Would you pull the plug on the Fox News Channel if you could?

[WriterDom]

Say the year is 2020 and we now have a clear majority of liberals on the USSC and you are heading the FCC and believe you can shut down Fox News. For no other reason than you don't like their point of view.

Would you do it?

 

[Emerald_Lilly]

Nope.... i love being able to watch news from many different perspectives .... i read numerous news websites a day and like to read from a variety of viewpoints so i can develop my own opinion after reading/hearing a range of other perspectives.

 

[culloden]

Nope. Nor would I silence MSNBC or the Gray Lady. Government censorship of the media is inconsistent with liberty. There is not a person on the planet whom I would trust to decide on my behalf what ideas I should or should not hear, or who should be allowed to present their ideas.

 

[Netzach]

No. But I would go back in time and stuff bill Clinton in a closet when they were changing the FCC rules so that I can make

"WriterDom kicks PUPPIES" into a news item with no actual factual backup. Free expression and journalism are not identical things. You can't make up FEMA death camps and scare the shit out of ignorant people and say it's fact. You can't be insane like screamy Keith and present it as factual. Maybe there'd be a designation, like they have on infomercials, when it's not actually verifiable news.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I would require that they remove the word "News" from their company name.
"Fox Hate-Dissemination Agency."

That would be truth in advertising.

 

[intothewoods]

No. But I would go back in time and stuff bill Clinton in a closet when they were changing the FCC rules so that I can make

"WriterDom kicks PUPPIES" into a news item with no actual factual backup. Free expression and journalism are not identical things. You can't make up FEMA death camps and scare the shit out of ignorant people and say it's fact. You can't be insane like screamy Keith and present it as factual. Maybe there'd be a designation, like they have on infomercials, when it's not actually verifiable news.

What change are you referring to? The public interest requirement? I thought the precedent for ignoring that was cemented in the ...80s (I think?).

Anyway, I wouldn't "shut down" Fox News but I wouldn't cry if all of the crazy commentator shows, including Keith (but not Rachel Maddow) just magically disappeared. Or took an entirely different tone. Not only are these shows not news, but I don't think they serve any positive purpose.

 

[Netzach]

What change are you referring to? The public interest requirement? I thought the precedent for ignoring that was cemented in the ...80s (I think?).

Anyway, I wouldn't "shut down" Fox News but I wouldn't cry if all of the crazy commentator shows, including Keith (but not Rachel Maddow) just magically disappeared. Or took an entirely different tone. Not only are these shows not news, but I don't think they serve any positive purpose.

My bad, I thought the Fairness Doctrine was axed in 96, but it was earlier. No shock.

I don't even want a Fairness Doctrine, I just want "shit pulled from my ass a 1 am and fact checked by my dog" to have to be labeled as such.

 

[midwestyankee]

My bad, I thought the Fairness Doctrine was axed in 96, but it was earlier. No shock.

I don't even want a Fairness Doctrine, I just want "shit pulled from my ass a 1 am and fact checked by my dog" to have to be labeled as such.

This just in: incipient rumors are about to be spread that Sean Hannity prefers to use homeless street cats for his fact checking. Could this be a cat-astrophe for Hannity? Watch Morning Joe for more on this breaking story.

 

[intothewoods]

My bad, I thought the Fairness Doctrine was axed in 96, but it was earlier. No shock.

I don't even want a Fairness Doctrine, I just want "shit pulled from my ass a 1 am and fact checked by my dog" to have to be labeled as such.

Fairness doctrine. You are a serious sponge. I took a class on it and I was thinking, public interest something or other...pathetic!

And I hear you. It can't be that hard to have some standards without trampling on expression.

 

[culloden]

Fairness doctrine. You are a serious sponge. I took a class on it and I was thinking, public interest something or other...pathetic!

And I hear you. It can't be that hard to have some standards without trampling on expression.

Outside of the news outlet itself, who would set and enforce the standards? How do we know they can be trusted, particularly since they'd likely be working in the background? Who watches them? And if we begin to trust these standard setters/enforcers, how far afield might they go before anyone noticed? The road to Hell and all that.

