Can a legal case be made to shut down Fox News?

[burythehatchet]

Every one of us at some time or another have wondered about this. Can we get your thoughts on this thread?

I'm puzzled as to why there haven't been more discussions regarding this topic. I realize that its never going to happen (;)) but let's humor ourselves....what are the potential legal aspects of Fox's intrusion into the democratic process? I'm no lawyer (but if Ann Coulter can call herself a constitutional scholar, I will too) but I believe that what Fox has wrought upon us is truly a violation of our constitution.

Would welcome your thoughts.

[SCantiGOP]

1. are you sure?

you wouldn't have a problem with using governmental power to strip first amendment rights from someone with whom you disagreed with politically? Not me, friend, cause the folks that would end up getting silenced would be on our side.

[onenote]

10. agreed n/t

[bryant69]

12. Exactly right

If you are ok with Republicans shutting down Air America, than this might be a good idea--but even then it's still not exactly in harmony with the principle of free speech.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[wtmusic]

18. Squatting on a huge slice of airwave bandwidth without providing

opposing viewpoints is not in harmony with the principle of free speech, either.

http://www.fairnessdoctrine.com/

[SouthernDem2004]

38. Not on airwaves... Its on cable and satellite,,,,

[wtmusic]

39. Fox News

also appears on Fox Television, which is broadcast. I don't know the exact market share but I would bet that more people see the broadcast news program than watch the cable channel.

[rinsd]

60. Usually only for special stuff...

...the news in the morning and at 6 & 10 is local(at least here, I assume its the same elsewhere).

FoxNews has provided coverage during big events ie: shuttle disaster, shock & awe, election night & Prez debates.

I don't know if you can make a fairness doctrine case there because they do have a weak ass Democrat on as "opposition". I think disagreeing with how effective or strenuous the opposing viewpoint is won't cut it.

[wtmusic]

62. Stations were required to offer time to the public

"There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves."

Red Lion vs. FCC, U.S. Supreme Court (1969)

[rinsd]

63. But again we're talking about cable.....

Fox Entertainment certainly owns some stations but that doesn't make it Fox News.

Show me where you can make a good case that the FCC can (and should) regulate cable in the manner it does broadcast.

And also whether you think it would be a good idea to expand the FCC powers (including of course a reinstated fairness doctrine) to cable?

[wtmusic]

67. FCC does regulate cable

and absolutely, it would be a good idea to impose the doctrine on any media outlet which reaches a given (pick a number) segment of the population.

All the Fairness Doctrine requires is that editorializing be distinguished from news--and when a station editorializes, that it offers equal time to the public.

It's hard to imagine in today's broadcasting climate, but the FCC was much stronger then (I remember) and there was very little editorializing on television. It was a good thing.

[rinsd]

71. You an I are talking past each other....

Do you think it would be a good idea for the FCC to have MORE power over cable. As far as I know its power is limited. It can't fine outlets otherwise Comedy Central would be in deep doo doo.

"it would be a good idea to impose the doctrine on any media outlet which reaches a given (pick a number) segment of the population."

Internet too? Why in God's name would anyone want the FCC to have regulation power over all media outlets?

"FCC was much stronger then (I remember) and there was very little editorializing on television. It was a good thing."

You mean when the news consisted of a morning show, a 5 o'clock and a 11 o'clock 1/2 segments? Tough to editorialize much.

I agree with the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine when applied to broadcast. I just see the expansion of the FCC powers in regards to other media outlets as inherently dangerous.

[wtmusic]

76. The internet is not a media outlet

and yes, we are talking past each other...

The point is limiting the power of any one media concern. That basic principle is why there are antitrust laws as well.

[rinsd]

80. The internet is certainly a media outlet.....

...and one the FCC has already tried to lay its hands on under the guise of the CDA(Child Defense Act against porn).

"The point is limiting the power of any one media concern. That basic principle is why there are antitrust laws as well."

