Do you want to make heads explode at Fox News?

[NCcoast]

Then let's start a movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

Or better yet, let's have a law like Canada's that makes it illegal for a news organization to knowingly mislead the public. If such a law were enforced it would put and end to the misinformation and alternative reality concocted by the 'conservative entertainment complex' as David Frum recently dubbed it.

Rupert Murdoch fought a long battle in Canada to repeal the law that stops people from knowingly misleading the public in the guise of news. He lost that battle and in turn decided not to enter the Canadian market. Rupert can't do business where people demand that their journalists be honest brokers. Clearly we need such a law.

Your thoughts?

[lovemydog]

1. Laws don't always accomplish what one wants.

Any such laws brush up against the First Amendment.

I understand the fairness doctrine and don't mean to unnecessarily slam it.

But restrictions on speech are often difficult to pinpoint and can be used against the good intentions behind the drafters of those laws.

Right now I'm thinking that Fox News is so discredited, they are useful idiots for progressives.

[orpupilofnature57]

9. Letting Assholes prove themselves Assholes, I agree

People that subscribe to Fux-it-up and their ilk, are the people Voltaire said believe the greatest absurdities and therefore can commit the greatest atrocities .

[shawn703]

13. They could still spew their lies on TV

They just couldn't claim what they are spewing is "news". It sounds like a common sense solution to me, unless there's something I'm missing.

[reusrename]

60. ^ This.

Fox has argued in court that they have a first amendment right to willfully lie to the public, and the court agrees:

from the court ruling, near the top of page 4 -

"We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy" – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102. "

http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

The problem is, where does this behavior become fraud?

I don't think it is fraud for Fox News to sell their product to their distribution outlets, the cable and satellite companies, because these are sophisticated buyers and they know exactly what they are buying.

But when these distributors, the cable and satellite companies, turn around and market this product to the public as "news," then I believe a fraud is being committed by them (the cable and satellite companies). They know that this stuff isn't news, that it is instead lies and propaganda.

Selling this crap to the public as "news" violates an implied warranty of merchantability, a legal concept where an item sold for a particular purpose must be suitable for that purpose.

People who rely on Fox News in order to inform themselves as to elections, for example, will be irrevocably harmed by this product.

An action should be taken against these providers, the cable and satellite companies, in order to force them to stop marketing this crap in their "news" category. It should be marketed in some other category, perhaps with the other cartoons and children's shows.

I hope someone gets what I'm saying here. FOX is not the offender because they don't market to the public directly. The distributor has the obligation to their customer to identify this product that they know for sure is not news.

I hope that is clear.

[cui bono]

104. I don't agree. Fox is the one calling themselves "News" and they are marketing themselves.

The cable company is just the middle person. Much like a movie theater. They both show what will sell and make them money. They don't actually market the product they are "displaying".

Fox is ABSOLUTELY the offender. They choose to outright lie, to spread propaganda, in order to try to achieve their desired political goals. They have people on the station with conflicts of interest, they have their on air personalities headline political rallies.

Would it be nice if cable/satellite companies refused to carry Fox? Yes. But then they would lose money. That does not, however, mean they are marketing Fox, they are merely offering Fox.

[reusrename]

112. What you're saying is true, only it isn't fraud.

Their transaction with the cable providers is above board. This is not fraud.

The transaction with the public is much different. Legally different.

And of course they are marketing the Fox product. Look at their brochures.

[cui bono]

114. I don't believe I said it was fraud.

They're not "marketing" it in that they say it's the channel to watch, they're publicizing the fact that they carry it. They also "market" that they carry msnbc, espn, etc... They aren't promoting or endorsing the content, they are promoting the fact that if you like that channel, they've got it.

[reusrename]

115. Suppose the cable company were selling a movie channel...

... except that after you signed up you found that the channel only showed infomercials and no movies.

I don't see how you could have an action against the particular "movie" channel since it was the cable company that sold it to you. Your would have to seek relief from the cable company, afaict. Right?

I think I'm getting this correct, but if there are any lawyers out there that know something about this stuff, please don't hold back. My way of viewing the problem may be completely incorrect, but I have never seen this approach discussed anywhere.

