Title is a little clickbaity seeing as this is specific to a local Philadelphia station. Would be nice if this was true though. There are really no consequences at all for making shit up.
Sadly, that’s a first amendment right. And the government grants the license so it’s a pretty open/shut case the license should be renewed.
However, I draw issue with presenting opinions and falsehoods as “news.” News implies truth. Maybe shows that only pretend to be news should be forced to have a disclaimer beforehand. We already have disclaimers for plenty for media that don’t really need it.
Knowingly presenting opinions and falsehoods as facts/truths should have consequences too. Though, that’s hard to prove.
I dont think i would consider it a first ammendment issue when they are presenting lies as news.
Removed by mod
There are no consequences for just about anything if you have enough money :)
Removed by mod
Both countries are and have been run by the same class of people. Nothing has changed.
They literally won a court case about being able to lie as a news organization, they made that possible so don’t hold you breath
AFAIK they didn’t – instead they said they were an entertainment org instead of a news org.
We’ve unfortunately decided as a society to leave consequences to the state. The state is by and for capitalists only (i.e. capital owners, not you). When Fox is a threat to capitalist’s money and power, they’ll see real consequences, until then, probably not.
Yes please. Go after OAN and RT too, these are all intelligent propaganda machines that need to be stopped. It’s really hard to believe we just let it go.
OAN and RT are not on FCC airwaves. They are on cable TV and internet. These lawsuits are for Fox affiliates that use licensed FCC tv frequencies.
Edit: I just found out that that’s not true for political broadcasts. https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidate-appearances-advertising
(a) The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit –
(7) for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station, other than a non-commercial educational broadcast station, by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.
Huh, weird rules and what does “bona-fide” mean in this instance?:
Q: Does the FCC regulate the content of cable programming?
A: Cable television system operators generally make their own selection of channels and programs to be distributed to subscribers in response to consumer demands. The Commission does, however, have rules in some areas that are applicable to programming – called “origination cablecasting” in the rules – that are subject to the editorial control of the cable system operator. The rules generally do not apply to the content of broadcast channels or to access channels over which the cable system operator has no editorial control.
Q: What is the “equal opportunities” rule of political cablecasting?
A: Once a cable system allows a legally qualified candidate to use its facilities (by identifiable voice or picture), it must give “equal opportunities” to all other legally qualified candidates for that office to use its facilities. The cable system can not censor the content of the candidate’s material in any way, and can not discriminate between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities or services rendered pursuant to the equal opportunities rules.
Candidates must submit requests for equal opportunities to the cable system within one week after a rival candidate’s first use of the cable system. If the person was not a legally qualified candidate at the time of the rival’s first use, he or she may submit a request within one week of the rival’s next use of the cable system after he or she becomes a legally qualified candidate.
Q: Does a legally qualified candidate’s appearance on a newscast trigger the equal opportunities rule?
A: No. Candidate appearances that are exempt from the rules include appearances on a bona fide newscast, bona fide news interview, bona fide news documentary, or on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event.
My guess is that there is no set standard in law. When you deny someone else “equal opportunity “ they can challenge the denial to the FCC and in court. Whoever loses the FCC appeal files a federal lawsuit. Then it would be based on case law for the definition of bona fide in similar cases and, barring that, similar usage of the term. You duke it out with $1000/hr lawyers in federal court for 2-3 rounds until the most recent loser appeals to the Supreme Court where they turn youdown or you argue if the FCC even has the power to compel such an “equal opportunity “ based on the law which allows the rule to be written.
At least that’s my layman’s understanding of the process.
Actually, I just looked it up from your guess because I wondered if it was stated. It seems to mean “authentic” under the law. Meaning, they can’t make up news reports to report on trump or they have to give equal amounts to Biden. That’s what it seems to say anyway. https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidate-appearances-advertising
Yeah, but what’s “authentic”? If you make up a news story about a really really good campaign stop, is it just a bona fide news story or is it an advertisement? News about his history of financial or humanitarian success?
The devil, as always…
True, it will probably end up with the results you mentioned, but it does seem to have some teeth in law. I’m sure there’s precedence that they’re citing but it’s probably too expensive and who wants to go onto fox, oan or rt anyway.
No it doesn’t. Be real.
deleted by creator
You have a marvelous way with words.
deleted by creator
How many pants are in a gallon?
deleted by creator
Its not against the law to do what they are thanks to Reagan.
deleted by creator
We should require PSAs at the end of all TikTok/Instagram/Youtube social media videos like they had at the end of cartoons when I was a whee PĒB.
And FOX newscasters should have to dress up as Hanna Barbera characters while on screen.
They should have to dress up like the clowns they are. Oh, and they should have to register their look/persona in the clown database (no idea what the formal name is).
Maybe a laughing track would help as well?
Democrats don’t have the guts.
Not sure why you got down voted, but I don’t think it’s a matter of guts either.
Democrats suffer from the same thing that has plagued them for the last couple decades: Individualism and the inability to coelesce. The GOP has their party hyjacked by morons, but look at how they are still able to fall behind the morons for the most part. This is why Democrats always seem weak. It’s not a lack of courage or good ideas, it’s just that everyone has their own opinion on how best to do things and they can never truly fall in line. “Herding cats” is most apt here.
Is it necessarily better to have everyone together for the wrong reasons? Nah, I’m just pointing out reality.
