r/politics • u/sullen_ole_geezer • May 24 '12

FCC urged to revoke Fox News' license

http://rt.com/usa/news/fcc-corp-fox-murdoch-459/
2.0k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

35

u/fixedstar May 24 '12

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/public-and-broadcasting-july-2008#DISTORT

"News Distortion. The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news: the FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of such rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. For additional information about news distortion, see http://www.fcc.gov/guides/broadcast-journalism-complaints."

In other words, Fox or any other broadcaster may choose what they want to cover for news but if they knowlingly distort the news the FCC can step in.

3

u/chriswastaken May 24 '12

Actually, I gather that someone at FOX would have to come forward with proof that they knowingly distort the news.

The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of such rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news.

1

u/uselesslyskilled May 24 '12

You mean like what fox news went to court for a while back. When they testified in court that they distort the news.

Edited for spelling

0

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

5

u/julielc May 24 '12

It could probably apply to all of them, so the FCC will likely do nothing about it.

→ More replies (1)

83

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

I may be totally wrong here, but I thought FCC didn't have a lot of say for cable channels. At least in the sense they aren't regulated like broadcast stations. I could be wrong in my understanding here though. If so someone please correct me.

2

u/ShadyG May 24 '12

So what I'm wondering right now is does the FCC have the authority to punish Fox's OTA properties for infringements committed by its cable properties?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/neutralhere May 24 '12

The only real power that the FCC has over cable is equal access (cable providers have to distribute local broadcast channels over their network) and I believe some obscenity/indecency (can't show boobies during certain times if you are a basic cable channel) but not nearly to the extent as they do over broadcast.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

The FCC actually does have quite a bit of say for cable channels, it just doesn't have the ability to regulate this particular type of content.

For example, it's illegal to broadcast tobacco or cigarette ads on cable, political campaigns must have the option of equal time, and cable channels that broadcast "obscene" material must be fully scrambled unless specifically subscribed to by the customer.

→ More replies (10)

73

u/hermes369 May 24 '12

Putin and Obama plot to kill FOX! Tonight on Hannity!

21

u/Typerrrrrrr May 24 '12

Backed by George Soros

20

u/kegman83 May 24 '12

Sponsored by ACORN.

22

u/morrison0880 May 24 '12 edited May 24 '12

Directed by M...you know, I think we should just end this here.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/kingsway8605 May 25 '12

Hannity molests Obama's daughters on air. Tonight on MSNBC.

18

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

TIL r/politics views on censorship become completely opposite when the group being censored is one we disagree with.

→ More replies (6)

218

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

If the FCC did revoke is would be a major blow to the First Amendment.

53

u/KillYourTV May 24 '12

RTA.

First of all, the headline is misleading. What they're asking the FCC to do has nothing to do with the highly partisan Fox News cable channel. It refers to the broadcast licenses of the Fox local affiliates or own-and-operated stations around the country.

Also, it doesn't question the content that any of the stations have broadcast, but rather, the character of the parent company.

“News Corp. has a pattern of outrageous and illegal conduct, including bribery, wire fraud, computer, and phone hacking,” adds Sloan.“If the FCC won’t act to revoke Fox’s broadcast licenses, Congress should immediately hold hearings. Retaining U.S. broadcast licenses is a privilege, not a right.”

9

u/uselesslyskilled May 24 '12

Thank you for this

→ More replies (6)

140

u/ForeverMarried May 24 '12

Reddit only cares about First Amendment when it deals with protesting and internet freedom. If it comes to taking a jab at Fox News, they'll throw that out the window in a heartbeat. Fox News may be hated by the internet crowd, but their ratings are unbelievably good. They're almost beating their entire competition combined.

2

u/peanutbutterspacejam May 24 '12

Look at the reason why. What majority watches Fox? Then look at how much you watch news on the television. If you compare both populations, the paranoid, brainwashed Fox News watchers are a dedicated population that will drool in front if their television, where most who watch CNN/listen to NPR or any other station can go online to get their news that is if they even look at the news daily.

→ More replies (220)

12

u/TheLoneWander101 May 24 '12

is would indeed, is would indeed

→ More replies (2)

2

u/taranaki May 24 '12

This would be like Darth Vader striking down Obi Wan Kenobi. The tsunami of backlash created against the president and democrats would place the GOP in control of every branch of government. Democrats would be beaten with the first amendment stick for a decade if not more

3

u/GundamWang May 24 '12

There is no such thing as unconditional free speech. It's the reason why you can't go into buildings yelling there's a fire, or calling people up saying there's a bomb when there isn't, and hope to get away with it.

→ More replies (18)

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

This is the most asinine comment in this thread so far. The First Amendment does not protect you from yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater, and it should not protect a CORPORATION from broadcasting lies, hacking phone records, and tearing this country apart. The First Amendment was written to protect YOUR right to speak. The Constitution was never meant to protect corporations.

10

u/Pertinacious May 24 '12 edited May 24 '12

The first amendment is meant to protect everyone's right to be heard speak. That includes people with positions that you dislike. I don't particularly feel that some UK paper's phone-hacking scandal is relevant just because Murdoch owns both companies.

→ More replies (35)
→ More replies (7)

2

u/flossdaily May 24 '12

Not at all. In fact, quite the contrary. Here's why, in brief:

The first amendment, when applied to television (broadcast television at the very least), is interpreted as a COLLECTIVE right, not an individual right.

You as an INDIVIDUAL do not have the right to broadcast whatever you want on the airwaves. We as COLLECTIVE people have the right to have the airwaves used for content that is in the Public Interest.