[Laelth]

106. Nicely said, and I agree with the spirit of your argument. However ...

The implied warranty of merchantability, and its more exacting cousin, the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, apply only to the sale of goods, and it is seems to me that "entertainment" is not a good because it is not a tangible object like a refrigerator. Perhaps I am wrong about that, but I would need to see some UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) case law applying these warranties to "entertainment" before I could make the logical leap required to sue the purveyors of Fox "News" for violating these implied warranties.

In addition, I note that the damages available to someone who sues a merchant for violating the UCC are quite limited. If the purveyors of Fox "News" were sued on this basis, and if the Plaintiffs won, the purveyors would be required to merely replace the defective product with one that was merchantable or fit for the particular purpose advertized. For example, if a merchant sells you a refrigerator that does not keep food cool, that merchant has violated the implied warranty of merchantability, and, if said merchant were successfully sued, said merchant would have to give you a refrigerator that actually did cool food, but that would likely be the full extent of the damages that said merchant would have to pay. If the purpose of "news" is to honestly inform the viewer, and if "news" were a good that was covered by the UCC, and if a merchant sold you a defective news product like Fox "News" (that neither informed nor was honest), and if you sued said purveyor of alleged news and won, then the only thing the purveyor would have to do to compensate you would be to provide you with a news product that actually did honestly inform.

What would be the point? From an attorney's perspective, that lawsuit would not be worth the trouble of pursuing, and that probably explains why nobody has yet filed such a suit.

That said, I agree that Fox is deceitful and harmful to the political discourse and health of this republic. I just don't see how the UCC can help us in this case.

-Laelth

[reusrename]

113. I don't disagree with anything you say here.

The only point of such a suit would be to force these folks to quit selling this crap as news.

The only payoff for the lawyer would be bragging rights, and the satisfaction that comes from making the world a better place.

Or, more handwringing, 'cause we love to do that.

[pam4water]

36. I'm old enough to remember the fairness doctrine, and it work. Turn off the fatalism.

[Z_I_Peevey]

40. Dick Morris wrote a book about the horrors of the Fairness Doctrine.

So, already, there's a recommendation for bringing it back.

[uponit7771]

57. +1!

[ReasonableToo]

92. + 1 2

[nichomachus]

42. Not a First Amendment issue

The First Amendment says the government can't prevent you from speaking/publishing. It doesn't say you can't be held accountable.

If I were to go on TV and call you a serial child molester, you could go to court, sue me, and win.

[MrMickeysMom]

53. In fact, the fairness doctrine would assure proper use of the first amendment...

free speech on a level scale, not based on who has more megawatts of power, and buying up the people's airwaves has been overtaken by fascists.

[Major Nikon]

75. Not only that, the sun has set on any need for the fairness doctrine

The fairness doctrine came about in media markets where there were limited channels available. Some had cornered the market in some areas and could use that market share to create an echo chamber for their ideas. In the age of satellite TV, cable, and streaming audio and video over the internet, the fairness doctrine just isn't relevant anymore. The fairness doctrine never required equal time for opposing ideas anyway and with all the options available, people can just turn the channel if they want a different perspective.

[fasttense]

83. No, there are many places where you can't change the dial.

There are large swaths of America where the only thing on radio is music, religion, sports and right wing idiot talkers. What's fair about that? Check out the South.

There are places in the US where the only TV news shows are right wing. Check out parts of Indiana.

What right does a radio or TV station have to do away with a popular show and replace it with a 3rd sports station? Just because they rented the airwaves does NOT relieve them of the responsibility to provide a benefit to the public. Since when does profit for a corporation that owns thousands of radio stations supersede the public's need to access information?

This meme that you can get satellite or stream videos even if you are poor and live in a rural area is a lie. I know from experience that without my cable access internet, I would get nothing but propaganda shows. Yet there are many people who live here that can NOT afford the cable fees or even the computer to get a different perspective. There are many who can not afford premium package cable or satellite TV to get that different perspective.

This is why rural areas usually vote RepubliCON, because thats the only information and perspective they can get or afford.

[cui bono]

105. Portland's progressive radio station is being replace by a sports station

not because it wasn't lucrative, it was, but because it is owned by Clear Channel, I believe. I heard about it on Ed's radio show and I think they said it was owned by them.

Mike Papantonio was on and he said they're looking into suing them over it for that type of reason, they are taking away a benefit to the community that was a money maker and replacing it with something that already exists and is not needed, that the only reason they are doing it is to get rid of that viewpoint. Something like that. I love Pap.