Yes, but that has more to do with the 96 Telecomm Act.

[rinsd]

74. Also said in that decision....

"It is strenuously argued . . . that if political editorials or personal attacks will trigger an obligation in broadcasters to afford the opportunity for expression to speakers who need not pay for time and whose views are unpalatable to the licensees, then broadcasters will be irresistibly forced to self-censorship and their coverage of controversial public issues will be eliminated or at least rendered wholly ineffective. Such a result would indeed be a serious matter, for should licensees actually eliminate their coverage of controversial issues, the purposes of the doctrine would be stifled. . . . And if experience with the administration of these doctrines indicates that they have the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the volume and quality of coverage, there will be time enough to reconsider the constitutional implications."

[wtmusic]

81. And the next sentence:

"At this point, however, as the Federal Communications Commission has indicated, that possibility is at best speculative."

[rinsd]

84. LOL..

The government regulatory agency states that any possible violations of rights that may transpire from its excersing its authority are purely speculative.

Sounds like the Dept of Homeland Security to me.

[rinsd]

58. What airwaves? It's cable or satellite.

While I know some Duers have made the case that Fairness Doctrine would apply to all, its tough when the premise for allowing the FCC to regulate(or anything for that matter) such is that they are "people's" airwaves(ie: radio & broadcast TV).

[yellowjacket]

89. Fairness Doctrine is dead in the water.

Here's why:

The conventional wisdom is that the airwaves are a public good. That is, broadcast TV and radio. Regardless of whether or not you agree with that premise, the FCC allocates spectrum based upon the idea that there should be a "trustee" in charge of allocating spectrum.

The problem is that, yes, the Fairness Doctrine COULD be extended to the Internet. Not as a media outlet, but because certain large portions of the Internet travel over publicly-owned infrastructure. For example, a good portion of Internet traffic in the Southeast passes through Georgia Tech's facilities housing in the Office of Information Technology. This is both public and private Internet traffic. Now, it is practically impossible for users to route Internet traffic so that it does not pass through publicly owned servers. Could the FCC claim jurisdiction over news and information that passes through? I hope not, because we have a much stronger foothold on the Internet than the repugs do.

[Sterling]

40. If we could get fairness back we would not need Air America.

Air America is a reaction to 20 years of RW hate media. We are better off with a politically neutral media. That should be the goal. Truth in the media.

[ClayZ]

37. "Silence Those Who Oppose Free Speech" ((grin))

I use Fox News for about 2 minutes everyday. I turn it on, scream at it and turn it off.

Unfortunately they should get their own Cool-Aid package label.

I just hope Cool-Aid wears off. I imagine a day when they will shake their heads as if coming out of a foggy dream under a dark cloud.

I imagine a day when Justice is done. When republicans will stop talking about a "bj" in the Clinton White house and start seeing the atrocities they did in our name to the beautiful country of Iraq.

I imagine a day Fox News will go down the foxhole of public opinion and a flood will permanently MUDDY them up!]

I imagine a day when my elderly republican parents will say, "you were right" how could we have been so fooled. And they will apologize for calling me a traitor.

I imagine a day when we have fair elections in our country!

I imagine Hannidy having to explain his "Philosophy" to his very liberal grandchildren! heh heh

[shoelace414]

2. There is a minor amendment preventing that.

[DistantWind88]

6. Seems that so many forget that...

[wtmusic]

8. There is no constitutional right to monopolize the airwaves

they belong to the people.

[Blue Wally]

16. Ummmmm

Fox News comes as a courtesy of your local cable provider.

[wtmusic]

27. They are also broadcast far and wide

If they want to run a cable propaganda channel, go ahead and let them.

[DistantWind88]

33. Just big Fox, right?

Not Fox news....


I'm asking...

[wtmusic]

35. Sorry, I'm not being clear

FOX News CHANNEL, I believe, is just cable. But Fox News (with the same outwardly bias) also appears on FOX TV and reaches hundreds of millions of people.

