Tell the FCC that FOX News should be investigated for hoaxes in regards to party affiliation

[derby378]

Here's the deal. FOX News has a verifiable record of misrepresenting disgraced Republican office holders as Democrats. The frequency and rate of such misidentifications precludes human error and chance.

The FCC has an Investigation & Hearings Division which is part of their Enforcement Bureau. According to their website:

The Investigations & Hearings Division is responsible for resolution of complaints against broadcast stations and other Title III licensees on non-technical matters such as indecency, enhanced underwriting, unauthorized transfer of control and misrepresentation. In addition, with regard to wireless licensees, the Division is responsible for enforcement of rules regarding auction collusion and misrepresentation. The Division also investigates industry allegations of violations of Title II of the Communications Act, as amended, and FCC rules and policies pertaining to common carriers. In addition, the Division conducts, or assists in, various other investigations being conducted by the Bureau and serves as trial staff in formal Commission hearings.

This misrepresentation could further be identified by the FCC as a hoax, as detailed here:

The Commission's prohibition against the broadcast of hoaxes is set forth at Section 73.1217 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1217.

This rule prohibits broadcast licensees or permittees from broadcasting false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if: (1) the licensee knows this information is false; (2) it is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm; and (3) broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm.

Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the program as a fiction and is presented in a way that is reasonable under the circumstances.

For purposes of this rule, "public harm" must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.

The public harm will be deemed foreseeable if the licensee could expect with a significant degree of certainty that public harm would occur.

A "crime" is any act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law.

A "catastrophe" is a disaster or imminent disaster involving a violent or sudden event affecting the public.

Argument: Misrepresenting political affiliations of holders of public office causes public harm, and in the case of Gov. Sanford of South Carolina, the misrepresentation of Gov. Sanford's affiliation by FOX News is in response to what appear to be Gov. Sanford's "crimes," defined by the FCC as acts that make Gov. Sanford subject to criminal punishment by law. He doesn't actually have to be punished, just subject to punishment.

Federal Communications Commission
Enforcement Bureau, Investigations & Hearings Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC. 20554

Complaints should include the call sign and community of license of the station, the date and time of the broadcast(s) in question, and a detailed description of the public harm caused as a result of the broadcast. In addition, if possible, complaints should include a transcript or recording of the broadcast in question.

[BuyingThyme]

1. I don't think Fox is a "broadcast station."

[derby378]

3. So?

They control various broadcast stations throughout the United States that has traditionally been identified as VHF instead of purely cable. I think there's an opening here.

And even if that argument doesn't hold, and FOX lawyers claim King's X because they're a cable network, maybe it's time for the FCC to be pressured into expanding its reach to cable networks.

Either that, or states can create their own commissions to oversee cable networks.

[BuyingThyme]

6. I've written the FCC in the past and they have a standard response

to issues involving cable channels: "Go away."

[derby378]

8. If the FCC won't listen, states should be pressured to create their own bandwidth commissions

Our legislative session just ended earlier this year, so Texas has to wait another two years before tackling a project like this. But maybe we can start laying the groundwork for it now.

[BuyingThyme]

10. Randi Rhodes talks about this fairly often.

She thinks there should be some kind of rule regulating organizations which identify themselves with the word "news."

I think it's a very touchy area when it comes to regulation.

[derby378]

12. There are legitimate First Amendment issues to consider

Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck should be allowed to spout whatever hateful diatribes they wish. I'm not taking about censoring them - we'd just be turning them into electronic martyrs and betraying our own Constitution.

But news, like scientific observation, is a little bit different. Either a helium atom has two protons in its nucleus, or it's not a helium atom anymore. Either pi is an irrational number represented by 3.14159..., or we have to rethink our whole notion of circles. Either Gov. Mark Sanford is a Republican, or he is not. Facts are curious things - they do not bend to public opinion or propaganda. They just are. But sometimes they can be obfuscated, distorted, diffused beyond recognition by the observer. To do so on a wholesale level, using the media, is to inflict harm on the public good.

[konnichi wa]

22. Just what we need, 50 different sets of broadcast rules.

:scared:
Hey, let's give states the right to control air traffic too...
:eyes:

[derby378]

26. Look at it this way...

...50 different state broadcast commissions may force the FCC's hand to push for a standardized approach that all 50 states can live with, thus making the state commissions obsolete.