In Los Angeles they've watered down the progressive station to the point where it's useless. The 9am and 3pm slots are ridiculous. Bad hosts and half the time when I tune it while driving they're talking about some bad pop culture or tabloid news type thing. Pretty sure Clear Channel owns them too since you have to go to iHeartRadio to listen to them online or on phone.

These are not even cities in red areas or states!

[prairierose]

97. You misinformed or have bought into the propaganda....

In much of rural America, there are no alternatives to rw media. If you can not afford sat tv, you are stuck with what is available over the air. Because trust me, there is no cable tv available out there. And if there is no cable tv, there is no cable internet access where one could stream other media over the internet because large portions of rural America are still stuck with dial up internet.

I have lived there and I still have friends and relatives who live there. This is the reason that so much of rural America votes for the repugnant party. Clear channel owns many of the radio stations. The old small, local stations have either been bankrupted by Clear channel or bought up by them. And the local channels do not do local news either anymore. Many of them bought up by Clear channel are automated. There are no local people there except the tech who checks the power and transmitter.

[Major Nikon]

102. Compare today with 1949

Even if you only have dial up internet, you still have access to virtually limitless sources of news and information.

The FCC says that only 19 million people in the US have no access to wired broadband. That's about 6% of the population, and this doesn't include wireless broadband in which there are several options available.
http://www.infodocket.com/2012/08/21/statistics-19-million-americans-dont-have-access-to-broadband-internet/#_

Satellite TV has pretty much universal coverage for the lower 48 and you can get a monthly plan that starts at $25.
http://www.myrateplan.com/sat/

In 1949, only 9% of US homes even had a TV. There was no internet, no broadband, no wireless telephones, and virtually no cable or satellite TV.


Furthermore, go actually look at what the fairness doctrine does and more importantly what it doesn't do. Talk radio stations and Faux news could still do everything they are doing today. The only requirement they would have is to air an opposing viewpoint, of which there is no equal time requirement.

[RoccoR5955]

88. The Fairness Doctrine never would "brush up" against the First Amendment.

It was started so that ALL opinions got a voice in the media, so it ENHANCED the First Amendment.
The current state just reenforces the realization that money is speech.
FDR put this into effect so that there was not the situation that we have today, and we get more information to form opinions.

[felix_numinous]

2. Yes!!

This needs to be reinstated.

[Vincardog]

3. Yes pass a law that if you see a lie on the news you report it, if it is repeated you get $10,000

every time it is repeated after that the fine doubles.
Take the money from Murdoch and put it in fact checkers pockets.
Also make it illegal to lie in political adds.

[davidpdx]

81. My suggestion for the presidential debates

was to hit someone in the crotch every time they lie. The only thing with that is men would be a huge disadvantage (owch!). The ratings would definitely go up.

[bluethruandthru]

90. I've always wondered why our "truth in advertising" laws don't apply to political ads. n/t

[ReasonableToo]

93. Exactly

[Savannahmann]

4. All for it

The Big lie is too much a part of their gameplan to survive with legal standards for the truth.

[orpupilofnature57]

5. The law of reason should make Ru-away, non-existent

[KharmaTrain]

6. The Big Problem:

Define "Fairness". Whose? Yours? Mine? Roger Ailes? It's a subjective word when you come to discussing issues and why such an idea could never be workable. Would you propose having every person who appears on camera to have their words checked either before they go on the air or in real time...and then by whom?

While Bullshit Mountain deliberately misleads their ilk, those people tune in by free will. No one forces them to watch and they have chose to close their minds...imposing "fairness" will not change that mindset. The only way is in the marketplace of ideas. The party that sells its ideas better wins (as we saw last week).

Lastly...thank goodness we don't have government censorship over political speech. Imagine how that could be used in the wrong hands...

[AsahinaKimi]

8. I don't know about you but it did seem

Life was better before Fox News... or am I wrong? There was always Yellow Journalism, but never on this scale.

[KharmaTrain]

12. That Was The Fault Of Dereg '96...

That let the cable companies and the large corporates turn the broadcast landscape into a plantation. It enabled a Cheap Channel to amass thousands of stations that became the conduit for hate radio and made it all but impossible for someone to challenge a license.

The problem with faux isn't it's lies or even its viewers...it's its undue influence over the rushpublican party and visa versa. Last week we saw a true wag the dog as Faux, despite indications to the contrary, deceiving their viewers about the outcome of the election. Now, if someone still watches that claptrap after being set up for such a big fall is beyond me, but their right. Unfortunately there's no law regulating stupidity.

