Should We Ban Fox News?

[yuiyoshida]

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. There's this inconvenient First Amendment thing, so no.

[Rebl2]

16. Right

Can’t do that even though FOX spouts b.s. Wouldn’t want them to ban msnbc or cnn because what is said on those networks.

[magicguido]

2. Should we really allow the "freedom" to spout nonsense and dangerous misinformation?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. The First Amendment requires it. The remedy for bad speech is more speech.

"The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Whitney v. California.

[Skittles]

4. I'm not for banning but...........

I want people to STOP ACTING LIKE THEY ARE A LEGITIMATE NEWS SOURCE, STOP GOING ON THEIR SHOWS - STOP GIVING THEM CREDIBILITY.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. That's the way to do it.

If "we" (that is, the government) start banning speech, however obnoxious or false, we're heading down a very slippery slope, at the bottom of which might be a different government that doesn't like our speech. Ignoring or debunking BS is how BS has to be handled.

[NurseJackie]

6. Would an advertiser boycott be better? Starve the beast.

[luv2fly]

7. Already banned in this house

And the houses of damn near everyone I call friends.

[hadEnuf]

8. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine in some form would put a dent in the the Fox nonsense.

Fox is pure propaganda and they are claiming the 1st Amendment to justify it. It's not a 1A argument. It is deception with the word "news" attached to it.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

9. The Fairness Doctrine would not apply to Fox News.

It would have no effect at all.

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Etc.

[hadEnuf]

15. Correct. It would not apply to Fox cable news.

But it might set a standard.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. Cable news isn't regulated, wouldn't have any effect.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. Give that person a cigar.

I watch Fox all the time. It's one of my favorite stations. I've been watching it since it was a DuMont affiliate. It's on right now.

But it ain't part of Fox News.

WTTG

Website: www.fox5dc.com

WTTG, virtual channel 5 (UHF digital channel 36), is a Fox owned-and-operated television station licensed to the American capital city of Washington, District of Columbia. The station is owned by the Fox Television Stations subsidiary of Fox Corporation, as part of a duopoly with MyNetworkTV owned-and-operated station WDCA (channel 20). The two stations share studios and transmitter facilities on Wisconsin Avenue in the Friendship Heights neighborhood in the northwest quadrant of Washington.

{snip}

[hadEnuf]

14. Yes, I thought about that after I posted.

But there still should be some sort of truth in advertising a station as "news" when it is mostly opinion and propaganda.

It's the deceptiveness that is part of the problem.

[dware]

20. So you want the govt to determine what is truth and what is opinion and propaganda?

That's a recipe for disaster, but I'm not worried in the least, no Court in the land would uphold this, matter of fact, it would be struck down as unconstitutional before the ink even dried.

[hadEnuf]

22. No, I actually don't want RWNJ corporate billionaires determining what is truth and propaganda.

And we already have a disaster because they have been doing just that.

Your employment of the old and worn out accusations of wanting government to control what people think is pretty revealing, but I'll assume that you just do not have an understanding of how media was where there was a Fairness Doctrine in effect and how it set an example for news organizations to be a little bit responsible and at least maintain some semblance of being truthful.

The Constitution is not a license for national news organizations to twist facts and spew out seditious one-sided propaganda to the American people. There needs to be guidelines because the self policing is a joke.

[dware]

23. Don't mistake me for being ignorant on how the media works,

I'm well aware of what's going on in the media.
The Fairness Doctrine has absolutely nothing to do with cable, satellite or the internet and the FCC is forbidden by law to regulate those venues so, other than creating a govt. entity to police the media, which is absolutely unconstitutional, what would you suggest?

And don't say bring back the FD, it's not needed in this day and age of unlimited news sources on the internet, cable, satellite and it won't even get out of the Congress and no one in Congress is suggesting seriously that it be reinstituted.

[hadEnuf]

28. If you look at my last post,

I said a rethinking of the Fairness Doctrine would at least establish an example of what fair & balanced news reporting should look like even if it only applied to the alphabet networks.

And don't say bring back the FD, it's not needed in this day and age of unlimited news sources on the internet, cable, satellite

If you are satisfied with picking through the broadcasts of vital information and so-called truth being brought to you by the highest bidder or the loudest screamer, that's fine. But a lot of people think it's important that they be able to discern what is opinion and what is fact. Right wing media does not do this and only serve to blur the lines, and they will not police this on their own.

[dware]

24. ....

The Constitution is not a license for national news organizations to twist facts and spew out seditious one-sided propaganda to the American people. There needs to be guidelines because the self policing is a joke.

And, again, you would be wrong, the Constitution absolutely protects propaganda and opinion, and so far, no gov. authority has labeled Fox News as sedition.

[hadEnuf]

29. Opinion and propaganda can be read by anybody who wants it. I think most could care less.

But the masquerade of it being called real news and truth needs to stop. It's poisoning the country.

You may also recall that Limbaugh, Fox and the rest of the RW media did not flourish until after the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. The First Amendment also applies to propaganda,

the dictionary definition of which is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." Like it or not, this is protected speech, even if it's biased or misleading. MSNBC and other liberal news media are biased as well, although they are not misleading like Fox. Bias is protected; even misleading speech is protected. The remedy, as Justice Brandeis once said, is more speech, not suppression.

[dware]

25. ............

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine in some form would put a dent in the the Fox nonsense.

No, it wouldn't, that's just plain nonsense.

Everything in your post is completely false information.

[hadEnuf]

30. No, that's your opinion about my suggestion not false information. Another revealing reply from you.

Again, tell me why the GOP wanted the Fairness Doctrine gone so badly and then after it was gone, right wing media flourished?


Or is that just more false information too?

[pfitz59]

13. No, but they should be required to have a disclaimer banner

"For Entertainment Purposes Only", "Not Actual News"

[JonLP24]

17. I don't think we can ban Fox News

But dictators/fascists/sociopaths can use laws against us like with Fox News. RT is a good example. Russia is against US interests but they are able to use the first amendment against us.

[Nitram]

18. We can't ban Fox News. We shouldn't be able to fan Fox News. C'mon people, get real.

Sure, we'd like to ban Fox News. Yes, they have betrayed every principle of journalism and have proved to be partisan hacks in support of a traitorous psychopath. It is up to the rest of the media - and the American people - whether or not their reporting will be believe and/or amplified.

[markpkessinger]

19. No, no and a thousand times NO!

Look, I hate everything about Fox News. I think it has been absolutely terrible for the country. But the SECOND you start banning a news channel because it broadcasts "misinformation," then all Republicans need to do when they are next in power is to redefine what constitutes "misinformation" -- and that is something they are quite skilled at doing. Ajnd they would love nothing more than to have an excuse to shut down networks who refuse to do their bidding. In the long run, a move like this would wind up hurting Democrats more than Republicans!

[dware]

26. I cannot, for the life of me,

understand why some people can't understand this.

[dware]

21. Not only NO,

BUT HELL FUCKING NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BannonsLiver]

27. Yep. Let's do it. I'll just go and fetch my magic wand.