A simpler way to defang Fox News & the other media distortionists than the Fairness Doctrine

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

would be for the FCC to elevate it's "news distortion policy" to the level of an actual regulation. The fact that it is simply a "policy" is why Fox News won the right to distort in the court case that brought this issue front and center Fox vs Akre where she lost her whistleblower judgment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

There is something inherently wrong with entities that hold themselves out to be "news media" to knowingly promulgate that which they know to be false.

So why WOULDN'T an Obama FCC appointee have a greater appreciation for the truth and raise this to the level of enforceable regulation? In light of the Supreme Court decision, this could help somewhat to prevent news outlets from amplifying and echoing the oceans of false claims in "advocacy ads" we are sure to see coming down the pike in no time.

[blondeatlast]

1. Interesting. Seems easier to acheive this than to regain the FD. nt

[ncguy]

2. There is no logical

way to "defang" fox or other media, that could not be turned against others when the Repugs take back the White House. And, eventually, they will. When they do, I don't want the FCC being used to shut down PBS because they are reporting something that is not true.

[JuniperLea]

5. Bullshit...

Point one, two and three... utter bullshit.

There are ways of reporting things that you've yet to get confirmed... such as saying, this just in... an unconfirmed source says... allegedly... we don't know this for certain as yet, but initial reports are telling us...

These things are used all the time... by media with at least some semblance of propriety.

[rd_kent]

19. Just becasue you don't agree with it does not make it untrue.

Not sure what your point was here, but has PBS aired something false?

[rfranklin]

3. It is a First Amendment issue..they have a right to be morans...

This is not the Constitutional way to deal with "news" we don't like.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. That's not what the case was about

There is an obligation for those who hold themselves out to be "news" sources to be accurate and not to KNOWINGLY distort FACTS. The FCC has a "policy" that says this, they just don't have a regulation that says this.

I agree it may be tough at times to prove when someone KNOWINGLY distorts, but Akre apparently did and had inside knowledge, being a producer of exactly what occurred. She lost on appeal simply because the policy was not a regulation. I am saying make it a regulation and then maybe insiders such as Akre can come forward and win when they see conscious deception practiced.

[NoNothing]

9. That was a network affiliate

The FCC is powerless to regulate Fox News because it is a cable channel. It doesn't use the airwaves.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

14. Good point. Does cable go completely unregulated?

How is that possible?

[NoNothing]

Yes, pretty much

It's possible because of the First Amendment. Nobody is forced to pay for cable who doesn't want it, so they can play pretty much anything they want, just like books or magazines.

[JuniperLea]

11. Yep... you nailed it...

I think the next step should be to properly identify those shows that are "news" and those that are "entertainment" because that's the next monkey wrench.

[T Wolf]

4. An even simpler way is to make the talking heads fearful to go on air and spread their lies. Fuck

and the rest of the media must be attacked at their weak point - the people who deliver and profit from their lies.

Any other "solutions" are bound to fail because fighting an enemy on their terms is just plain stupid. Don't play to their strength - attack their weakness.

[ncguy]

8. Exactly

Jon Stewart does more to keep the news honest than the FCC ever has or ever could.

It is better to legislate freedom of speech, than it is to try to legislate what is truth.

[JuniperLea]

7. Robert Ailes, CEO of Faux Gnus said this weekend...

That it's about the ratings, said he's after ratings and he's winning.

Clearly he doesn't give a fat rat's ass about anything else.

He sat across the table from Huffington... she needs to go to work for him... she's on my last raw nerve.

[ncguy]

12. Great.

And then everyone who saw that knows not to get real news from fox. Problem solved.

[JuniperLea]

20. The problem being...

If they're watching Faux Gnus, they aren't likely to go looking for the truth because they believe only Faux Gnus gives them the truth... I've seen RW preachers say exactly that during Sunday morning sermons... despicable.

[ncguy]

13. Great.

And then everyone who saw that knows not to get real news from fox. Problem solved.

[monmouth]

15. Oh how I agree with your post, especially Huffington. I can hardly

read that home page anymore. I notice I haven't seen her on KO lately but then again I don't watch him every night, I catch him early in the a.m. on the repeat..

[alfredo]

10. Intent is the operative word. Is Fox conspiring to overthrow our form of

government? Are they deliberately lying to foment a violent uprising?

[JuniperLea]

I disagree...

If you do something without the intent, and the outcome is the same, and you know full well it's the same, then you are culpable.

Like a kid standing around flailing his arms... la de de de da... I'm just standing here swinging my arms around violently with no intent on bashing my sister in the head, but oops! She just walked by and got bashed in the head with my flailing arm... so I know she's there, but I'm just going to swing my arms violently anyway because I don't intend to bash her in the head... if she walks by and gets bashed, it's her own damn fault.

Didn't work when I was 8, doesn't work now.

[alfredo]

29. the intent comes in once you know it is not true but you keep saying it.

[-wulf-]

16. Or

People could simply choose to not watch them, and they will either go out of business or change their format/model.

Let's face it, their ratings are nearly double that of other cable news outlets (depending on hour.) Who is out there forcing anyone to watch Fox News?

Why even worry about what they're reporting? It's not like there aren't other sources for cable news, and a million non-Fox sources of news in other media.