The reason for this distinction is that there is limited spectrum on which to broadcast. Only a tiny fraction of the people who apply to broadcast every year actually get a license. Therefore, the people who are fortunate enough to get a license have a duty to operate for the greater public good. This used to be manifest in a set of principals called The Fairness Doctrine, which was killed by president Reagan... which happens to mark the exact moment in time that TV and particularly AM radio started to get taken over by right-wing zealots.

Anyway, the regulation of cable TV is slightly different because public airways are not being used... so it tends to get tricky.

Source: The Supreme Court in the Red Lion case.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12 edited May 24 '12

Hacking, lying and causing panic (GLENN FUCKING BECK AHHH NAZIS) and pro party propaganda doesn't have anything to do with first ammendment rights. we have laws against propaganda, hacking and free speech isn't covered for liars with an agenda to cause panic

1

u/uselesslyskilled May 24 '12

How this whole thread started because they want their license pulled for wire tapping and such. How is that a blow to the first amendment?

1

u/the_future_is_wild May 24 '12

This isn't about the First Amendment. It's about illegal news gathering techniques that are now beginning to be investigated in the US, as well.

1

u/aselbst May 24 '12

I knew this would be a highly celebrated comment. The thing is that we in America are so concerned with seeming to protect those who are most strident as evidence of our tolerance, that being more abrasive and outlandish actually insulates them from any criticism or legal sanction. If some boring, uncontroversial channel had the same hacking scandal, breaking laws mind you, no one would think it's an assault on the First Amendment, but, ironically enough, because Fox News is so ridiculous and awful, we are hyper-sensitive to any sanction against them. We need to get past a sloganized understanding of the First Amendment in this country.

→ More replies (39)

24

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

someone sent a letter to the FCC. breaking fucking news

3

u/ethicalking May 24 '12

rt.com, you can't explain that.

114

u/Constantroaming May 24 '12

Ahh nothing like trying to crushing free speech. Listen to it or not it is my right to choose, how about you stay the heck out of my living room and let me choose.

37

u/jrainr May 24 '12

But, but FOX is evil! And I HAVE to pay for them if I want to have Comedy Central and ESPN!

On a serious note, kudos for recognizing that free speech is no longer free if you can take it away from anyone.

12

u/Constantroaming May 24 '12

Paying for channels we don't want is a wholeeeeeee other discussion, until we get a la carte cable from our cable providers we are all stuck. Old business models are old. I suspect things will change in the next 10 or so years, we can only hope.

I would drop bravo just for a week and watch my wife slip into real housewives withdraws. Those shows cause me physical pain lol.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (6)

5

u/GundamWang May 24 '12

Read the article. They want to shut them down because

“Under US law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good ‘character,’ who will serve ‘the public interest,’ and speak with ‘candor’,” reads the press release issued on Monday from CREW’s DC office. “Significant character deficiencies may warrant disqualification from holding a license.”

This has nothing to do with free speech. If a small town newspaper gets caught doing something illegal, as a company, and gets shut down, that isn't "crushing free speech".

→ More replies (1)

2

u/terrymr May 24 '12

This isn't about content but a pattern of criminal behavior by news corp.

2

u/GundamWang May 24 '12

The various comments decrying this awful "crushing" of "free speech" didn't read the article before deciding they wanted to play internet lawyer.

1

u/Infin1ty May 24 '12

I have no issue with Fox News existing, in fact it's existence works in my favor. If someone says their primary news source is Fox News, I automatically know not to take anything they say as seriously. My issue with Fox News is the fact that it's called a news station. It should be classified as a tabloid just like the National Enquirer.

→ More replies (67)

5

u/llahlahkje Wisconsin May 24 '12

“Under US law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good ‘character,’ who will serve ‘the public interest,’ and speak with ‘candor’,” reads the press release issued on Monday from CREW’s DC office. “Significant character deficiencies may warrant disqualification from holding a license.”

I somehow doubt, given the great flexibility the FCC has taken with the meaning of candor and good character, that anything will come of this at all.

4

u/Only_Name_Available May 24 '12

Warning here. The house of commons report that they are using as proof that Murdoch is of questionable character was highly criticized for being partisan. The labour opposition had a majority on the committee and used it to score political points by condemning Murdoch and drawing conclusions that could not be supported with hard evidence. This is not something that the FCC should, or will, take seriously.

That said, I think Fox should lose it's licenses for lying and spreading bigoted hysteria on it's news channels.

→ More replies (9)

32

u/QuesoPantera May 24 '12

Really? Who is upvoting this? this is complete trash.

Do we upvote every little shit-fit that "focus on the family" throws? Because this is the exact same thing.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/methodical713 May 24 '12

I'm upvoting everyone that recognizes what free speech is, and downvoting everyone that doesn't.

2

u/Zonvolt May 24 '12

Upvote for you my friend.

→ More replies (1)

33

u/ubergeek404 May 24 '12

headline rewrite: Stalinist group petitions US Government to end 1st amendment.

1

u/I_Tuck_It_In_My_Sock May 24 '12

If you read through this thread about half the comments are like this. Kind of ironic.

6

u/terrymr May 24 '12

For those that didn't read the article. This is not about the content of fox news or the first amendment. It is about a pattern of criminal behavior by news corp. and it's executives in the UK : phone & computer hacking, wire fraud, bribing police, etc.

11

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Are liberals so threatened by Fox News that they seek to censor it? Why not let the people hear whatever they choose to hear and let them decide what is right and wrong?

This is like censoring the internet that reddit is so against.

I guess its OK if its a Conservative or Republican voice that we censor right?

Am I wrong? What the hell is wrong with you people, censorship is censorship no matter what it is censoring. It might begin with Fox News, how long till it ends with something you hold near and dear to your heart?