[konnichi wa]

28. But the 'approach' is ALREADY standardized...you just object to the standards.

I don't have much faith in an upshot that includes - say, Mississippi and Massachusetts in agreement on this.
:shrug:

[TheMightyFavog]

30. That's because the FCC has no jusrisdiction over contnet on cable.

Now, if these were over-the-air broadcasters, they'd have jurisdiction.

[onenote]

21. the FCC cant' just "expand" its reach to cable networks

It would take an act of Congress.

The FCC has no more authority to regulate a cable network for what it presents on a screen than it does to regulate a newspaper for what it prints (or a website, for that matter).

[derby378]

2. A clarification

Misrepresentation of the political affiliations of holders of public office by a broadcasting service causes public harm in that it dilutes the integrity and accuracy of news that is disseminated over the public airwaves that are administered by the FCC in service to the public trust.

If the First Amendment doesn't cover someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, it should not cover deliberate misrepresentation by media outlets who use the people's bandwidth in order to do so.

[Sebass1271]

4. If I was an attorney i would take thismatter into my own hands

and suit fox news with my own money just to bring them shame. I would make sure that the "fair and balance" crap they plast on their tv would be removed..

but then again, i am not an attorney.

[konnichi wa]

29. You don't need to be an attorney, you just need some bucks to hire one.

A person can file a lawsuit against virtually any other person/corporation for virtually any imaginable reason.
Winning is of course problematic and dependent...

[Sebass1271]

5. but thank you for the information. What should we do?

right to fcc and submit a complain?

[derby378]

7. Complete with screen grabs and date stamps or whatever corroborating evidence you've got

I'm sure someone on DU has a verifiable log of these bait-and-switch graphics, or at least they know of someone who maintains such a list that will stand up in court.

[Greyhound]

9. They already got a SCOTUS ruling that says that knowingly lying is just fine.

Perhaps the FCC could cause them some grief, but it would be temporary at best.

Public awareness is the only thing that can hurt them IMO.

[derby378]

11. SCOTUS ruling? Please clarify

Maybe I've heard of it, but a link or explanation would help.

[Greyhound]

13. I'm on my way out the door, but it was here on DU. About a month ago

somebody was suing Faux for spreading outright lies in their broadcasts and it went to the SCOTUS which returned a ruling that they are under no obligation to tell the truth. Perhaps someone else here can point us to the source.

[derby378]

14. I think I found it

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

Not a SCOTUS case - this one was decided by Florida's Second District Court of Appeal.

[Greyhound]

18. I think that's it. Boy, was I off. Feb 14th, Florida appeals court ruling. n/t

[Fearless]

15. Here's a new one... Mark Sanford (D)... Just today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5914682

[derby378]

16. Exactly the reason for the OP

:hi:

[Bjorn Against]

17. As disgusted as I am by FOX, I am very wary of having government decide what misrepresentation is

While what FOX is doing is clearly misrepresentation, or to put it more bluntly outright lying, I am not comfortable with the FCC regulating news broadcasts and determining what is and is not a form of misrepresentation. Imagine if they were doing this while Bush was in office, how do you think he would have had his FCC appointees use the power to determine what constituted "misrepresentation"? It wouldn't be FOX that would be prosecuted, it would be all the journalists who dared to speak truth to power. We need to be careful what we wish for because we just might get it.

[derby378]

19. Understood, but that's also why...

...we must further gird ourselves against ever allowing the likes of Bush to take the White House again. We could learn a lot from the Iranian protesters in this regard.

Not to mention the fact that Bush politicized the FCC by putting Michael Powell in charge, which explains their past reluctance to hold FOX News accountable for anything.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. The Democratic Party needs to sue Fox

The FCC isn't going to do anything about this.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

25. now THERE's an idea.

While I'd love to see them lose their license and have their satellite equipment confiscated, just a requirement that their logo be accompanied by a simple, clear disclaimer (in font size no less than 64!!). Like, "Warning: Taking anything said here seriously is a symptom of terminal hate and/or stupidity. All reports on this station are for entertainment purposes only. Not to be mistaken for facts. "

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. You might as well complain to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

They have about the same authority to regulate the content of cable channels: None.

[Winterblues]

24. Fox News was taken to court over LIES they told

The Court ruled they could indeed LIE and that they were under NO OBLIGATION to be truthful. Fox won the case.

[derby378]

27. That was only a state appeals court ruling

Let's see them sell that bullshit on the Federal level, especially if someone like Scalia has to retire from the bench.