Cheers!

[AsahinaKimi]

24. Great comments thank you!

Yoroshiku ne!

[Blanks]

35. People believed that they found WMD in Iraq...

You would have thought that Fox News reputation would have been toast after that. It didn't happen.

I think we need to think of Fox News in the same way we think of professional wrestling. It's kind of fun drama for some, but we all know it's fake.

We can all laugh at the ones who don't believe it's fake behind their backs.

Over time the influence of Fox News will shrink even if their audience doesn't; after all it is just entertainment. People watch the WWE even though they know it's not real.

I watch 'The Daily Show' because they pick out the most entertaining things that have occurred on Fox News in the last 24 hour period. They have time to pick through it; so I don't have to.

[KharmaTrain]

70. In Essence That's What's Happened...

Remember, according to the ratings services Faux on its best night may attrack 3 million people. However it's a vocal and consentrated minority that also include the beltway corporate media elite. Fortunately we've seen a change over the years where Faux's credibility has been challenged and now lies in tatters. I give a lot of that credit to folks like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. In 2000 and 2004 there wasn't any counter voice to the right wing noise and intimidation...this year MSNBC did act as a counterweight that exposed a lot of the games and lies going on. The Daily Show also did an excellent job (as well as Stephen Colbert) into reaching out to a younger audience who also learned about the lies of Bullshit Mountain.

I joke with a friend who lives in AZ that every time an EMT truck goes to Sun City, Faux loses another viewer. The satisfying feeling on election night was despite all the lying, attempts at voter suppression and intimidation, our side prevailed...as did common sense. Faux is still trying to spin its way out of the credibility mess its created...the turdblossom melt down will go down as a seminal moment in bad television...

Cheers...

[Mariana]

98. People STILL believe they found WMD in Iraq, to this day.

You're right, of course, about Fox News, and comparing it to the WWE is spot on. The same is true of RW radio. I keep on making the point to the RWers in my family who listen to RW radio that those shows are PERFORMANCES. The hosts are playing roles. I also remind them that the customers of those hosts are the advertisers, NOT the listeners.

[cui bono]

108. Hell, 15% of GOP in Ohio believe Romney got Bin Laden!!!

Base Democrat Republican Ind/Other
Barack Obama 63% 86% 38% 64%
Mitt Romney 6% 1% 15% 1%
Not sure 31% 13% 47% 36%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OH_9912.pdf

Bah... all my spacing disappeared once I posted. This info is on pg.7 of the pdf.

[calimary]

71. Even worse was 1987, when ownership restrictions were lifted. Waning days of reagan.

Once upon a time, any individual Ma&Pa owner OR a major corporation could own only three properties in any one market - and it usually shook down to two radio stations, an AM and an FM, and also a TV station. You weren't allowed to gobble up a cluster of stations - maybe six or seven in the same city, all supposedly "competing" with each other. Now, anything goes. That really unleashed the hounds.

[KharmaTrain]

79. The 7s Rule...

Until '91 a company was limited to 7 AM, 7 FM and 7 TV stations. That was total...national. Today a company can own up to 5 AM, 5 FM and 2 TV stations in the same market. Using limited marketing arrangements you can control even more. Today we're down to three or four companies in major markets and one or two in the smaller ones that control all the major signals. The ensuing property grab made it lucrative for small owner/operators to sell out and hard for anyone to buy in.

In essence under Raygun, Poppy boosh and sadly, Clinton, the hounds were unleashed and destroyed a once vibrant and dynamic industry...

[HiPointDem]

84. destroyed is right. it's a wasteland of crap.

[bluethruandthru]

91. Right! I also think it would be much easier to once again severely restrict ownership

limits for radio and television stations in each market.
This would force the handful of giant media (especially radio) companies to sell off many of their stations. Limited radio ownership per market would hopefully put stations back into the hands of many, many small owners who could provide varied content and ideas and also bring back radio's local focus.

[moondust]

19. I think it's more about

making a good-faith effort to offer equal airtime to opposing viewpoints. In essence, facilitating the dialectic that Rachel Maddow editorialized about the day after the election.

The Fairness Doctrine was the law back when there were (mainly?/only?) three broadcast networks on the free public airwaves so it would have been much easier to monitor and enforce. I don't know how it would work with cable and satellite TV and subscribers who pay to receive programming.