Another consideration is that while being in Congress is still a great way to become a multimillionaire, nothing will really change. Neither party wants to rock the boat while things are so lucrative. It’s all talk.
I agree with you 100% about how Republicans fall in-line like good little soldiers, but the fact remains that Democrats are almost never willing to go on the offensive. They will always react to whatever narrative Republicans are trying to push. And they’ve been like that for decades. That’s why even when Republicans are not in power, they are able to control the subjects under discussion. It is infuriating. Democrats are always too willing to make concessions. Too tilling to give in. Too willing to make peace. Republicans are bullies and they know they can get their way if they make a big enough stink about things. Republicans are always quickto attack, quick to go on the offensive.
Look at the whole illegal immigrants situation. Republicans have shipped peopleto MA, DC,CA and probably a bunch of other places and each time Democrats have the same timid response. They denounce the actions and the hope it goes away and doesn’t happen again. But it does happen again and again and again because Democrats aren’t willing to actually go after the people organizing and carrying out these plans. Charge them with human trafficking. Make it very costly for anyone to help Republicans carry out these plans because they would he met with federal charges. Yet they don’t. They’re a bunch of pussies. They talk the big game and then nothing happens.
Time and time again stuff like this happens and then they never follow through because they don’t have the balls to do it. Remember how right after Biden won but he wasn’t sworn into office yet,there were all these murmurs about expanding the Supreme Court to include more justices to dilute the voting power of Yhomas and the other right wing justices. There was all this planning and justifying that it would be legal. Democrats even controlled both sides of Congress. Then Biden was sworn in and that plan was never spoken of again.
It’s almost like this is an important distinction between the two parties…
If only one side respects any modicum of decorum, then news flash; there is no decorum.
Dude is 100% right about Democrats. It’s why only those who fall in love come out, because the rest know that the average Dem ain’t gonna do a fucking thing for them.
Choices are; Rep -> continue to tax you 35% plus unofficial (taxation without representation) taxes like mandated insurance until everyone is broke or in jail.
Dem; SAME EXACT FUCKING THING but only at 70% the speed.
Why do you think populism is back? Why did/does Trump and Sanders have/had so many supporters?
I still vote for Sanders over anyone in the the Democratic party, without question. Cuz Sanders is willing to fight, and imo, for economic justice for all of us. The spoils need to be shared, the oligarchy dismantled, corporations de-peopled given moratoriums on business licenses and regulated to fucking high heaven -> the exact way the founding fathers intended and DID.
modicum of decorum
he said, in a nasally voice, while pushing up his glasses from his slippery nose
Close. More dripping, sneering sarcasm (snarcasm?) than anything else, as if saying thru tone “how is this not known?” A la Christian Slater in Pump up the Volume.
Man that takes me back to childhood. Slater was like the Keanu of slackers for Gen X. Kind of typecast into that rebellion role, like how Ryan Reynolds has made a career doing Van Wilder in every movie.
Not really the issue at play here. If it isn’t granted it’s hard to see how they wouldn’t win on first amendment grounds. Not granting the license would have to be over something other than “you lied to everyone.”
You’re missing the point.
The point isn’t to actually do it. Even though that should be what we do because up until the late 80s or early 90s, news stations were required by law to show both sides of a story and be reasonably unbiased.
The point is to turn into a huge deal and bring the media focus on their horribly biased. If Democrats could merge forces and start hearings and make speeches about the bias of their coverage, other media outlets would start to cover the fake stories and outright lies that they run. No one is expecting to change hard-core Fox watcher’s minds, the point is to show just how biased they are and cement them as a propaganda media outlet for everyone else. Block them from the White House press pool. Expose them for repeating Russian talking points.
You, me and most of the people here know this. We discuss this stuff all the time. But we aren’t your average American. Your average American gets maybe 5 minutes of news every day (if that). They might hear that Fox is the conservative network,but they might not realize just how bad they lie and just how much bias there really is.
Look at the huge, massive, insane big of a deal that Republicans created over Behngazi or over Hillarys emails. These were far, far lesser deals than the propaganda that Fox has been feeding Americans for decades now, and yet Democrats are too spineless to ever really attack Fox head-on.
I don’t think they want to do that anyway. If fox isn’t being put on blast, CNN is next.
When George W Bush stole the election in 2000 with the Brooks Brothers Riot I knew the conservatives days were numbered.
man, I wonder what the world would look like today without a second bush presidency
But I thought Fox News sold off its channels to Disney.
There’s Fox “News” and 20c Fox/Fox Sports etc.Technically started in the same place, but the non-news side got sold off.
I don’t think that included the “news” portions of their machine. https://uproxx.com/movies/disney-fox-merger-official-press-release/
It’s important to note what isn’t included in the deal. Fox will spin out some assets into a new company. These assets include Fox News, Fox Broadcasting network and stations, Fox Business Network, FS1, FS2, and the Big Ten Network. This new company also retains ownership of the 50-plus acre studio lot in Los Angeles. Deadline reports, “Insiders expect the remaining Fox assets to eventually merge with News Corp., whose holdings include the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and the Times of London. Though that combination won’t occur immediately.”
Note to self: Keep ignoring the Wall Street Journal.
No, the fox news channels and fox business was not part of that acquisition. Channels like FX and National Geographic films that were made by 21st Century Fox were part of the acquisition.
deleted by creator