[JuniperLea]

18. People love controversy and train wrecks...

They watch car races in the hope someone will crash... they watch boxing matches to see people get the shit beat out of them... but snuff films are outlawed. There's the rub.

Why worry about what they are reporting? I think that's a very ignorant question. When lies are reported, and more importantly, believed, it's dangerous to all concerned.

[ncguy]

21. So then

we have a FCC truth commission. If anyone reports anything that is not true, they are no longer allowed to broadcast.

Gee, that could never cause a problem.

[JuniperLea]

24. You're finding it hard to keep up?

Like I said... you can present stories as hard-boiled, irrefutable fact, or you can use disclaimers. Fox presents everything as fact, even when they are lying their asses off.

I think you're in the wrong place, chum... defending Fox News is a RW sport... perhaps you'd feel more comfortable at: www.freerepublic.com

[Marr]

17. You know what would be a simple way to defang corporate media outlets?

If we had politicians who spoke frankly about class issues, and the fact that these media outlets are small parts of huge conglomerates that have a corporate agenda to sell. If people were told that these outlets are not 'unbiased'-- none of them-- and that the one thing they all have in common is owners who are determined to take more and more for themselves... their ability to really affect public opinion would be greatly diminished.

They could completely dominate the on-air dialogue, but barely touch public opinion.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. I find it disturbing that people on a Democratic message board would want to use the power of the

government to silence those with whom they disagree.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

23. I have no intent to "silence" them - plus ALL outlets would be under the same

obligation to not KNOWINGLY report falsehoods as facts.

Edit - not happening anyway since as someone correctly pointed out above, the FCC does not regulate cable content.

[JuniperLea]

26. I don't have cable, but I get Faux News... anything you can receive without benefit of cable...

Should be under the FCC's juristiction.

I don't have cable; Faux Gnus comes in loud and unclear.

[JuniperLea]

25. I find it disturbing that people on a Democratic message board supports the "right" of those who lie

To lie.

I don't want to silence anyone... I want the truth to be presented as the truth, and that which cannot be verified as the truth to be presented as unverified information.

What's the problem?

[NoNothing]

28. You MUST have the right to lie

Because otherwise you have to have an unfallible arbiter of "truth." See J.S. Mill's On Liberty for further elucidation.

Of course that doesn't excuse you from civil liability incurred by your lies (e.g., fraud, slander, libel, etc.) But prior restraint of any kind is unhealthy for democracy in the long run.

[JuniperLea]

33. Balderdash...

Journalists can say if something is verified or not... they can use words such as "unverified" or "allegedly" or any other manner of qualification that sets the stage for an unknown. That's hardly infallible.

[ncguy]

31. The problem is both simple and two fold

First, there is no such thing as an absolute truth, especially when it comes to reporting about humans.
Even if you were to focus on teh simplest of factual assertations. F=MA. Can I report that as a truth? Einstien says it is untrue.

Second. To punish someone for mis-reporting the truth, you must first decide what the truth is. If you allow government to decide what is true and what is false, you are giving them the ultimate power over the press. You may be OK with this with President Obama, but what about when it is Prez. Jeb Bush? Because I don't want Jeb Bush to have that power, I cannot give it to President Obama.

[JuniperLea]

34. Balderdash...

There are absolute truths, and there are absolute lies, and there are grey areas. I don't care what a news agency reports as long as they tell the truth about the sources, or tell the truth about their ability to confirm.

There are absolute truths, and absolute facts. When untruths and the lies that are presented to uphold the untruth are represented as facts and truths, there's a problem.

It's not rocket science.

[Kingofalldems]

27. False statement, are you with Fox? DU wants to hold them accountable for lying.

Perhaps another site would be more to your liking. :shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. You only support free speech when you agree with it?

How authoritarian. Perhaps another site would be more to your liking. :shrug:

[Kingofalldems]

37. Another false statement

But feel free to lie about me all you want.

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. So, you beleive that the OP's idea is a bad one?

:shrug:

[Kingofalldems]

40. No, the Fairness Doctrine is not censorship

It is giving the other side a chance to respond. The airways belong to the people--not Fox. Please quit lying about mine and others opinion. It's so Foxian. :shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Fox is on cable, not broadcast TV

It doesn't use the airwaves which belong to the people.

[Kingofalldems]

42. Fox news is also on the airwaves

As far as cable goes, new laws will do the trick. Again,after you deftly changed the subject, the Fairness Doctrine is not censorship. Please quit lying about it. Perhaps you can be DU's official Fox correspondent. :shrug:

[onenote]

30. even if the FCC news distortion policy was a rule rather than a policy it would have a little effect

That's because First Amenmdent considerations dictate that the government tread very lightly in this area. The FCC itself has acknowedged that "in this democracy, no Government agencycan autheticate the news, or should try to do so." As a consequence, the policy applies only where the FCC receives "documented evidence of ... rigging or slanting. This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from “insiders” or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news. In the absence of such documented evidence, the FCC has stressed that it cannot intervene."

In short, it is "not enough to dispute the accuracy of a news report...". Rather there must be evidence other than the broadcast itself, such as written or oral instructions from station management, outtakes, or evidence of bribery.

Thus, as the courts have stated, the FCC's role in investigating an allegation of news distortion is "extremely limited"

[Vidar]

32. Good idea.

[Kingofalldems]

35. Kick

[Ignis]

38. I can get behind this.

Well stated. :thumbsup: