change in formats that inevitably will happen, we must be prepared that with the day we cheer Fox for no longer being here, the other stations will also change

The shareholders of Fox will demand the change when either ratings, or Murdoch himself retires, and which point his sons/family/shareholders will not want to continue the vanity production

BUT at the same time, CNN and MSNBC might also switch too.

One can't just snap fingers and get rid of it.

What I personally would like to see happen is the following-
have a station where Rev. Al and Rachel and Ed and some of the others, also are on with some of the rightwing awipes BUT the difference being that each is allowed the total freedom they have now.
The difference of course is that now Rev. Al in the SAME place can immediately respond TO THE SAME listeners the lies that say Rush or Sean spew forth

the propaganda machine would not be able to be an echo chamber and would not get away with it


IF just Fox were to leave, what will happen is CNN would see an opening and turn hard right.

And then there is the radio shows- for the most part, nationwide, there is only rightwing radio talk, and its not very popular rating wise, HOWEVER- it does own the minute nationwide news
which someone driving state to state to state hears and is brainwashed by

Just like the TV placement Fox buys for hotels, bars, restuarant chains, diners, etc.

The fairness act being returned would be good

But it would mean going backward and its very hard as the right would scream censorship

but it should happen naturally not forced
but the law of unintended consequences might also take the good with the bad

so be prepared

(As I now only watch Rev. Al Sharpton daily, I would not much care about the others.
Not after the reactions of Rachel and Ed after the first debate. Who needs Fox when you had
the two hysterical wrong reactions to that debate? They aided and abetted the rightwing spin of that debate that was uncalled for.)

[ErikJ]

28. Media Matters points the lies out at least

and corrects them. But all they do is post them.

[colsohlibgal]

29. Opinions Are One Thing, Facts Another

Fox is plain and simple propaganda and fact distortion for the right - propaganda that is often untrue. I'm not saying it's exactly the same but it's not much different than what Goebbels fed to Germans before and into WWII.

People argue that MSNBC and Current are like Fox but on the left. That is false, they will go after dems and will admit when they fail, like with Obama in the first 2012 debate with Mitt. Plus they never misrepresent a dem caught in a scandal as a republican - Fox has done that switcheroo multiple times (as with Mr. hooker/diaper David Vitter), indicating R's are D's.

Their influence may be diminishing now as they are increasingly being exposed, we can hope that is the case.

[jeanlibny594283]

30. splendid idea

Sadly, it won't happen.

[Tigress DEM]

31. Canada FAUX is an "Entertainment Network" IF ya' ACT like clowns, it's just truth in advertising.

I'd like a group lawsuit against them for all the harm their obnoxious reporting has inflicted upon the US and how it's been a constant dis-service to the people of the US.

[just1voice]

32. Once a person learns what propaganda is they stop watching MSMedia...

with any expectations of truth. Just replace "propaganda" with "the mainstream media" and see how well it fits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

---Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare.---

[KharmaTrain]

34. They're Already Starting To Take Themselves Down...and the Rushpublicans with them...

The marketplace will eventually take care of this irritant on the American condition. Yes...this waste of electrons has done damage to many; but it's also turned off more than its turning on. This past election is proof. Those in the Bullshit Mountain bubble got led down the rosy path only to have a real sharp thud of reality when they could no longer deny that President Obama had won re-election. The network is still smarting from many on the other side of the sandbox who now question that network's credibility...as little as there is.

The real fun is in the numbers. The majority of faux "viewers" are older...the audience below 40 drops off drastically; not a good thing for the longevity of your product. Every time an EMT heads to Sun City, the network loses another viewer and isn't picking up many new ones. In advertising terms the network has been toxic to most big spenders...why its commercial breaks are loaded with "cash for gold" and other speculators. The outrageous verbosity has finally driven away all but the "true believers" and that group gets smaller by the day.

The FCC has zero jurisdiction over Bullshit Mountain. And I would strongly oppose any law attempting to censor that or any network in any manner. The slippery slope is when the question comes to who decides what is "fair and balanced". I'm not too hot on having the government determine that...leave it to the individual.