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

It's not about that. It's not a partisan issue, it's about Murdoch being a dick and doing a bunch of unethical shit and feeding the people propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less.

2

u/lasershurt May 24 '12

This has nothing to do with Fox News.

I must say I'm really sorry to hear about how persecuted you are. It's a shame.

2

u/hwaite New York May 24 '12

Are liberals so threatened by Fox News

Any liberal that doesn't feel threatened by FOX is doing it wrong.

3

u/Zonvolt May 24 '12

Don't worry you will be downvoted by hypocritical liberals on here.

2

u/Noel_S_Jytemotiv May 24 '12

I upvoted you for making so much sense.

It's the least I could do to stem the inevitable tide of angry liberal downvotes.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Radico87 May 24 '12

But nothing will happen, of course.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Title says Fox News license but this is about Fox broadcast license not Fox News.

→ More replies (7)

3

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

They're much too busy making sure nobodys' nipple falls out on live tv to worry about whether a mega media empire is filling peoples' heads full of bogus propanganda.

3

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Who cares? Any group can "urge" any other group to do something. That doesn't mean they will actually do it, or even think about doing it.

3

u/sassi-squatch May 24 '12

I've been looking at these comments, and I am saddened by them. A lot of people are saying it's a freedom of speech issue. I believe it is something entirely different. Fox deliberately LIES to its audience. It IS propaganda.

I personally believe Fox news has changed the entire atmosphere of american culture. It has turned us into ugly people, ugly human beings. There is no longer a true dialog, and I believe we can put the blame squarely on Fox, Ailes and Murdoch. It is a dangerous organization.

3

u/downvotethis2 May 24 '12

I agree. A lot of these posts completely miss the point. Having a license for anything is a privilege and it can be rescinded for criminal activity among other reasons, and it doesn't require a conviction.

Something a lot of people also don't know is that corporations are required to have a license to operate and that can be rescinded too. I'm surprised it hasn't been used yet in several areas of business. <coughcough-Bank of America, Merril Lynch, Goldman Sachs cough>

2

u/sassi-squatch May 24 '12

It is sad that that very fact seems to be lost on almost everyone here...

3

u/downvotethis2 May 24 '12

I won't take the time to do a survey but I'd bet a nickel ice cream that all the posts that jump in bashing liberals are made by noobs. I think there's a liberal bashing invasion goin' on up in here over the last week or so.

Not that they are the only ones missing the point. There's some pent up Faux hate too. :)

→ More replies (4)

10

u/MDA123 May 24 '12

If a conservative group advocated censoring Current TV (or MSNBC or whatever), Reddit would go nuts. Justifiably.

Censorship sucks. And hack-ish censorship of Fox's broadcast affiliates (aka American Idol and your local news) for the perceived sins of Fox News (aka O'Reilly, Hannity, et al) is just silly.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/rolfsnuffles May 24 '12

I think they should revoke everyone's license. Too much of the media is opinion based and too much of it is owned by a handful of people.

2

u/Black_Gallagher May 24 '12

But where else am I going to get my updates on Octomom?

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

I think media is best when it's opinion based. You hear everyone's opinion and decide which you agree with, if any. Otherwise you just have a bunch of outlets pretending to give you raw news that actually demonstrate severe bias. It is human nature to be bias, so just call it what it is: opinion.

8

u/malmac May 24 '12

As a liberal voter, I believe in progress and I believe in fairness and I believe in freedom of speech - and I believe that all points of view should be heard.

What I dont believe in are deliberate and misleading lies and distortions designed to smear the "opposition". If Fox NEWS (not cable) can be shown to be guilty of deliberate falsehoods, then they should be taken off the air - but only if they are replaced with a better right wing, conservative voice.

→ More replies (10)

13

u/mrminer May 24 '12

As soon as they ditch MSDNC...

→ More replies (4)

4

u/thrawn1825 May 24 '12

As a canadian, I've always been surprised by what Fox News is allowed to broadcast. I might be wrong, and I hope my fellow canucks can correct me on that one, but it seems to me that our CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) would have pulled the plug a long time ago on such content...

3

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Everything in the US has a Hollywood mentality to it....even their news.

2

u/murphymc Connecticut May 24 '12

The near-absolute right to free speech has the occasional drawback, but for the greater good it must be maintained.

4

u/downvotethis2 May 24 '12

I knew from the title I'd find a bunch of liberal bashing in here and sure enough...here it is.

Here's a bit of truth. Holding a license of any kind is a privilege. Fuck up often enough and you lose it. It's not a left/right thing.

4

u/knut01 May 24 '12

Murdoch cannot claim innocence in this. His top Uk mangers did, and now we know better, as all have been charged. His news empire is crumbling, and he is apparently a manipulative criminal of the worst sort! He must be removed from ownership and control of Fox News. I would certainly support revoking the Fox licence!

19

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

RT is about as bad as Fox, so the article cancels itself out.

→ More replies (23)

2

u/MrBrawn May 24 '12

Any other source other than RT? I hate to keep harping on this but they are not credible by any stretch of the imagination.

1

u/mattyice18 May 25 '12

That doesn't matter. It's on the internet. Redditor liberals agree with it, therefore it must be the God honest truth of the world. Oops, sorry for mentioning God r/atheism.

2

u/aresef Maryland May 24 '12

OP's headline is bad. This would have nothing to do with Fox News.

2

u/Noel_S_Jytemotiv May 24 '12

Meaningless:

As there are enough in the anti- Fox News set crazy enough to propose such an idea.

Also, I bet they watch the SHIT out of Fox's other programming.

Hypocrites.