[KharmaTrain]

25. I Worked With The Fairness Doctrine...

It only pertained to mandated public affairs programs...those programs were wiped away with 80s era "deregulation". It also pertained to a candidate's ability to purchase commercial time on a station. Stations were prohibited from charging separate rates or offering preferred time to one candidate and not offer similar time to another. It never pertained to talk programming that was considered "Entertainment" (and why rushbo still calls himself an "Entertainer&quot or to news coverage. Stations, in good faith and concerned about expensive license challenges made sure they didn't ruffle political feathers...or they shied away from political programming and advertising altogether. That all got wiped away when ownership rules were changed with Telcom '96. Without concern about having a license challenged it opened the door for hate radio to proliferate to the obscene levels we see today.

Regarding cable...FCC rules and the "Fairness" Doctrine never applied.

With the rise of new mediums, the concept of fairness is further distorted as the individual now determines what's "fair" to them; gravitating to the websites and news channels that speak to them...or they tune out altogether. For a long time I favored reregulating the public airwaves but with the rise of Internet and satellite broadcasting the marketplace may have already decided the issue...

Cheers...

[AlbertCat]

26. Define "Fairness".

Uh... the doctrine does.

It mainly said if you had 1 hr of right wing opinion, the station HAD to air 1 hr of left wing opinion.

Equal time.

And it wasn't perfect, but what it did was not allow a wall to wall political channel.... left or right, because the stations didn't want to use up all their time on equal time.

Indeed, the Repugs got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, because they said it stifled debate. "Everything will be more fair, and great and with rainbows and ponies if we get rid of this obstacle to free speech!" That's what they said. Kinda what you just said

Uh huh.

[NYC Liberal]

94. It never required equal time.

It was perfectly legal under the FD to present 59 minutes of right-wing opinions and 1 minute of opposing opinons.

[JackHughes]

100. AM radio under the Fairness Doctrine

Under the Fairness Doctrine, AM radio was actually a source of broad entertainment and information -- mostly with a local flavor. Now it's all just political propaganda 24/7/365.

[WinstonSmith4740]

51. As I remember it

the definition of "fairness" was never the point. It simply mandated that if a media outlet broadcast a particular viewpoint, they had to offer equal time for someone who had an opposing viewpoint. There was a famous "All in the Family" episode where Archie went on the local network affiliate (hey, it was 1973) to argue against a gun control editorial given by the station manager. Archie thought we should all be armed. The average person could do that at the time. I remember thinking when the conservative noise machine, still in it's infancy at the time, managed to get it repealed, that we were in for a rough ride.

[HiPointDem]

85. that's how i remember it too. so it basically kept stations from getting too political.

[Phillyindy]

7. Free speech rights my $&@!

The people own the airwaves, not Fox or MSNBC for that matter. We give them the right, at OUR discretion to lease them. At a bare minimum there should be laws that allow for legal regress against stations that knowingly lie and/or mislead the public on issues of national importance. Rush Limbaugh grew into the national embarrassment he is while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. Anyone who thinks such a law prohibits free speech simply doesn't understand how it works, and why it was so successful for many decades. Reagan tore it down for a reason folks, and the day he did the right wing bubble that is like a cancer or our society was born.

[orpupilofnature57]

10. Exactly !!!! Welcome Phillyindy !!!!

[Roland99]

15. Except Faux isn't on the airwaves. It's cable. It's not broadcast.

[SemperEadem]

20. radio still goes over the airwaves

AM and FM still send a signal out of a tower. Yes, they also simulcast on the internet using phone wires and cable, but their main means of broadcasting is using the tower/receiver model.

[Rockyj]

16. Totally agree!

Just as Fox News & certain radio stations are carried in certain areas that don't carry MSNBC or Progressive radio.
So people don't have a choice. I think the Fairness Doctrine would help to prevent that.
Recently, Clear Channel replaced Portland's KPOJ Progressive Radio station with a Fox Sports station instead!
However, I do get pissed when people imply that MSNBC is the same as Fox News!
MSNBC hosts do not outright lie and mislead people like Fox News.
They are not the same.

[Blanks]

37. Fox News says they lie.

At least I expect they do. They claim that all other media has a liberal bias.

The truth has a liberal bias; so I guess they have a point.

