“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.”
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.
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?”
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
Removed by mod
The linked story is about a broadcast channel, so …
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.
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.