Cheers...

[LeftInTX]

38. If you see them on in a doctor's or dentist's office, complain to the staff

It is best to leave politics out of these offices.
Recommend the Discovery Channel, TBS or something benign.

Of course feel free to complain in other settings, but the doctor, dentist office thing is inappropriate.

[Throd]

41. Something similar would fill the void. Apparently there is a market for their point of view.

They have a First Amendment right to spew their horseshit.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

48. If I say what I want to say, I probably be alerted

Talk about some people with jelly backbones.... They never experianced what my brother experianced.

[jody]

50. Apparently few have read the Sedition Act so I post it below.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/5th_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_74

Known as the "Sedition Act", this act is the last of the four that make up the Alien and Sedition Acts.

July 14, 1798.
[Expired.]
Chap. LXXIV.—An Act in addition to the act, entitled "An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States."

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, Penalty on unlawful combinations to oppose the measures of government, &c.
Ante, p. 112.That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty; And with such intent counselling &c. insurrections, riots, &c.and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof; shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, Penalty on libelling the government That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted and declared, Truth of the matter may be given in evidence.
The jury shall determine the law and the fact, under the court's direction.
Limitation. That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided, that the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force.

Approved, July 14, 1798.

[freshwest]

82. So, they were against it and so are you against charges of (libel) sedition, I'm guessing.

From what I've discussed in other thread, because I have read this before, the law is pretty much dead and has been for years. I was having a discussion with someone about the use of the term treason regarding Bush and Cheney. The other poster and I agreed that the terms had lost their meaning from being thrown around too much over the years. And the Government is really not strict in this.

[jody]

85. I support nullification as Jefferson and Madison defined it in their KY & VA resolutions. nt

[freshwest]

86. As far as states' rights go, that interpretation has been abused to deny human rights..

To support human rights is laudable, whether it is a state or federal law. Can't forget that. In the example of marriage equality or MJ, the states are leading the way. In the past, not so much. And I don't hold with the GOP governors rejecting selective parts of the ACA to deny health care. But then, I am for Medicare for all. So we never get all we want without changing the hearts of Americans. We are not there yet.

[Cleita]

52. This is how we do it. We put a law in place like Canada has.

They kept Fox News type media out of their country with their law.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/a-law-against-lying-on-the-news

It’s not often that goings-on in Canada interest the American news media, but a rather small decision by a relatively small government agency—the decision not to revoke a rule that bans lying on broadcast news—in Ottawa has made a pretty big splash.

It stems from the planned April launch of Sun TV, a Canadian analog to FOX News—i.e., a broadcast news outlet with a decidedly conservative perspective. Among its top executives is a former communications director to conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, evoking former Reagan/Bush adviser Roger Ailes’ role at the helm of FOX. That executive, Kory Teneycke, told the Toronto Star that Sun TV is “taking on the mainstream media [...] smug, condescending, often irrelevant journalism, we’re taking on political correctness [...] by bureaucrats for elites and paid for by taxpayers.”

Given that the posture, tone, language, and buzzwords of the nascent network could have come so easily from Bill O’Reilly, outsiders promptly branded it “FOX News North.”

The launch drew attention to a seldom-scrutinized regulatory agency called the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), similar to the Federal Communications Commission in the United States.

With little fanfare, the CRTC last month scrapped a proposal to revoke or relax a rule on “prohibited programming content” that includes “broadcasting false or misleading news.” The CRTC withdrew the plan when a legislative committee determined that the rule does not run afoul of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which like the U.S. Constitution, guarantees press freedoms.