[Blue4Texas]

68. Murdoch said not compelled to be truthful

Are entertainment

[WinstonSmith4740]

54. Welcome to DU!

Have a cheesesteak for me! White American and grilled onions, please!

[defacto7]

58. Thank you, well said

Welcome to DU....

[RepublicansRZombies]

11. yes yes yes!!!

and FOX is NOT the only problem, ALL of them were lying about this election, they lied about Iraq, they lied about 9/11...they are the enemy of the truth and the American people.

They still can't accept they lost with all their lies, now they are distracting with Benghazi BS 24/7 and still demanding we follow the Republican agenda in the name of compromise.

[defacto7]

61. Just follow the money...

If money rules, businesses adjust to the money source. It's only on the very largest scale we have fortunately found out, that money does not buy elections, people or government. But when it's just business as usual, and the media is only business now, then it will adjust to the money not the message.

We need the news to be the message... not entertainment... not a financial investment.

[HopeHoops]

14. They'll just change their name to "FOX Noise". It could impact "The Onion" too.

I'm totally in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, but the use of the word "News" would put "The Onion News Network" in the same boat with "Fox News" - both works of fiction.

[cui bono]

110. There are different rules for satire as far as using someone's likeness or material

perhaps the same would apply.

[maffl]

17. best idea of the day.

A law to ensure honesty in broadcasting. can't KNOWINGLY mislead the public, (especially on the airwaves that the public actually owns.) Who'd have thunk that was a good idea?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Stupidity is its own reward. Ultimately Fox will die or become news-free & entertainment only. nt

[valerief]

21. Our Republican House will jump right on that. nt

[ecstatic]

22. IMO, it's a national security issue

Almost 50% of Americans have no clue of what's going on. The Fairness Doctrine might be the first step in a more educated populace.

ETA: I call it a national security issue because people like Palin, Romney, Bachmann, ryan, etc. are getting closer and closer to having a room in the White House.

[obxhead]

23. Fox?

Hell, heads would explode at every 24/7 US network "news" station.

Fox may be the most guilty, but they don't stand alone.

[TrogL]

27. OK, that explains a lot

News is so boring here. All the same stations say pretty much the same thing - the truth, with their slight slant.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

28. Fox won a libel law suit claiming it is not news

but "infotainent"

But I think we should most definitely reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

[DaveJ]

29. Reagan and Nixon were elected before Fox "News"

I don't think it would make much a difference. It would be seen as censorship.

Organizations like FactCheck.org are on the rise.

[oldbanjo]

30. I agree

[dropboss11]

31. lets do it

[The Wizard]

32. Deport Murdoch

for fomenting sedition.

[2naSalit]

63. I second that.

It was openly known years ago that his intent was to own all the news on the planet back in the 1990s. Now that England is really pissed at him, a lot of countries are watching him with a wary eye. Hopefully he'll be ostracized to oblivion and die a pauper with nothing to leave to his sons. Hey... weren't they in trouble in Australia back in the late 80-early 90s for conspiring to kill that old bastard off so they could claim their inheritances sooner? It was not long after the Menedez brothers offed their parents if I remember correctly...

[cui bono]

111. Whatever happened to him regarding his legal issues.

Oh google...!

[Bake]

33. Are you going to apply it only to broadcast? What about cable?

And then, what about the internet?

I miss the Fairness Doctrine. But it gets a little sticky. I'd apply it to broadcast TV and radio, but not to cable.

Bake

[ReRe]

34. Y E S

I DO want to make heads explode at Fox News!

[Cleita]

38. I could go for the Canadian law.

However, anytime I have suggested similar legislation, I have been shot down about free speech rights. So how do we do it?

[Champion Jack]

39. k&r!!

[LittleGirl]

41. My husband grew up with the BBC

and asked me just last week how this country can stand to have a station like Fox spews which lies and distorts the truth? He asked how people can actually believe it? I told him I didn't know either. He watched a few minutes of fox in the exercise room at the hotel and he couldn't believe the lies.
I believe it's the fox bubble and they were victims of a fraud with this election and are now shell shocked from the loss. Sore freaking losers. The next person that says that they can't believe Obama won I will tell them to change the freaking channel and stop believing the propaganda. But those people are so lost that I doubt if Fox went off the air, they would believe any news until we can de-program them with the TRUTH. And the Math. They live in a fantasy world.