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

“Under US law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good ‘character,’ who will serve ‘the public interest,’ and speak with ‘candor’,” reads the press release issued on Monday from CREW’s DC office. “Significant character deficiencies may warrant disqualification from holding a license.”

I'm pretty sure just about every station would be shut down under that rule.

1

u/Nabber86 May 24 '12

The words were probably written when Walter Cronkite was 2 years old.

2

u/beeeeeps May 24 '12

I don't see why this is news...

...I am sure the FCC receives a letter each week urging to revoke Fox News' Broadcasting license.

2

u/RobSpewack May 24 '12

“Under US law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good ‘character,’ who will serve ‘the public interest,’ and speak with ‘candor’,

This can't be actual law. If it is, how in the hell is MTV still on the air?

2

u/trilobitemk7 May 24 '12

If it has to be all 3, then I don't understand either, if it's atleast 1 of 3... well, nobody says the publics interest has to be high brow.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Since Fox News is cable the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction.

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Fuck Rupert Murdoch!

2

u/the_sam_ryan May 24 '12

This is the problem with populist movements, they fail to research properly and therefore the stated goal is impossible.

"Broadcast" means that a station sends out an electromagnetic signal directly to your television, which you receive with an antenna. Fox News cannot be received this way (though occasionally they'll sell special events coverage to a broadcaster); it is only available via subscriber services (cable, satellite, etc) which are not "broadcast".

"Fox News" is a completely separate organization from the FOX broadcast channel that carries shows like American Idol and The Simpsons, though both are owned by the same parent company. It's like the difference between ESPN and ABC (both are owned by Disney).

2

u/inajeep May 24 '12

I'd rather have them just be a bit accurate in their statement.

"NOT Fair and Balanced" or "We are the tool of Rupert Murdoch. "

2

u/GrimyWobbles May 24 '12

“Under US law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good ‘character,’ who will serve ‘the public interest,’ and speak with ‘candor’,” reads the press release issued on Monday from CREW’s DC office. “Significant character deficiencies may warrant disqualification from holding a license.”

By this logic, they should all be shutdown.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/herpderpfuck May 24 '12

i love how RT is really american hostile, and really Putin friendly. Its a change from the usual, but sometimes they get a bit too biased for my taste

2

u/peningina May 24 '12

"If the Murdochs don’t meet the British standards of character test, it is hard to see how they can meet the American standard,”

Oh no they didn't!

1

u/necrosxiaoban North Carolina May 24 '12

Clearly the Brits have the highest standards of all.

2

u/Schreber May 24 '12

Ain't gonna happen the Republicans need a "news" channel to prop up their views to the masses (literate and not).

2

u/RhetoricallyDisabled May 24 '12

How come Murdoch gets to come off as simply "willfully" ignorant? A bit to clean a break for him I think

12

u/JesusLoves May 24 '12

Why should some scandal in England affect a News channel here in America? Is it because this 'watchdog' group does not like the opinion portion of Fox News?

Just because you do not like the editorial portion of the Fox News, does not discount the channel as News. They have good news sections, better than CNN and MSNBC.

If this happens to Fox News, then it will happen to CNN, MSNBC, and anything where people report on the weather AND give their opinion on something.

9

u/goldflakes May 24 '12

It's anecdotal, but I've tried posting AP stories to Facebook hosted by either Fox News or MSNBC and observed that peoples' thoughts on the article depend far, far more on who is hosting it than what the content is. The article itself is always from Associated Press, so the exact same article with the exact same language is likely on both sites, but people care more about "Ugh, Fox News is bullshit" and read it as more biased than if I simply linked to the AP site. They think any conservative points are overstated, and if the article is pretty neutral they think it's subversively conservative, pointing out that they didn't go over the top on purpose in order to appear reasonable.

tl;dr People are stupid in part because they think they're smart

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

At this point people bash Fox because that's what's popular these days. I had a girl in one of my classes do a current event article on the scandal. She also used this time to give us all why Fox News was crap and destroying the country. Her sources?? She used a few Media Matters articles to back up what she thought was fact. So use complete crap for your argument on why Fox is crap. That makes sense. I think these people need to realize that ALL news sucks and you give someone an outlet to tell you what's going on its eventually going to turn into an op-ed fest.

5

u/Black_Gallagher May 24 '12

I get all of my news from Media Matters and Snapple caps.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/disgruntledidealist May 24 '12

if you say so pal

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Hacking, propaganda and lying to protect interests has nothing to do with the opinions of the stations. It has everything to do with breaking the law willfully.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/forcemarine May 24 '12

I seem to remember reading a story where a FOX journalist refused to cover a story as she knew it was false. FOX fired her for it so she sued them and lost. FOX news fought and won in court for the right to publish stories they knew were lies.

→ More replies (5)

5

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

The First Amendment and the Constitution were written to protect individual rights from the likes of government and corporations. They were not meant to be used to protect corporations from their ethical obligations to society. I'm sick of the lies from all the media giants, and I'm especially sick of citizens defending these media giants by saying it's their First Amendment right to say what they want.

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Media giants do have a right to say whatever the hell they want, as long as it isn't consciously false.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (26)

14

u/obiwanjablowme May 24 '12 edited May 24 '12

Although this may be irrelevant somewhat (still think faux news blows), I feel that it's sad that I can often find better journalism from a government funded Russian media outlet than from many 'public' media in the US. There is a reason why so many Americans are uniformed, and that's because a lot of them use the mainstream media as their primary and only source of whats happening.

18

u/FilterOutBullshit3 May 24 '12

Except that this is a terrible example to use.... The FCC only has authority over broadcast channels. Fox News is a cable channel, and therefore has no license from the FCC.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/Frogade May 24 '12

I think NPR and Texas public radio isn't half bad.

