“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.”
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.
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.
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.
Add comment