[Blue Wally]

99. Yeah, but

The Fox network news doesnt have the bias that Fox News Channnel on cable does. You would have a hard time making a "fairness doctrine" case against the totality of the Fox broadcast network. Actually, you would have to attack each individual Fox affiliate and show that the individual station violated the fairness doctrine. The local news on Fox is pretty indistinguishable from the other station's local news.

[candle_bright]

17. Monopolize?

Fox isn't the only show in town. Shutting news networks down because we disagree is not a precedent I would like to see.

[wtmusic]

24. OK, devil's advocate

What if it gets to a point where all the corporations running network broadcasting are in bed with a Republican administration, and only broadcast Repub propaganda (some say we're already there)?

You see my point. The airwaves belong to the public. Networks like FOX get to use them for free and profit from them immensely. The FCC used to have a rule called the Fairness Doctrine which was pushed aside in the 80's which required equal time for opposing viewpoints.

The loss of the FD is why FOX News channel and Rush Limbaugh exist.

[DistantWind88]

26. Isn't Fox News a cable station?

[wtmusic]

28. Both. n/t

[DistantWind88]

32. You sure?

Fox is a broadcast station, but what about Fox News?

[candle_bright]

29. What if...

is not going to cut it.

As others have asked on this thread, would you be behind Air America being shut down because Repubs disagree with the message and/or the fact that it doesn't allow equal time for opposing views?

We have the freedom to choose what we tune in to see, and what we don't want to see. That's how it should be.

[wtmusic]

31. Not how it should be

Air America should be required to broadcast opposing viewpoints too (believe it or not, this is the way broadcasting worked for about forty years, and news was far more responsible then).

Not everyone shares your freedom. Some people don't have cable, or the internet. Rush Limbaugh spouting propaganda on AM has a HUGE drive time audience which others don't have access to.

"What if" does cut it, 'cause we're half way there. Sorry, but I refuse to bury my head in the sand.

[FatEmbolism]

44. yeah, remember???

[papau]

3. Fox has a Court ruling that they are entertainment - & don't do "news"

Maybe we could get the industry to give them a TV-MA for mature folks only rating!

:-)

[wtmusic]

13. have a link to that, papau?

They call it "FOX News". Don't see how that could fly.

[papau]

30. It is the Florida DNA adjusted crops case (BGH in this case) where the

"newscaster" refuse to broadcast what they could show was a lie - and was fired - claim FCC "news distortion whistleblower" status - and the Court ruled no way - which I paraphrase as Fox having no obligation to tell truth.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/rBGH/foxBgh.htm
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

After a five-week trial and six hours of deliberation which ended August 18, 2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH." In that decision, the jury also found that Jane's threat to blow the whistle on Fox's misconduct to the FCC was the sole reason for the termination... and the jury awarded $425,000 in damages which makes her eligible to apply for reimbursement for all court costs, expenses and legal fees.

Fox appealed and prevailed February 14, 2003 when an appeals court issued a ruling reversing the jury, accepting a defense argument that had been rejected by three other judges on at least six separate occasions. CLICK HERE http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf for more details on latest ruling. CLICK HERE to view how Fox13 reported the rulinghttp://www.foxbghsuit.com/home.htm#FOX.

The whistle-blowing journalists, twice refused Fox offers of big-money deals to keep quiet about what they knew, filed their landmark lawsuit April 2, 1998 and survived three Fox efforts to have their case summarily dismissed. It is the first time journalists have used a whistleblower law to seek a legal remedy for being fired by for refusing to distort the news. Steve and Jane are now considering an appeal to the Florida state Supreme Court.

The journalists happen to be married to each other and this website, created by their friend and former television news producer Jon Duffey, was posted on the day the whistleblower suit was filed. It continues to provide details of the suit and subsequent appeals, as well as recent developments regarding rBGH and other genetically engineered foods.