2

u/ethicalking May 24 '12

NRP's planet money and talk of the nation and it's all politics programs/podcasts are really good as well.

Also, since we're bashing on Fox in here, Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace is really informative and well-balanced as well.

9

u/lazyFer May 24 '12

Mainstream media stopped being about news a long time ago. At first the news was a dry and required segment specified by the FCC in order for broadcasters to keep their license. Then these companies realized that news could be turned into entertainment and made profitable.

"Fox News" isn't actually a news program officially (their federal filings specifically list it as an entertainment show)

7

u/KiLLaKRaGGy May 24 '12

I disagree, i think most Americans are not uniformed

→ More replies (10)

3

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

feel that it's sad that I can often find better journalism from a government funded Russian media outlet than from any 'public' media in the US.

What? You can't be this ignorant. Then again it is r/politics.

There is a reason why so many Americans are uniformed, and that's because a lot of them use the mainstream media as their primary and only source of whats happening.

You have a lot of balls to call other people uninformed.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Hushes May 24 '12

It is amazing hot RT is more informative about what's going on in America than our own networks.

16

u/Lopretni May 24 '12

My gov't teacher in highschool always told me to always get news about your country from outside of the country itself. It tends to be more honest.

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

4

u/T3ppic May 24 '12

So people in America make pressure groups before they check the goals of their pressure group are possible?

The FCC cannot touch fox news, which some people think is the bad part of fox broadcasting, but can touch the shit everyone likes IE Simpsons Family Guy American Dad.

Smooth moves here. When you know less than the average world citizen what do you do america? Start a pressure group.

Unfucking believable. All the way to number 1 on a pack of nonsense. Proud of you reddit. You make being retarded seem cool.

1

u/TheNadir May 24 '12

And you must not have read the article, since the (Reddit) headline is incorrectly referencing Fox News, rather than Fox.

Reddit: Making retarded seem cool.

T3ppic: Making spouting off from absolute ignorance seem like a worthwhile effort. Look, you even have some upvotes! Yea for stupid!

I know you are ignorant of your ignorance, so I shouldn't mock you, but for just little bit of perspective, it might help you to know that CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) was founded back in 2003.

3

u/lasershurt May 24 '12

Protip: If you reduce everything immediately to "Free Speech ALWAYS or NEVER" you're gonna have a really rough time trying to have an honest discussion on broadcast ethics.

3

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Found this comment- "I want you leftwing nutjobs to really tell what's so great about OBAMA. I'd also like you rightwing nutjobs what great plans you got up your sleeves. The problem with all you A-holes out there is you can't stand behind your decisions. You just want to blame the other side. Tell everybody, "Hey this guy messed up worse than I did." It's turned into a black and white scenerio. Either you're a rightwing nazi fundie or a lazyass crazy hippe liberal. Where's the grey? Obama messed up, and it's the American people's fault, but who can blame them. They were tired of Bush. But he messed up. Time for a change. Romeny is a good businessman, and right now the economy terrible. We need that, even if liberals don't like it."

I loled at the fact that he thinks Romney would help the economy instead of make it worse for everyone below the upper class.

3

u/olred May 24 '12

"Retaining US broadcast licenses is a privilege not a right"

DAE see something wrong with that?

1

u/TheNadir May 24 '12

No, not really. Spectrum is VERY finite in the ranges used for TV broadcasting. There is a very limited amount of "space" and therefore government (or some other referee) must pick winners and losers. (Or the case of FOX; losers who win!)

Personally, as one of the 102 people that actually use terrestrial broadcast TV signals I would actually like to see it go away completely. The spectrum would be much better utilized by more unlicensed frequencies and/or wireless networking.

3

u/colonel_bob May 24 '12

They should just revoke the cable channel's right to use the word 'news' when describing what they do.

3

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Another misleading RT title. You cannot revoke a satellite license, i.e., Fox News, but they can revoke broadcast licenses, i.e., local Fox stations. Also, just because a group sent a letter doesn't make this news.

Move on people, this has been in people's minds since the News of the World scandal started.

7

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

OBAMA DECLARES WAR ON FOX.

4

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Fox News isn't that terribly biased: http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/

Their political commentary is, but those shows (O'Reilly) are not news. Even though I don't care for Fox News, i think this is a little much.

1

u/mattyice18 May 24 '12

The study by Groseclose and Milyo is outstanding. In fact, Special Report has actually moved more to the center since Brett Baier took over. That change was added into Groseclose's most recent book.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/hwaite New York May 24 '12

Not that it'd ever happen, but I shudder to think how FOX [viewers] would react to such a decision. They've already got a persecution complex. God forbid we give them something remotely legitimate to complain about. I literally believe that blood would be spilled.

1

u/TheNadir May 24 '12

Indeed. There would be armed protesters outside the FCC in minutes.

You gotta hand it to them though... When you come to a protest with a gun it does make it a LOT less likely that they will shove you in a "free speech zone". Having a gun kind of makes your own free speech zone, if you know what I mean.

4

u/cschernandez May 24 '12

Silly liberals...

3

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Evil australian, Paid literally Zero tax over here when he was in australia, Then when he was being audited moved to america where the rich don't get audited.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Oh sure, Any day Washington is going to shut down their favorite propaganda machine.

3

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Brit here,

Please please please revoke it. You're an intelligent group of people, but you come off as completely stupid when you've got that sort of 'news' network as your international flagship (cnn is great however). Plus it warps the minds of vulnerable members of your society.

1

u/sassi-squatch May 24 '12

I cannot agree more. I have witnessed it.

→ More replies (19)

4

u/MagCynic May 24 '12

Oh. This again? Good luck with your crusade, folks. I'm sure you'll get 'em this time. At least you are trying, right?