[onenote]

62. Sun News has been available in Canada since April 2011

The controversy over Sun News has been frequently misrepresented. The owners of the channel had previously used their license for a general entertainment network that was entitled to mandatory carriage on Canadian cable systems. When they proposed switching to a news genre (with a conservative slant), the opposition was not to their doing so, it was to their continuing to have a license that gave them mandatory carriage. They ultimately abandoned efforts to get such a mandatory carriage license and launched as an optional carriage service. By way of comparison, broadcast television stations in the US have mandatory carriage rights, but a non broadcast service such as Fox News (or CNN or ESPN etc) do not. So, in essence, Sun News has the same status in Canada as Fox News -- it certainly wasn't "kept out of" the country.

While Canadian law provides on its face for greater regulation of content than US law, and while Sun News has managed to engage in conduct that drew regulatory scrutiny on quite a few occasions already, in a great many of those instances, the regulators concluded that, despite widespread complaints, Sun News did not violate any rules. And in the rare instance where it has been found to have violated the rules, the punishment has been little more than a slap on the wrist: having to broadcast a statement that it was found to have violated a rule. Whoop. De. Doo.

The bottom line is that apart from the fact that any attempt in the US to impose Canadian style regulation on the content delivered by a non-broadcast network almost certainly would be struck down under existing Supreme Court precedent, the Canadian law hasn't stopped Sun News from doing pretty much whatever it wants.

[Cleita]

63. Perhaps, but because the other stations must mind regulations according to their license, it keeps

Sun News in a state of being irrelevant, I would assume. I would want that here too. Sure let Fox News exist but as long as there are responsible news sources that have higher visibility and more relevance. If you have a link to a credible source for your information I would appreciate it if you would post it. According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_News_Network
It hasn't been given the category 1 license it seeks.

[onenote]

65. The Wikipedia entry you cite confirms everything I wrote

A category 1 license comes with mandatory carriage rights (just as a broadcast license in the US). As I wrote, Sun News was unable to get that license because its programming was not viewed as being "unique" enough given the existence of other news-oriented channels that already had Category 1 licenses (not because the content of its channel was going to have a conservative slant). So it accepted what was then called a Category 2 license without mandatory carriage rights. The category two nomenclature has been revised post the Canadian "digital transition" but substantively the situation is unchanged. Sun News, like Fox News in the US, doesn't have mandatory carriage rights. It is subject to greater content regulation under Canadian law than Fox News is under US law, but that regulation has proven to be pretty toothless.

[Cleita]

67. If you think you are right then you think you are right.

I don't think the conservative slant was what they lost on getting their category 1 license, but on the fact that they weren't newsworthy or "unique" enough. Look at the language carefully. It says what was wrong without accusing them of being liars and propagandists. You yourself said it's subject to greater content regulation under Canadian law as well and you make a claim that the regulation has proven to be toothless without a link pointing to a study or something that says that. It seems to me that since many of us turn to Canadian news sources for our news and find it to be more factual than our mainstream news sources would prove to be otherwise.

[onenote]

68. Here's an example of how Sun News doesn't seem to be restrained by Canadian law

http://eclipsenews.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/sun-news-lies-again-about-gay-straight-alliance-nobody-shocked-anymore/

Its not a question of what I think. Its a question of whether the Canadian law is preventing Sun News from engaging in the kinds of conduct that Fox News engages in here. The answer appears to be no, which then raises the question of whether there would be any real benefit from enacting a similar version of content regulation here in the US, not that it would withstand constitutional scrutiny under SCOTUS precedent.

In Miami Herald v. Tornillo, a unanimous Supreme Court (including Justices Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall) joined in an opinion that contained the following admonition: "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." In his concurring opinion, Justice White further commented that: "the press is not always accurate, or even responsible, and may not present full and fair debate on important public issues. But the balance struck by the First Amendment with respect to the press is that society must take the risk that occasionally debate on vital matters will not be comprehensive and that all viewpoints may not be expressed. The press would be unlicensed because, in Jefferson's words, "[w]here the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe." Any other accommodation - any other system that would supplant private control of the press with the heavy hand of government intrusion - would make the government the censor of what the people may read and know."