Sounds like the cure is worse than the disease to me. At least when news comes from privately controlled corporations, I can assume there's some bias and apply my own mind to figuring out what it is.

 

[intothewoods]

Outside of the news outlet itself, who would set and enforce the standards? How do we know they can be trusted, particularly since they'd likely be working in the background? Who watches them? And if we begin to trust these standard setters/enforcers, how far afield might they go before anyone noticed? The road to Hell and all that.

Sounds like the cure is worse than the disease to me. At least when news comes from privately controlled corporations, I can assume there's some bias and apply my own mind to figuring out what it is.

Well, rather than spending a shit ton of money and time investigating a nipple on TV, the FCC could investigate absolute lies put forth as news. You could provide a mechanism for a public hearing, so it wouldn't be behind closed doors. I get that there is distrust for government, but I don't see how the same amount of power in a corporation is so much better. And the fact is that people don't seem to question the facts offered in support of opinions. Why is that such a large percentage of Americans believed there were weapons of mass destruction when it wasn't true?

 

[WriterDom]

Well, rather than spending a shit ton of money and time investigating a nipple on TV, the FCC could investigate absolute lies put forth as news. You could provide a mechanism for a public hearing, so it wouldn't be behind closed doors. I get that there is distrust for government, but I don't see how the same amount of power in a corporation is so much better. And the fact is that people don't seem to question the facts offered in support of opinions. Why is that such a large percentage of Americans believed there were weapons of mass destruction when it wasn't true?

Everyone believed it. That's the way Saddam wanted it. Don't you remember Clinton sending 640 jets or so into Iraq to bomb their ass for two days? Bombing is just mean and it kills people just like war does.

 

[intothewoods]

Everyone believed it. That's the way Saddam wanted it. Don't you remember Clinton sending 640 jets or so into Iraq to bomb their ass for two days? Bombing is just mean and it kills people just like war does.

I'm not talking when Colin Powell believed it. Years later when it was clear there were none. I'm not bringing this up to argue about the Iraq war but to make the point that people do not necessarily go beyond what they hear in one biased universe.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Of course not:


http://www.northernsun.com/images/imagelarge/Protect-Speech-Bumper-Sticker-(7069).jpg

Ah, Fox.

 

[chy_girl]

I would require that they remove the word "News" from their company name.
"Fox Hate-Dissemination Agency."

That would be truth in advertising.

^That.

Hell, Fox doesn't even have the amusement factor that some of the others do. And it seems to me that somewhere in my high school journalism class we were taught that reporting was just that - reporting the facts to the audience in an unbiased, balanced way. When one adds their opinions to said facts it is then called an editorial or opinion piece.

Sometime I think it's kind of a shame that none of the students from that class ever went into journalism.

ETA:
I believe in freedom of speech for everyone. I just wish there were more people willing to practice free speech responsibly. Without the responsibility factor, people can get badly hurt or dead. And it's awfully hard to recover from dead.

 

[Homburg]

No. I, and anyone else with a brain, can change the channel. Haters gonna hate no matter what, and they'll find sources to support their hate no matter what the govt might do.

 

[Soumis]

No. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report would never be the same.

 

[BiBunny]

Does Fox News really affect people's daily lives? Is that something I'm missing because I haven't had cable since, like, 2005?

 

[Netzach]

Outside of the news outlet itself, who would set and enforce the standards? How do we know they can be trusted, particularly since they'd likely be working in the background? Who watches them? And if we begin to trust these standard setters/enforcers, how far afield might they go before anyone noticed? The road to Hell and all that.

Sounds like the cure is worse than the disease to me. At least when news comes from privately controlled corporations, I can assume there's some bias and apply my own mind to figuring out what it is.

I'm not even talking about standards, I'm talking about the kind of rigor that makes you footnote your term paper in college rather than just blathering whatever you feel like and calling it a fact. I'm saying that if you're going to start spreading something as *information* and not just opinion, you'd better have footnotes.

