“Regulators invited public comment on whether the US broadcast license for Fox Corp.’s TV station in Philadelphia should be renewed after a grassroots organization asked that it be denied, saying Fox knowingly broadcast false news about the 2020 election.”
Seemingly only affects a single local station in Philadelphia. While it should be denied and hopefully that will push for more denials to follow, this isn’t going to shut down FOX News the cable channel. It is at least a decently sized market, but still just one stations local news.
A streaming-first approach might significantly shrink their audience at least. I don’t think most people watching FOX will go sign up for a separate streaming service and throw that on their TVs. I know at least when I was living in the midwest, a lot of restaurants would play it on their TVs inside. I’d be surprised if that didn’t push them to playing some other channel instead.
I live in the Midwest and I’m honestly not sure. On the one hand you’re right, but on the other I’ve seen restaurants willing to hook up a couple Roku’s to stream whatever customers want. Remains to be seen if they’re willing to go so far out of their way just for Fox News, but I’m sure some bars out in the rural areas 100% would.
I mean, this should be a no brainer. Aren’t there regulations in place, regardless of amendment-this-or-that, on what can be broadcasted in the US as “news”? I’d have to go check, but regardless, knowingly spreading lies to manipulate your audience isn’t really something I’d consider news, just propaganda.
There used to be. It was called the fairness doctrine. It was introduced in 1949 and was abolished in 1987. It required news broadcasters to present controversial issues to fairly reflect differing viewpoints - in other words, you can’t have overt, blatant, “This will cause liberals to eat your babies” propaganda.
There are some issues with it, but it’s clearly better than what we’re allowing now. The crux, though, is that it only matters for FCC-aligned issues, so actual broadcasting. Cable and internet sources would still be able to lie with impunity, and they make up a huge portion of our disinformation compared to what existed even in the early 2000s.
So, if one of the viewpoints of a controversial issue is based on falsehoods, would they be forced to present it as equal to the other viewpoint? Because if so, I don’t really see that as better.
Not exactly. The fairness would include allowing the other side it’s refutation on the facts.
News companies have never been required to report falsehoods just because someone famous said them. They’ve chosen to do that since the fairness doctrine was upended, because it aligns with their corporate interests.
If the viewpoints are based on blatant falsehoods, then they really shouldn’t be presented at all IMO. That is to say, ideally that’s how it would be. It doesn’t really work like that IRL
Seems like now more than ever is a good time to bring back something to regulate these companies. At the very least, there should be a strong penalty to companies spreading misinformation.
The article pointed out that there was a defamation lawsuit caused over lying about voting machine rigging. That should honestly be criminal, especially knowing what happened after that election.
When anything bad is introduced, 90% of the time the dates and data will point to The Reagan Administration. Truly the downfall of politics, environmentalism, and representation of the citizens in america.
Good ole mass media, telling you something big is going down, and giving you absolutely no clue as to how to get involved.
The FCC has made the comment process extremely difficult to navigate, but it looks like the hearing is on docket 23-293 (commenters, please correct me if I’m wrong). You should be able use the form here to place a comment on the proceeding. Use 23-293 in the proceedings field to bring it up for selection.
Here’s a more detailed view of the Media and Democracy Project’s petition, which includes a supporting filing from Jamie Kellner, former president of Fox Broadcasting.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
About time people start organized efforts like this nation wide. Right wingers have been doing this for years if mot fir decades.
This seems like multiple people have confused the local Fox broadcast affiliate, with the national Fox News cable network.
They’re entirely separate and unrelated. Or am I missing something.
Broadcast and cable are distinct entities, but this particular affiliate is owned and operated by Fox.
Seemingly only affects a single local station in Philadelphia. While it should be denied and hopefully that will push for more denials to follow, this isn’t going to shut down FOX News the cable channel. It is at least a decently sized market, but still just one stations local news.
Even if it shuts down the cable channel they’ll just switch to a streaming-first model. It’s not going to be this easy to make Fox News go away.
A streaming-first approach might significantly shrink their audience at least. I don’t think most people watching FOX will go sign up for a separate streaming service and throw that on their TVs. I know at least when I was living in the midwest, a lot of restaurants would play it on their TVs inside. I’d be surprised if that didn’t push them to playing some other channel instead.
I live in the Midwest and I’m honestly not sure. On the one hand you’re right, but on the other I’ve seen restaurants willing to hook up a couple Roku’s to stream whatever customers want. Remains to be seen if they’re willing to go so far out of their way just for Fox News, but I’m sure some bars out in the rural areas 100% would.
The article says the next Fox station to seek license renewal won’t do so until 2028, so that’s a bummer.
Where’s the link to say NO LICENSE FOR YOU!?
I mean, this should be a no brainer. Aren’t there regulations in place, regardless of amendment-this-or-that, on what can be broadcasted in the US as “news”? I’d have to go check, but regardless, knowingly spreading lies to manipulate your audience isn’t really something I’d consider news, just propaganda.
There are no special regulations on what constitutes a “news” broadcast in the US.
If you lie in public, whether on TV or Facebook, you can be sued for defamation. Which is exactly what happened to Fox.
In specific circumstances, you can be prosecuted for criminal libel but those circumstances do not apply to Fox.
There used to be. It was called the fairness doctrine. It was introduced in 1949 and was abolished in 1987. It required news broadcasters to present controversial issues to fairly reflect differing viewpoints - in other words, you can’t have overt, blatant, “This will cause liberals to eat your babies” propaganda.
There are some issues with it, but it’s clearly better than what we’re allowing now. The crux, though, is that it only matters for FCC-aligned issues, so actual broadcasting. Cable and internet sources would still be able to lie with impunity, and they make up a huge portion of our disinformation compared to what existed even in the early 2000s.
So, if one of the viewpoints of a controversial issue is based on falsehoods, would they be forced to present it as equal to the other viewpoint? Because if so, I don’t really see that as better.
Not exactly. The fairness would include allowing the other side it’s refutation on the facts.
News companies have never been required to report falsehoods just because someone famous said them. They’ve chosen to do that since the fairness doctrine was upended, because it aligns with their corporate interests.
If the viewpoints are based on blatant falsehoods, then they really shouldn’t be presented at all IMO. That is to say, ideally that’s how it would be. It doesn’t really work like that IRL
Seems like now more than ever is a good time to bring back something to regulate these companies. At the very least, there should be a strong penalty to companies spreading misinformation.
The article pointed out that there was a defamation lawsuit caused over lying about voting machine rigging. That should honestly be criminal, especially knowing what happened after that election.
The fairness doctrine never applied to cable news organizations.
The linked story is about a broadcast channel, so …
When anything bad is introduced, 90% of the time the dates and data will point to The Reagan Administration. Truly the downfall of politics, environmentalism, and representation of the citizens in america.
He’s the answer to the question in Mad Max: Fury Road. Obviously he had and has a lot of help, but so much comes back to him.
For anyone who doesn’t remember, the question was, “who killed the world?”
I hate having to subsidize these fascist channels with my Hulu live subscription.
There’s an easy solution for that.
Molotovs
Good ole mass media, telling you something big is going down, and giving you absolutely no clue as to how to get involved.
The FCC has made the comment process extremely difficult to navigate, but it looks like the hearing is on docket 23-293 (commenters, please correct me if I’m wrong). You should be able use the form here to place a comment on the proceeding. Use 23-293 in the proceedings field to bring it up for selection.
Here’s a more detailed view of the Media and Democracy Project’s petition, which includes a supporting filing from Jamie Kellner, former president of Fox Broadcasting.
Thanks for the link.