Click the buttons to the right to learn more about this lawsuit and the controversy surrounding milk and other genetically modified foods and how they are being covered in the media, learn what you can do to help, and even post your own thoughts on our Bulletin Board. New developments in the journalists’ lawsuit and the latest important news about BGH and GE foods and media coverage issues are posted regularly. You are invited to return often and click the blue box at the top of this page to keep up to date with these important issues.

[wtmusic]

36. thanks, good link n/t

[Just Me]

91. Well, hell. In that case, Fox is verily GUILTY of false advertising!!!

"Fox News",..."fair and balanced",...DEFINITELY FALSE ADVERTISING!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Wapsie B]

4. Only if they had live sex acts on TV

or something of that nature would anyone even think of pulling the plug on FAUX. But then another rightie would step in and bankroll another news network even further to the right than Faux.

[saltpoint]

5. Just pull the plug, I say.

Let's cut out the red tape and just cut the lines into their HQ.

Monstrous people running that network.
-----
That durn 1st Amendment makes this a bad option, but my gut reaction does involve hedgetrimmers, earthmoving equipment, and Abu Graib-style detainment.

[wtmusic]

7. Since Reagan vetoed the Fairness Doctrine

the answer is no.

That's why the major push to reinstate it. IMO, THE most important issue facing the US.

http://www.fairnessdoctrine.com/

[bowens43]

9. Nope. At least I hope there isn't.

They have every right to broadcast. They have every right to voice their opinions. I support that right absolutely, without question.

[hollywood926]

23. I support their right to broadcast, too, BUT...

Fox passes itself off as an objective news source, which it isn't. It has a clear agenda and should be forced to remove the FAIR AND BALANCED label and make clear to viewers that it is editorial programming and nothing more.

[Liberty Belle]

11. The no controversial topics policy for ads smacks of

suppressing free speech, particularly if all the networks conspired to do so. They are also acting like a monopoly or cartel, which is illegal.

However, the best way to get their attention is as follows:

1. Massive sell-off of stocks by DEMs and any group who objects to this censorship of ads and bias in reporting. Also a boycott of all products made by the parent companies, including Disney merchandise, Disney theme parks, GE appliances and lightbulbs, , 20th Century Fox movies, and whatever Viacom owns.
(Since CNN is running the ad, we should also write to thank them--and continue buying Time Magazine and other AOL/Time products for the moment).

2. Tell them why you're selling/boycotting. Don't use the form-letter email online. Go to the parent company's corporate site and e-mail the CFO or whoever is in charge of investor relations--and the PR or media contact. The latter will hate the negative publicity; the former will shudder at the prospect of angry shareholders.

3. Extend the protest/boycott to the companies' biggest advertisers, starting with the newscast advertisers. (Can someone who watches MSM start a list, please?)

3. Wait for stock prices to drop, like Sinclair's did.

4. Get a group of stockholders to raise hell at the next stockholders' meeting, accusing the networks and their parent companies of negatively impacting shareholder values through their bad policies.

5. Find a lawyer to file shareholder lawsuits against every network and cable station that won't change its policies.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Faux Cable? No, No & No

FCC rules only apply to broadcast licenses for stations that transmit over the air, not on your cable. The government only regulates the individual cable providers...and then with the smallest amount of control. Any "censorship" you see on cable is self-imposed conforming to FCC guidelines.

While Faux is obscene, it has it's right to exist and has to be fought with truth, not censorship. The mood in this country has to change to shame people into believing in the lies and propaganda that network promotes and this will drive down their ratings and revenues.

Personally, I'd rather see work on a Progressive alternative...we're seeing some very positive results on the radio dial these days, hopefully something on our TV screens will materialize soon.

[illflem]

15. No they can't be shut down

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. It took three attempts by Fox to to find a sympathetic judge who would overrule a jury verdict.

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

[Liberal In Texas]

19. No, don't be silly.

It's called the 1st amendment.