How is disclosure of sources, in those cases where we're not talking about some super secret whistleblowing thing which is usually corroborated with more above-ground checks before being given legitimacy (in an ideal world) the same as some kind of standards agency? I know that reality is a dirty left wing word, but there IS such a thing.

This has nothing to do with good intentions, and everything to do with reality having metrics. No metrics and you're fine entertainment.

The problem is a dumbassed american public that goes to sleep the minute you talk about credible source and footnotes.

 

[Netzach]

Does Fox News really affect people's daily lives? Is that something I'm missing because I haven't had cable since, like, 2005?

If you are over 50 and technologically challenged in an extreme degree, yes, it's everything.

My family is the demographic in question. Lots of shouting, but I'm not entirely sure they're going to roll out their vote when it rains.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Does Fox News really affect people's daily lives? Is that something I'm missing because I haven't had cable since, like, 2005?

Well, it shilled for Bush's war, for a start, and that's affecting thousands of people daily.

Its pundits call for violence against democrat politicians, foment hatred against pro-choice doctors until one gets killed, tell people that Obama is an illegal alien and a secret Muslim.

And there are things like this;
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...tomped-by-rand-paul-supporters-before-debate/

How did this guy come to think such a thing was okay? The "liberal media" never taught him that.

 

[Ravenwind]

I hate all mainstream media- Fox, CNN, MSNBC, doesn't matter, as they all spin things to the left or right... but the 1st Amendment protects their idiocy.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Say the year is 2020 and we now have a clear majority of liberals on the USSC and you are heading the FCC and believe you can shut down Fox News. For no other reason than you don't like their point of view.

Would you do it?

See, this is where the United States looks very odd from the outside. Here you're talking about free speech. But the main channels of political communication in the United States have been captured by a very small group of people whose interests are wholly hostile to the good governance of the United States and who are, very largely, not themselves Americans. Rupert Murdoch is, lets face it, an Australian.

He uses his media empire - not only in the United States but throughout the English speaking world - to promote certain strands of political speech while denying airtime to others. Furthermore, it's not as if Fox News presented true information with a degree of political slant. All too frequently, Fox News reports as fact things which are clearly not true, and this leads to widespread confusion within the American political conversation about what actually is true and what isn't. The whole issue of Obama's citizenship and his supposed religion is a case in point. The continued existence of Fox News does not promote free speech; rather, it stifles it.

What's most bizarre is that the very people in US politics who oppose world government and foreign interference in United States domestic affairs are the people who most support Murdoch's plan to subvert and destroy US democracy. When the members of the US congress, when the US president, is selected largely by one old man in Melbourne, Australia, is that 'free speech'? Or is it tyranny?

To have free speech in any democracy you must have a genuine plurality of political voices, with a genuine plurality of channels through which those voices can speak. The United States no longer has this. One man, one vote is essentially meaningless when the vast majority of the information on political issues which is available to citizens is filtered through a foreign-owned and foreign-controlled propaganda machine.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Everyone believed it. That's the way Saddam wanted it. Don't you remember Clinton sending 640 jets or so into Iraq to bomb their ass for two days? Bombing is just mean and it kills people just like war does.

No, the majority of people in the UK - the large majority - did not believe it. Tony B. Liar said he believed it, yes, but he is so fundamentally dishonest that that proves nothing. That everyone who watched Fox News believed it rather underlines the point I'm trying to make.

For all its many faults, the BBC - which is a public corporation answerable to its audience and independent from government - has become an increasingly important guarantor of British democracy as the ownership of commercial media in the UK has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few foreign oligarchs.

 

[culloden]

Well, rather than spending a shit ton of money and time investigating a nipple on TV, the FCC could investigate absolute lies put forth as news. You could provide a mechanism for a public hearing, so it wouldn't be behind closed doors. I get that there is distrust for government, but I don't see how the same amount of power in a corporation is so much better. And the fact is that people don't seem to question the facts offered in support of opinions. Why is that such a large percentage of Americans believed there were weapons of mass destruction when it wasn't true?

No corporation has the same power as the government.

Americans believed there were WMDs because our news outlets reported what the government told them. The same government who should be vetting news for truth, apparently.