[fascisthunter]

43. Great Idea... I'll spread the Word!

[4bucksagallon]

44. The more I think about it.....

there has to be something to the fairness doctrine concept. Otherwise why are the loud mouths on talk radio so scared of it????

[tclambert]

45. If American politicians try to pass such a law, I'm sure Fox News would lie about it.

"This law will put your children's lives at risk!"

[madrchsod]

46. blow them up...real good!

&feature=related

[2naSalit]

65. Thanks for that...

I miss that show, SCTV that is. I used to watch it back when I was married in the 70s, that's how long ago I stopped allowing TeeVees in my home. I started to view the tube as an illness inducing device much like cigarettes, unhealthy and too expensive.

[arthritisR_US]

47. Actually, he applied for a Canadian license and

was declined because of "misleading" reporting.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

48. Who in Congress would get behind this?

Is there a particular Congressperson that would make this a pet issue?

[nichomachus]

49. I don't care if it violates the First Amendment. I don't care whether it works or not.

Just talking about it and making it a real issue will make Foxers' heads explode -- and that I do care about.

The Fairness Doctrine worked with the public airways, but not cable, which is privately owned. And the Supreme Court would decide if it was constitutional -- so I won't worry about that.

The corporatists have not only privatized communication, but worse still, they have privatized the public square.

They destroyed "downtowns" all across the country. The only place where you could go to find a group of people to harangue is the mall -- and those are all private property. Some of them even tell you what kind of T-shirt they want you to wear.

[Heathen57]

50. What a wonderful thought!

I would LOVE to see even a modified Fairness Doctrine put into place. Some of the fools that watch Fox are mistaken that some kind of doctrine is already there since they believe that what Hannity and company are spewing has to be true.

I actually had this conversation with one of my in-laws who watches Fox. She thought that they were not allowed to tell outright lies, so what Fox was telling her was true and backed up by facts.

Sad I know.

[MessiahRp]

52. I'd rather go for re-regulation of Media Ownership.

Break up the monopolies. That would kill the right wing media advantage they have.

[sulphurdunn]

55. I'm for anything

that discombobulates the fascists.

[Honeycombe8]

56. I would sign a petition. Don't know what else can be done. Problem is....

we're at the tail end of a bad, bad recession. We really have a lot on our plates right now...economy, jobs, jobs, jobs, taxes, health care, terrorism, scandals, etc.

[davidthegnome]

59. Nope

I want them to start using the brains inside those heads to actually think.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

62. Oh yes!

[reusrename]

64. Why not campaign for real news programming in the US.

Why don't we get al Jazera? The rest of the world gets real news. Why can't we have that?

[2naSalit]

66. All my friends who

live outside the US, even the American ones, say that if you really want to know what's going on in the US, you need to listen to, read and watch the news that is oriented in other countries.

[Flatpicker]

67. Id rather have a version of the Canadian law.

It's stronger than the Fairness Doctrine.

[Maraya1969]

69. I would be all for this. I agree with first ammendment rights but when you are calling

yourself a "NEWS" outlet you should be held to a higher standard. Remember what they did to that poor newscaster that was on air for years when he made one mistake? Geeze I can't remember his name. It was on CBS or NBC about 7-10 years ago and he lost his job!

EDIT - Was it Dan Rather?

And then you have Fox and they get away with murder compared to what he did! There are so many videos and screen shots that prove that they have lied repeatedly over the years.

I have no idea how to go about things like this but I will sign any petition or do what I can to help.

[mikki35]

72. My take on it...

Just watching the itsy bits I can stand to watch (and I get most of that from Jon Stewart too!) from FOX, it is becoming very clear that: (1) from the scope, the scale, the repetition, the earnestness, the likability scale of the commentators, etc, etc, etc - this is a very professionally-done network; (2) there is some way serious money involved in this pageant; and (3) the overall purpose of the whole shebang is to subvert the country as a whole. It is very very very deliberate, and breathtakingly dangerous to a free republic. While there is always a danger to the restriction of free speech to ANY free people, we should also consider the flip side of the coin - when a pseudo-news network is reaching millions of Americans who believe they are being told the truth, and instead are being systematically brainwashed, where is the line? There must be a line, and right now we do not have one.

Lest anyone be in any doubt as to the inherent worth of true journalism, I believe the object lesson in FOX is stark.

[Proles]

73. Wouldn't it be possible to just break up any monolothic media network and work towards ways for

average citizens to get airtime?