What we do need is to get more regulation back into the industry. And that's not going to happen until we get more dems. in the house/senate.

[meegbear]

20. They won an appeal based on the right to lie ...

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

<snip>

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

<snip>

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

[toymachines]

21. i totally understand where you come from

but even suggesting that such a thing be done puts us on a slippery slope that the repugs will surely use against us, they always do.

[theboss]

22. Why not shut down Air America too?

What possible case could be brought against Fox that wouldn't be a terrifying intrusion onto the First Amendment?

[tom_paine]

25. I seriously doubt it. In the Old Republic of America

(which has little to do with Imperial Amerika, but bear with me)

the idea was, in a Free Society, anyone could espouse any viewpoint and rely on the System and an Informed Citizenry to reject madness.

Now, of course, we have no Free Press, the System is in Termninal ICU or already dead while the Busheviks play "Weekend at Bernie's", and our society is anything but free, although we do still get to indugle ourselves for a little while longer, perhaps a few years and perhaps as much as the two deacdes it willtake for the last eople born in Free America to die out.

In the end, it is the same as Nazi Germany, "Everything Hitler did was 'legal' and how do you stop that?"

Good question, which historian will be pondering abut Imperial Amerika inthe future.

[passy]

34. Get something really dirty on Murdoch and News Corp.

There lies plenty of skeletons in that closet I can assure you and dating way back.
His role in the election of Blair, although at the time it wasn't such a bad thing, is an interesting example of how the man can influence the political landscape of a whole nation, just by switching support from one party to the next.
That makes me think that if he saw signs that the * ship was going down he would surely drop him like the rotten swine that he is.
The point might not be to bring down Fox news but maybe to let them know that the rope that will eventually hang * is long enough to be tied around the necks of all these dirty propagandists.
Because I believe the tide will turn and the MSM will turn their coats as soon as they smell the wind of revolution breathing down their necks.
Sorry for all the metaphors they just kept on coming.

[FatEmbolism]

41. Have you ever looked at their

ratings??? Their astrnomical. Bill O'Reilly gets 5 or 6 times the viewers that KO gets. They have a very strong and powerful viewing audience. It's not going to get shut down, there's no basis for it. Maybe turning the channel or not watching is more realistic.

[Bridget Burke]

42. Do you have a source for the ratings?

The only data I've seen indicate that O'Reilly lies a lot.

I don't want to shut down Fox, though. Wish it would go out of business, but there are a lot of idiots out there.

[FatEmbolism]

43. TVNEWS, USA Today

[Bridget Burke]

47. Is there a link?

"Astronomical" isn't very meaningful--unless you're talking about the Hubble.

[Bridget Burke]

48. Is there a link?

"Astronomical" isn't very meaningful--unless you're talking about the Hubble.

[FatEmbolism]

51. and Zap2it.com

[Liberal In Texas]

54. November sweeps - the last rating period

Fox's "O'Reilly Factor" fell by 33% in the demo, but only 14% overall at 8 p.m., as it averaged 2.05 million viewers as it remained the most popular cable news show by more than 500,000 viewers. Host Bill O'Reilly was on vacation for seven days...

Of the five news channels, CNN commanded 29% of the adult viewing in November, up from 23% a year ago as Fox's share dropped from to 43% from 46% and MSNBC's to 13% from 14%.

source:
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/va/20031204/107053197500.html

Bear in mind, this is for CABLE. If broadcast is factored in they kill anything cable does.

Next rating period is Feb. 2005, and has just started.

[Stirk]

50. LOL- O'Reilly says that. He also says he won a Peabody.

He's full of shit.