[Cleita]

69. Yes, but the fact is they aren't taken seriously because they aren't dominating the whole

industry like Fox does here and that is what that law accomplishes and it keeps Freedom of Speech intact. I never said Fox News shouldn't exist. They shouldn't exist as the dominant new's source for the whole country, like they do here.

[onenote]

71. Fox News isn't remotely the dominant news source for the entire country.

Fox's average audience sizes are dwarfed by those of the broadcast network news programs, both individually and taken as a whole. For example, the highest ranked show on Fox -- O'Reilly, brings in around 4 million viewers at best. The smallest of the three broadcast network evening news programs gets around 6 million and the three networks with national evening news programs (NBC, CBS, and ABC) have an aggregate audience of over 20 million. Add CNN and MSNBC to the mix and its pretty clear that Fox is anything but the dominant news source in the country. And that's not even taking into account the fact that Fox News' audience does not represent the same cross section of the population as the broadcast network news programs.

The annual report on the state of the news media published by the Pew Research Center has a lot of useful information.
http://stateofthemedia.org

[Cleita]

72. If you believe that you aren't paying attention.

You can't go anywhere there is a public TV on that isn't tuned into Fox News. Even if you can get them to change it CNN and the broadcast channels try very hard to be Fox News. Even MSNBC is not reliable. Usually, it will get changed back to Fox the minute you leave. The only channels that give real news are on obscure cable channels that many people have to pay extra to get so the poor cannot get access. I have respect for the Pew Research Center, however, I don't have time to look at your link, but somehow I don't think you are reading it right or they are looking at something entirely different than this.

Honestly, I don't know why you hang around this board because everything you post is apologetic for those who are destroying our country. I mean I have seen more progressive writing from Jonah Goldberg than you.

[onenote]

73. You need to get out more

I go to a lot of places in public where TVs aren't tuned into Fox. For example, just yesterday I was having my car serviced and the TV was tuned into ESPN. I can honestly say I can't ever remember going into a bar with a TV that was tuned to Fox News. You seem to like to extrapolate from your experiences into some universal truth that has no basis in fact, don't you?

And if you don't like my "hanging around this board" go ahead and put me on ignore. It won't stop me from pointing out when you go overboard in your declarations, but you won't have to be bothered with having to deal with facts. And if comparing me to Jonah Goldberg is okay, than I guess its okay for me to compare you to Anne Coulter, who has a similar disregard for facts.

[Cleita]

74. Ann Coulter as despicable as she is much smarter than Jonah Goldberg,

so compare away. Now ESPN on TVs is not news. Sure a lot of places put on soap operas as well. Not news! I dare you to find a public TV on that has Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann or Rachel Maddow on their TVs. Oh, those are real, fact checked news. Seldom do they err and when they do, they make sure they put a correction. I dare you to find those on any TV in a public place. As far as bars, I don't patronize bars so I wouldn't know. I don't feel I have to put people on ignore if I disagree with them. I do feel I can disagree with them, however, if you find it offensive put me on ignore.

[Cleita]

75. btw I looked up your link.

One author comes out of the American Enterprise Institute and the other from Newsweek magazine, both conservative in thought and action. No matter they think the media is cool as it is. Just keep those conservative talking points coming. The fact is we are dominated by a conservative mainstream media dominated by Fox News and no white washing by so-called journalists is going to change that.

[onenote]

78. Do you think you can get away with just making stuff up?

One minute you are saying you respect the Pew Research Center. Then suddenly they're a bunch of conservative hacks.

Here are links to pages acknowledging the folks responsible for compiling Pew's 2012 State of the Media Report. Care to point out the AEI and Newsweek authors of the part of the report compiling data on the size of cable and network news audiences? Keep in mind that the only part of the report I was citing is the part detailing how large the audiences are for Fox News vs. the broadcast network news programs.

http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/methodologies-2/authors-note/
http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/methodologies-2/authors-note/

And, with respect to another comment you made, I don't find you offensive, just naive and silly. I refuse to give up on the possibility that at some point you might come to grips with actual facts even when they don't support your assumptions.