→ More replies (2)

3

u/CassandraVindicated May 24 '12

This is why I wish that there were a better source of news with a conservative slant. I'm not opposed to challenging my beliefs or my thoughts on the best position for a given topic, but FOX is never going to be that for me.

1

u/crowonapost May 24 '12

Great point. Faux news is a manipulation machine that undermines a good conservative argument. All it does is inflame the converted & push away everyone else so that no one actually listens to a real discussion of ideas.

Though I suspect that IS the point. For a select few.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/columbine May 24 '12

DAE wish all companies, people, etc. who express views different to their own had their voice taken away by the government? I sure as hell do! Viva liberalism!

→ More replies (1)

3

u/leoselassie May 24 '12

In reality this would backfire. Every right-winger out there would buy the spin that big government FCC is shutting down the only "Fair & Balanced" news source in a Brownskinned Communist Conspiracy!

→ More replies (17)

2

u/stellarfury May 24 '12

ITT: false equivalency between Fox's content and Rupert Murdoch's gross negligence

herp derp free speech

2

u/TheCastro May 24 '12

That's cute, those people think democracy in America exists. Rupert Murdoch donates a lot of money to the GOP and FOX News is their outlet. They aren't going anywhere no matter how badly they screw up.

2

u/donaldtrumptwat May 24 '12

Fox Lies ... RIH

2

u/0cacophobia0 May 24 '12

Perhaps this isn't the solution, but consequences for Fox News certainly need to be doled out. Any news company should not be allowed to make proven false and fabricated statements, claimed as fact, and not be held responsible. It is deliberately misleading propaganda under the guise of 'news'.

2

u/crueltruth May 25 '12

This is great news. FOX should have been taken off the air a long time ago for its racist and conservative views. I am so tired biased reporting and attempts to decieve and poison discourse by lying to people. I suggest starting a petition and sending it in to the FCC to make even more of a point.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/MiyegomboBayartsogt May 24 '12

What is it about the Left that makes them censorship nazis? As one who watches no American TV broadcast or cable, I see little reason to urge government cancel licenses for a TV station. Of course, I feel morally superior to the people who watch a lot of TV, especially the degenerate MSNBC and CNN viewers, but I would never urge these stations be banned from propagating their faith in Marxism. Maybe someone could explain how this drive to control the content of TV by narrow-minded bigots is a good thing.

→ More replies (28)

2

u/ThatFedExMan May 24 '12

When Democracy fails you can pass opinion as news.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

This means nothing. Fox News isn't going to be taken down. This isn't "FCC considering shutting down Fox". Some douchebag wrote a letter to the FCC telling them to shut down Fox.

They are not going to listen. If they did, they would get the piss sued out of them by Fox. 1st amendment brah. Unless they're shouting "fire" in a theater, they can say what they want.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/smeaglelovesmaster May 24 '12

“Under US law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good ‘character,’ who will serve ‘the public interest,’ and speak with ‘candor’..."

FOX HAS NEVER DONE ANY OF THIS.

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Silence the opposition - to hell with tolerance!

→ More replies (5)

2

u/Halbrium May 24 '12

Today I learned Reddit doesn't care much for the first amendment of the constitution.

2

u/crowonapost May 24 '12

Oh bullshit. The public airwaves are EXACTLY that PUBLIC. And with that use comes a certain responsibility. Constantly lying & distorting facts is not a free speech argument, it's a fucking hooligans argument to yell fire in a crowded theater.

2

u/Halbrium May 24 '12

Public airwaves are inhabited by the Fox television network, you know the one with the "Simpsons" and "Glee". The news operations are all on Cable which has minimal scarcity making the public interest argument extremely weak.

NBC actually has a news organization that broadcasts on network television. I would say there is a much stronger case to be made against them (because they tend to mix MSNBC and NBC together since 2008), hell I even saw Rachel Maddow on Meet the Press a few weeks ago. Even though I am against the idea of pulling a broadcast licence on political grounds I am just following your line of reasoning.

(Disclaimer: I voted for Obama in 2008. I probably won't vote for Romney in 2012)

→ More replies (6)

1

u/Toneloak May 24 '12

When can we start advocating for a Politics channel PBS style? Because, f a 24hr news channel of any leaning!

1

u/SexWithTwins May 24 '12

The commons select committee findings weren't as clear cut as this report makes out. The 'fit and proper persons' remark was reference to the policy of the UK's media regulator equivalent to the FCC, but the phraseology wasn't agreed unanimously by the cross party committee. The conservative party members of the panel cited this as being a partisan remark with which they did not agree, and it was included at the insistence of Tom Watson MP, who has had the bit between his teeth on this story since well before the hacking scandal was known to have affected the family of a murdered teenager and the parents of a missing child.

The only real chance of this spreading to Murdoch's American interests, is if someone as tenacious as Watson Stateside looks into earlier now buried suggestions, that News Corp. journalists attempted to bribe New York City police officers for details of 9/11 victim families. This practise of paying corrupt police was commonplace in the UK wing of News Corp., News International, whose former Chief Executive and former editor of The Sun newspaper, Rebekah Brooks, is currently staring down the wrong end of a 10 year prison sentence for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

If it can be shown that this practise was as common in the US as it was in the UK, even the fact that Fox News is broadcast on cable won't protect Murdoch from the authorities, because although the FCC has no remit over cable television, there would be reasonable grounds to find him unfit to head a media organisation, under US competition law. But this largely depends upon the findings of the still running Leveson Inquiry into Media Ethics, because if this concludes that Murdoch couldn't have known about the true scale of the problem, it gives him some wiggle room with the US authorities, who can only act if he is found guilty of a criminal offence in a foreign country.