[artv28]

55. Unfortunately it's true.

The difference is greater in a 'red' market like Dallas/Fort Worth or Joplin. For some reason Minneapolis and a few select markets in the north mid-west are the only places Paula Zahn beats O'Liely. Here's an example of some markets in the 7pm central time slot. This is for the month of November


CNN/DF PAULA ZAHN NOW 0.5
FXNC/DF THE OREILLY FA 1.8
MNBC/DF COUNTDOWN W/ K 0.1

CNN/MIN PAULA ZAHN NOW 1.1
FXNC/MIN THE OREILLY FA 0.9
MNBC/MIN COUNTDOWN W/ K 0.2

CNN/KC PAULA ZAHN NOW 0.8
FXNC/KC THE OREILLY FA 2.3
MNBC/KC COUNTDOWN W/ K 0.6

CNN/MIL PAULA ZAHN NOW 0.7
FXNC/MIL THE OREILLY FA 1.4
MNBC/MIL COUNTDOWN W/ K 0.3

CNN/JOP PAULA ZAHN NOW 0.7
FXNC/JOP THE OREILLY FA 2.2
MNBC/JOP COUNTDOWN W/ K 0.3

[Stirk]

56. Well, yeah- it is technically true.

But he plays himself up like he's beating every news outlet in his timeslot. He has good numbers for a *cable* news show at that time, but he's spanked by non-cable news.

I'm just generally skeptical of everything Bill O'Reilly says. Most pundits lie through omission, but O'Reilly regularly just makes shit up.

[indepat]

45. Yes, but nothing will happen so we'll just have to get used to it

[bvar22]

46. There may be a case.

First Ammendment Rights do not give someone the right to scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

Without FOX and Rush screaming "FIRE" 24/7, bush* would have NEVER been able to invade Iraq based on LIES and DISTORTIONS.

There were credible spokesmen offering sound evidence that Sadam posed NO THREAT to ANYONE. Fox (and others) made an editorial choice not to present the voice of the opposition.

Food for thought.

[burythehatchet]

53. Thta's kind of my point, but its a bit too abstract for most

people to consider

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[burythehatchet]

52. that's me ...all freeper...all the time

{desired smilie not available}

[rinsd]

59. Dude read the rules....

Calling people freepers is a no-no and you may end up on a trip to tombstone country.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rinsd]

57. "intrusion into the democratic process"...

as a template for shutting one down is a dangerous one.

What is the violation of the Constitution?

I'm serious. Being lying sacks of shit doesn't violate the Constitution.

[burythehatchet]

61. VERY simply stated

a democracy can function only with an informed citizenry. If an agent is intentionally spreading dis-information, or propoganda, or both, then by definition the agent is subverting democracy. It has been objectively proven that viewers of Fox News are grossly misinformed.

[rinsd]

65. Okay....

...so where is that in the Constitution?

In addition, the arbiter of whether an agent is spreading disinfo is the government. The last freaking entity I want in charge of deciding whose news is okay. Maybe the court would get involved too but that is not a road I wish to go down.

[wtmusic]

64. If your voice is loud enough, it does

The FCC decided with the Radio Act of 1927 (when chaos reigned in broadcasting) that one broadcaster couldn't pump up his broadcasting level loud enough to drown others out, in effect limiting THEIR freedom of speech.

Yhey obviously couldn't be shut down. But if they had to offer time to the public for opposing viewpoints when they editorialized (as the Fairness Doctrine required), the world would be a better place, wouldn't it?

[onenote]

66. in theory it woud be better, but in practice

but it means that if a media outlet takes a "liberal" stance, it too would have to give up time for an opposing viewpoint. And who decides which opposing viewpoint is the appropriate one? Slippery slope here. Very very slippery.

onenote

[wtmusic]

69. That's the way it was for forty plus years

and it worked very well. There was a clear demarcation between news and editorializing.

To me the slippery slope is allowing special interests to decide what you should read, hear, and see.

[rinsd]

72. For forty years....

...broadcast was 3 national networks and maybe one local one. Now there are literally hundreds of media outlets out there. And cable and broadcast news are going down in terms of percentages of where people get their news.

"To me the slippery slope is allowing special interests to decide what you should read, hear, and see."

Baffling when we've seen so many examples of the government's BS censorship this past year alone.

[wtmusic]

73. How many different companies

own those "hundreds of media outlets"? And censorship is not at issue, at all.

[rinsd]

75. That is the fault of the 96 Telecomm act.....

The expansion of the FCC in response to that is tantamount to cutting off a man's leg after a stubbed toe.

As far as I know the Telecomm Act isn't set in stone and a place I think the government can and should have an impact on is the consolidation of media ownership. Nothing wrong with the old rules where you couldn't own too many media outlets. But that isn't the Fairness Doctrine.

[wtmusic]

79. true

but they aren't really mutually exclusive. The FD stems from the Radio Act of 1927, when radio broadcasters flooded the airwaves and chaos reigned. The ones with the strongest signals were the only ones who were heard. Both relate to presenting the public with a diversity of viewpoints.

In practice the only ones affected by the doctrine were the major networks and there were precious few instances where anyone felt their First Amendment rights were violated.

[rinsd]

83. Actaully I think local stations were more rigid in following the doctrine

After all, small stations(when they existed) weren't exactly cash cows and getting fined was likely a much bigger expense for Channel 6 than ABC.

"Both relate to presenting the public with a diversity of viewpoints."

When 3 broadcasters(and not just for news) dominated a single medium I would tend to agree. When there 100's of channels(and even entire new mediums) for one to choose from with all sorts of viewpoints, that argument gets lost on me.

I'm for less regulation of the content of the media and for more regulation of the ownership of media.

[wtmusic]

85. Agreed.

Media ownership is a more important issue. Maybe if we rolled back media ownership rules to 1960's levels the FD wouldn't even be an issue.

Thanks for the discussion -- now back to work before I get in trouble...

:thumbsup:

[rinsd]

87. Same here...its been fun. (nt)

[rinsd]

68. But that isn't a factor on cable......

...cable broadcasts do not cancel each other out.

"But if they had to offer time to the public for opposing viewpoints when they editorialized (as the Fairness Doctrine required), the world would be a better place, wouldn't it?"

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't think the world would be a better place. You would end up with more Alan Colmes as window dressing. I do not wish the government to decide whther the opposing viewpoint was vigorous enough. Also I do not want the FCC to have its power expanded over cable. They're trying the crap already and I think the whole fairness doctrine reinstatement & expansion may be the baited hook that lands some of the left.

[wtmusic]

70. How can a wider range of points of view

possibly be detrimental? Alan Colmes is not the public, and Fox like all broadcaster is a public trustee--they are obligated to serve in in the public interest.

The FCC worked it like this for a long, long time.

[rinsd]

78. How will this ensure wider range?

Seriously, how will the Fairness dcotrine as opposed to the rise of unregulated media(ie: the internet) ensure a wider range of views?

Also, the Red Lion case touched upon the fact that broadcasters may give up dealing with controversial issues altogether. You see this in local news broadcasts.

Again the need would be for a more powerful FCC especially over content guidelines, which I consider a non-starter.

[wtmusic]

82. Absolutely wrong

"A more powerful FCC especially over content guidelines"? It has nothing to do with specific content.

[rinsd]

86. How is it wrong?

If the FD doesn't have anything to do with content guidelines that what does it deal with?

And yes this would be creating a more powerful FCC by expanding its power over cable(you'd have to give the FD some teeth such as fines etc), what's to stop the FCC from trying to regulate content beyond te FD? You've already made the case that cable serves a public need and part of the FCC role is indecency in programming. Do you think the FCC will just stop at the FD? Did you miss Janet Jackson's tittie gate or Howard getting drummed off the air for basically doing what he has been for years?

[Selatius]

77. It's simply not possible to shut down FOX News

It's a 1st Amendment issue. There is nothing in the US Constitution that prevents FOX News from doing what it is doing. The only real recourse is to promote structural reforms such as reinstating the Fairness Doctrine or instituting a public financing system for all federal elections with a ban on outside money. Others could include certain regulations on campaigning itself and how it's done.