[Cleita]

79. I'm not the person making stuff up here and although I do respect the Pew Center,

they often present arguments from both left and right. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them and in this case the reality doesn't bear out the truth of what they say. Data that isn't from a credible source is suspect and your links point to no sources.

Thanks for the name calling. I wouldn't waste my time with someone I considered naive and silly, but I guess you would. The only reason I have even engaged you this long is because you swooped in on a post several days after this thread was more or less over with, a habit I have noticed on your other postings. You find an angle to twist your opinions to the right that fall short of getting alerted on. You know by the time a thread is stale that the alerters have moved on.

News week has lost credibility as a legitimate news source decades ago and the American Enterprise Institute is one of the Koch Brother think tanks among many. Fox News dominates the news and that is the reality because they own most of the media outlets that air them. To deny this fact is to be very foolish.

[onenote]

84. You really are something else.

"Thanks for the name calling" is an interesting line from someone who, unprovoked by anything approaching name calling on my part, compared me to Jonah Goldberg.

And I note that you haven't bothered to back up your claim that the Pew report (and in particular the portions that I relied upon) are the product of right wingers. I gave you a link to a detailed set of acknowledgments of those who worked on the report, so I guess you're comfortable with slandering those people by labeling them tools of AEI and the Koch Brothers).

Its because of posters like you that treat facts as inconvenient that I have no intention of leaving DU or putting you on ignore. It would be a disservice to the rest of the good people on this board who rely on it for information, not myth.

[AlreadyDoneThat]

56. The best way to take down Faux, I believe

is with Google. I fact check the Tea Bagger posts and then post a link to the truth from Google, along with a witty remark. At least anyone reading will have the option to read the truth. It's not as hard as it seems, because the Tea Baggers usually only have about 10 talking points that they repeat over and over again, so most of the time I can just keep a text file open with links and I've got them covered. A room full of computers, 50 volunteers, working in shifts could completely dominate the internet with fact checks......I'm game.

[upi402]

58. a decade overdue

media traitors, worse than CNN

[KurtNYC]

61. Fox is only more blatant than the others

One of the other networks is owned by the world's largest defense contractor and they have been far more politically active and successful over the last 40 years than Murdoch -- they owned Ronald Reagan and these days they pimp Donald Trump.

On a good night, Fox News has 2 million viewers. If we ignore Fox their echo sphere would be diminished but alas, we are obsessed with Fox. We give Fox News 40 times more attention than we give Mother Jones. Perhaps we could be more obsessed with our own media and spend less energy watching propaganda?

Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

[Michigan Alum]

64. I heard a commercial on the radio that Fox News is the only radio news station in SW Florida.

Scary. That's how to manage to brainwash all these Repubs in this area.

[jwirr]

66. I would like to see this happen but the only way we can do it is through their advertisers like

happened with limpballs and beck. IF we are lucky we will get the DOJ to look into the corruption in Murdoch's empire.

[underthematrix]

76. Yep. The best way is to

go thru their advertisers. FOX is selling hate and fear to people mostly with an average IQ of 80. FOX's fear and hate products have nothing to do with conservatism.

[arely staircase]

70. what is an example of something they have said or done in the past that you believe

they should be fined for?

[brokechris]

81. I haven't even owned a TV in a decade.

The only time I see a glance or two of Fox is occasionally at a business (I had a car battery replaced recently at Sears and they had Fox on in the waiting room.

Turn off the cable--turn off the television and enjoy life. The more people who do that, the sooner they go out of business.

No way I am signing up to watch them so that I can track and protest every lie--I have a life to enjoy.

[NeedleCast]

87. Makes Me Sad When I See The Shortsightedness Of This

There is practically never a good time to give the government MORE control over free speech. That includes free speech we don't like. Because if "we" can do it to "they," "they" can do it to "we."

[Nye Bevan]

88. I am pro-choice on this issue. I don't like Fox, so I choose not to watch it.

But I am not in favor of the Government stepping in and preventing other people from making their own choice.