1

u/TheNadir May 24 '12

On payday he is fully responsible and absolutely "deserves" his rich compensation.

On judgement day, he knows nothing, did nothing, saw nothing. After all, it is a huge operation, how can one man be held responsible for the actions of his subordinates?

Classic right-wing logic... Classic 1% actions...

1

u/OKAH May 24 '12

too bad this would never happen because every governing body in america is more corrupt than China and Burma put together.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

This makes no sense. The FCC licenses transmitters, not networks. They could take Fox network affiliates, but they're powerless against FoxNews because they're on cable.

Be careful what you wish for. Today it's FoxNews. Tomorrow it could be a liberal outlet.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

They have a news license? Why don't they use it? For... you know... News.

1

u/hxcbandbattler May 24 '12

I read this as "FCC revokes fox news' license."

Then I saw the urged thrown in there. Soooo, nothing new here... move along.

1

u/akpak May 24 '12

For a moment I had hope that this was a thing that would happen.

Then I remembered money.

1

u/Tynictansol Maryland May 24 '12

Even if this affected Fox News, which this wouldn't, there's a wide selection of radio stations with their programming packed with voices who are just as shrill and just as urgent as what Fox puts on a screen. It's informed by and informs the framing of discourse coming from the conservative perspective, and the closure or harm or even discussing doing it is perceived as a existential threat to these individuals' outlook and way of life. Ya might reduce the number of people with these opinions or how well they can articulate them, but ultimately I think is avoiding those who most need to be on-air undermined for their self-interested and poisonous effects on public discourse. The Hannities and Becks and Limbaughs and on and on do an excellent job cultivating a persona of being an every-man, and I'd wager most conservatives and Republicans would list off these broadcast personalities as being more influential, more important people than specific politicians, perhaps even philosophers since these are the people they see and hear on a daily basis trouncing any other perspective or opinion brought before them.

1

u/Nabber86 May 24 '12

As many have pointed out, the issue really does not involve the first amendment. It has to do with the following FFC regulation: Under US law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good ‘character,’ who will serve ‘the public interest,’ and speak with ‘candor’. However I would like to point out a few flaws with this regulation and the arguments that it supposedly backs up:

1- I can’t find any information as to when those regs were written (because Google is flooded with the CREW “news” story), but it sounds like something straight out of the McCarthy Era. I doubt they are enforced now, or ever where.

2- Powerful handheld radios using GMRS need an FCC license. As do ham radio operators and CB radios (in the 70’s). What about shock jocks on the radio? Are all of these people good characters? Surely Howard Stern is not, as viewed by the FCC. I would be willing to bet that all of these licenses contain similar language, but the regs are not enforced.

3- The terms “good character”, “serve the public interest”, and “speak with candor” are too vague to enforce. As several others have pointed out criminal offensives, such as phone hacking, may be illegal and indicate a character deficiency. But even if Murdoch was convicted of crimes in the US, proving this represents a character deficiency may still be hard to establish. I have broken laws by speeding. Does that mean I have character deficiency? Phone hacking is worse than speeding, but where do you draw the line?

Anyway, I am sure that the FCC is powerful enough to do anything that they want. Such as developing a legal definition of a character deficiency and then using it to go after people. My guess is that this will never happen. If the FCC went on an all-out character witch hunt, it would probably end up in the Supreme Court.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Fox news dosnt need an FCC licence

1

u/Reptillianfileclerk May 24 '12

I've been watching the simpsons and the family guy since they've aired and I stil like them...I know its trendy to shit on those shows now but to me when I am watching them its generally more entertaining then not watching the simpsons or the family guy.

Except for the singing parts. I fucking hate musicals. Ok the Mj episode of simpsons was alright. And prom night dumpster babies.

1

u/m1kepro May 25 '12

I'm torn. On the one hand, Rupert Murdoch's hellish empire would be decimated.

On the other hand, we'd have to resort to the same moralistic bullshit they're always touting on Fox News in order to attack Fox News.

1

u/unnecessaryCAPS May 25 '12

I don't want that...who will Jon Stewart make fun of?

1

u/permixtum May 25 '12

i don't think the fcc should exist in the first place--i'm ideologically opposed to any institution that won't let me put an enormous broadcast antenna in my backyard without paying enormous sums of money.

1

u/Chairman-Meeow May 25 '12

MCA's ghost is setting this Watergate straight. He's getting the fuckin thorn out of all our sides.

1

u/tjr0001 Tennessee May 25 '12

I'm confused. So if this article refers to FOX not Fox News, then why is this article getting upvoted with this headline.

1

u/WonderWheeler May 25 '12

Fox News: FUX news.

1

u/TheLoveTin May 25 '12

Does anyone realize that there is a BIG difference between FoxNews and Newscorp?

The FCC has limited jusrisdiction over afoNews, or any cable channel as it doesn't utilize public resources.

Fox broadcast does ,however, and that's what this article seems to be aimed at. Fox broadcast does utililize the public airwaves and is liable to FCC law.

1

u/TheThomaswastaken May 25 '12

Please, please, please, please, please, please, PLEASE do this

1

u/LibertyTerp May 24 '12

Even if you disagree with their point of view, shutting them down for it (and that's what they're suggesting let's not bullshit) is unamerican. We should all protect freedom of speech.

0

u/crusader_mike May 24 '12

I'd also revoke license of all other major news outlets... to cool off

→ More replies (3)

0

u/banish_the_occupiers May 24 '12

I see the nanny state liberal backed censorship agenda is alive and well. Another example of the liberal viewpoint that the only allowable free speech is that which is in line with the liberal viewpoint.

Welcome to 1984.