Shutting down FOX News sets a dangerous precedent that could ultimately hurt freedom of speech in general. We don't need authoritarianism here.

[tralfaz]

90. the chances of us

shutting down Fox News is about the same as Fox news shutting down DU. Is this the direction that we really want to go???????

[burythehatchet]

94. I would welcome a test

between Fox viewers and DU members as to which group is more informed. Remember, the permise here is that truthful information is a foundational element of a democratic republic. Without truthful information there is no validity to the process IMO

[Cats Against Frist]

98. I am so up for that.

I'm not the smartest person in the world, but I know that I could whip the intellectual fuck out of your average FOX viewer. I'd be willing to bet shutting down DU or FOX on it.

Of course, though -- FOX would cheat and stack the test with a bunch of AEI fellows and claim they're "the average FOX viewer."

[Swamp Rat]

92. Shut up burythehatchet! Just shut up you America hater!

Though I wish the Gates of Hell would open up and swallow every employee who works for FOX "News" (except the janitorial staff), I'm not for violating the 1st Ammendment to shut them down. Now, if we can get tangible proof they interfered with the elections... ;)

Perhaps they could be forced to label each and every report/show with a clear disclaimer stating this "THIS IS NOT REAL NEWS - THIS IS ONLY THE OPINION OF RUPERT MURDOCH AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION."

[burythehatchet]

93. want tangible proof

a little off topic but in 2000 didn't Fox unilaterally decide to call the election for Bush. and wasn't the person at Fox who made that decision a relative of Chimpy?

[Swamp Rat]

96. Yep, they did call the election for GW, but I don't know if anyone will

go beyond what Michael Moore and others did, which was to expose the conspiracy. Apparently, the politicians don't give a shit what we think or for whom we vote. Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch and Bush&Co had the fix in. Then General Electric's Tom Brokow decided to play along too.

They're all traitors as far as I am concerned. x(

[Cats Against Frist]

95. I sorry that I'm too lazy to look this up

I thought someone tried to sue them for "false advertising," for claiming they are "fair and balanced," which we all know is horseshit -- even the freepers know that it's a "conservative" channel -- but I'm thinking that lawsuit went nowhere????

Seems to me that's the best that could be done, without gutting the first amendment. Thing is, there are always qualifiers to "how damaging free speech is." Everyone has their argument, and it's all arbitrary -- the right wants to shut down protest speech and the religionists and (some of) the feminists (of which I am one) want to shut down pornography, and everybody has sound "reasons," whether manufactured or actually necessary.

I feel for you, but as much as they suck ass, they should be allowed to broadcast. I simply think that they shouldn't be able to use the term "fair and balanced," and that every freeptard should be schooled in "emotional opinions based on lies, fearmongering and logical fallacy by drug addicts, criminals and she-men*," and "news."

*I really can't think of ONE all-encompasing term that is nasty enough to apply to Sean Hannity.

[walldude]

97. Well here's a few thoughts on Faux news

O'Reilly may have the highest ratings in his time slot but 2.4 million people account for less than 1% of Americans. So there's not much to worry about there. I believe the people at Fox, who have their noses shoved so far up Bush's ass they need a tissue when he farts, have the right to spew their version of news the way they see fit. I have the right to laugh at them and turn them off. Fox blows... in the direction of the wind, and you can bet your ass if they started losing money they would change their tune. Why take these people seriously in the first place? You see what the rest of their programming is like. Anyone watch that wonderful show where the adopted woman tries to pick her real father out of 8 losers? Yeah they are really high and mighty alright. If it weren't for the goddam Simpsons(about as liberal as it gets) they never would have had the money to start their own news network....

On the other hand they employ 2 Traitors, Geraldo, who gave away troop positions on TV and Novack who outed Valerie Plame, if they were as righteous as they claim to be then they would have canned those assholes after they commited high treason against the U.S.