I'd be for more public funding to allow some obscure outlets to get up there. Basically get lots and lots of information out there, forcing people to choose from what they believe to be the best source.

As it stands, outlets like Fox can sometimes be the ONLY source, for people who don't really use internet, or have many television channels.

[elbloggoZY27]

74. No News/Fox News!!!!!!!!

Why the big uproar. Fox News is really very irrelevant in the real America.

I watch it for what I called comic relief.


Now on to a real story like creating an environment to create actual jobs right here at home. Our infrastructure is a big mess and we just had a natural disaster.

We can put millions of able bodied and mentally sound citizens back to work.

Tell your Congressmen and Senators to pass the Bills and stop complaining about small chips when the big chips are shattered.


AMERICA NEEDS JOBS.

[citizen blues]

76. Yes!!! Let's end the "Fact Free Zone" once and for all!!!1

[Spitfire of ATJ]

77. FOX "News" is doomed.

Their fan base is pissed at them for giving them,...uh,....hope and change and not delivering....

[AntiFascist]

78. As long as Fox News exists...

we need MSNBC, and all other left-oriented news broadcasts combined.

[nxylas]

80. The Fairness Doctrine only applied to the public airwaves

Fox News, as a cable channel, wouldn't be covered.

[spicegal]

82. Not sure it's necessary. It seems that Fox Noise shot itself in the foot with it's 24/7 propaganda.

They've created a following who literally live in a parallel universe. Unfortunately, reality came crashing in on election day. They had literally convinced themselves that polls were all lying and deliberately biased to favor Democrats. It's a sad thing when these folks have decided that their only reliable source of info is the "conservative media complex".

[trailmonkee]

86. how about truth in labeling for news media.... ??

If a program is on a 'news' network, our a 'news' show, than they should have to have an 'opinion' label in the upper left of the screen.... unless they are reporting hard news.

[RoccoR5955]

87. Soon to be retired Congressman, Maurice Hinchey (D- NY20) tried this a while back

He put forth a Media Ownership Reform Act which would have encompassed ALL media, TV, radio, cable, newspapers, magazines, and other forms. It would limit the ownership of media outlets in a given area so that smaller companies could compete again.
Here's the full text of the bill from the 109th Congress: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr3302/text

From Congressman Hinchey:

"The Media Ownership Reform Act seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America's media system by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market. The bill also reinstates the Fairness Doctrine to protect fairness and accuracy in journalism."

More here: https://forms.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml

His successor, since redistricting is the teabagger Chris Gibson. He will not try to get anything like this through, and our hands will be full trying to get him out in two years.

[GeorgeGist]

89. As I recall our enlightened SCOTUS ...

said it's OK for FOX to lie.

[fadedrose]

95. My thought says you are 1000% right....Start a petitiion or whatever....

[NYC Liberal]

96. The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't apply to Fox News -- or any cable channel.

Also, it never required equal time. Under the Fairness Doctrine airing 59 minutes of right-wing opinions and 1 minute of opposing opinions was perfectly legal and allowed.

We do have an equal-time rule that is still on the books.

I don't think the Fairness Doctrine would do much. There are orders of magnitude more news sources available today than there were when the FD was on the books, especially on the Internet.

[mother earth]

99. Pros & cons on issues matter little, if the info is rife with outright lies. There should be an

avenue of addressing each and every outright lie & all the disinfo presented on Faux News shortly after they are spewed to mitigate the power of their dumbing down of America. Fact checking has become a necessity of life.

The "news" is (or sadly was) supposed to be objective...I'm sick to death of opinion masquerading as anything slightly akin to news reporting. The biggest lie of all is a "liberal" media.

[just1voice]

101. It's the people who believe the propaganda, not the propagandists

One class on the history of propaganda in the U.S., required in high school, would easily counter 99% of faux news and most of the MSMedia. That is the reason classes like that are not even mentioned in our predatory capitalist system. Our country preys on ignorance and fully promotes it for profit.

[Jamaal510]

103. R&K

[Dr Fate]

107. Has Obama expressed any specifc support for the FD? n/t

n/t

[kamron]

109. crap!

I have to login on this one, Good thread! I'm all in for making faux atone for the "news" propaganda they spew. how can you spew lies like that and get away with it? I say take them to court again and see how that works out today. The GWB world no longer has power.

[RobertBlue]

116. Yes!

Fairness Doctrine and the Canada law!