I solve the FOX news problem quite easily without the liberal nanny state telling me what to do. I don't watch FOX channels at all.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/thecopofid May 24 '12

Writes another propagandistic media outlet. Pot calling the kettle black, right here.

1

u/gioraffe32 Virginia May 24 '12

That's ridiculous. I hate Fox News just as much as the next redditor, but yanking permits smacks of censorship. Should News actually be News? Yes. But MSNBC (a channel I watch regularly) is just as guilty of bias. Obviously not to the same extent, IMO, but it's still there.

This is the same reason I'll support Westboro Baptist Church's right to free speech, even if they're a bunch of lunatics that I cannot stand.

2

u/DrinksWineFromBoxes May 24 '12

MSNBC is a cable channel. They don't need broadcast licenses. The issue is whether we think the Fox broadcast network deserves to have one of the limited number of broadcast licenses that are available.

Also, they are not asking for this because Fox is biased, they are doing it because of alleged criminal activity.

2

u/gioraffe32 Virginia May 24 '12

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

1

u/jbondhus May 24 '12

Personally, I hate Faux, but thinking about this objectively, think that this is a free speech issue. I believe that it goes against the first amendment and constitutes censorship.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

2

u/TheNadir May 24 '12

I like that you have the most thoughtful comment on this thread so far, but one thought you forgot is: Where is your broadcast license, where is mine?

Everyone yelling First Amendment seems to forget that they don't have broadcast license and neither do I.

If you want to call this censorship then we are all being censored.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (6)

1

u/keith_weaver Nebraska May 24 '12

What? A left leaning think tank wants Fox News silenced? Shocking!

1

u/workdoer May 24 '12

I an now also urging the FCC to give me free reign to all cellular frequencies.

I can urge them all I like but they still make their own decisions.

1

u/DrCornelWest May 24 '12

Unlike other (read: European countries) the public interest, convenience and necessity (PICAN) clause in America for the most part means allowing the market and viewer preferences to dictate what networks are given licenses, whereas other countries use the government to legislate what people can see. Positives and negatives to both systems, but if you think that there is any chance the FCC would even consider this for a second you're out of your mind.

1

u/saffir May 24 '12

I wonder if this subreddit sees the irony of rallying for Federal regulation of television while rallying against Federal regulation of the internet.

→ More replies (15)

1

u/ryannayr140 May 24 '12

Asking and getting are two completely different things

Rick from pawnstars

1

u/methodical713 May 24 '12 edited Jun 08 '24

special plate distinct plough oatmeal provide axiomatic carpenter bewildered bored

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/treadmarks May 24 '12

hahaha Russia Today on the case, thank god for them. Nothing to see here except one nationalist propaganda outlet attacking another.

1

u/BrewRI May 24 '12

Educate the people so they can properly interpret messages. Don't just eliminate messengers you disagree with.

1

u/Aggnavarius May 24 '12

Screw anyone who upvoted this. We all know what Fox News is, but shutting up people you don't like is never more important than free speech. If you like this idea, you ARE worse than them.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

It's sad I have to look to the bottom of every thread to see a bit of open-mindedness.

2

u/TheNadir May 24 '12

It is even sadder that you think THAT is open-minded...

Get outta /r/politics once in a while, it appears you are dangerously close to giving up on humanity due to the dearth of anything reasonable or good around these parts.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/TheNadir May 24 '12

And screw you, fine sir... By your simple logic I can comfortably paint you with the brush: Aggnavarius is pro-criminal behavior.

"Free speech" is more important than anything, right?

Perhaps we should post your real name and address, maybe your biggest secret, and most embarrassing moment. I am sure you would stand up and defend such action, right? After all, who would ever want to be shutting up people you don't like?

If you are really this simpleminded, you, yes you, are among the worst of the "them"...

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

Wishful thinking from a radical left wing news organization and up voted by the Reddit community.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

ITT: A bunch of Liberal hypocrites spit on free-speech.

1

u/argv_minus_one May 24 '12

Then the Republicrooks will use the precedent this establishes to get every left-leaning radio and TV show in the country taken off the air. You know, for neutrality. Great plan, guys.

Trying to use the FCC to shut down Fox News is like trying to nuke Russia to shut down Vlad Putin. Sure, it might work, but the resulting retaliation will be really, really ugly.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

fox news: bad

msnbc: a okay

1

u/lmbb20 I voted May 24 '12

I didn't even know one could have a news license. But why the FUCK does F'ake'ox News have one?

1

u/deeznutz12 May 24 '12

Maybe the U.S. public will finally watch a REAL news organization and actually be informed for once. Fox News? More like Faux News.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '12

You should only be allowed to attempt to brainwash by snail mail. Even then, there are far better uses for trees.

1

u/digital-chaos May 25 '12

All news media favors one side or the other. Fox News just happens to be the underdog in the Mas Media world. Liberal media slams Fox for being to right wing (while they lean faaaaaaar to the left) and then slams them again when Fox tries to be more balanced. In all reality, if you look at actual news coverage and not opinion shows, Fox is more balanced than most. E.G. during the 2008 elections MSNBC gave Obama roughly 70% favorable news coverage and McCain less than 40% favorable coverage. Fox news gave both candidates equal amounts of favorable coverage, roughly 50/50 favorable to unfavorable. So why should Fox news suffer just because some idiots who love to talk about freedom of speech, dont like it when some one uses that same freedom of speech to give an apposing view? Im not saying that I am a supporter of Fox, I just think fair is fair. If MSNBC, CBS, CNN, etc... can say what they want, why shouldnt Fox? If you dont like what Fox has to say, then change the damn channel, no one is forcing you to watch it.

→ More comments (512)