this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023

222 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10181 readers

12 users here now

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.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

222

FCC Invites Comment on Request to Deny Fox TV License Renewal (www.msn.com)

submitted 1 year ago by HumbleHobo to c/politics

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"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."

top 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Arotrios@kbin.social 56 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] neuropean@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the link.

[–] TehPers 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] flipht@kbin.social 29 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TQuid 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] t3rmit3 4 points 1 year ago

For anyone who doesn't remember, the question was, "who killed the world?"

[–] Omegamanthethird 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] flipht@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] ArtZuron 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[–] TehPers 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] MadMenace 3 points 1 year ago

hopefully that will push for more denials to follow

The article says the next Fox station to seek license renewal won’t do so until 2028, so that's a bummer.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] shiveyarbles 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I hate having to subsidize these fascist channels with my Hulu live subscription.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Steve@communick.news 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

About time people start organized efforts like this nation wide. Right wingers have been doing this for years if mot fir decades.

[–] SpunkyBarnes@geddit.social 8 points 1 year ago

Where’s the link to say NO LICENSE FOR YOU!?