24 ms·

The lies are 100% of the reason the capital riot happened, so yes, they do need to stop. Fox News lies every single day. What do we expect from a population o

• FFRefresh 6y ago
  What's your proposal for how Fox News should be handled, given they "lie every single day"? Should Fox News have their licenses removed, and be taken off the air & internet?
  • hadrien01 6y ago
    In the UK, Fox News had to cease broadcasting because it had breached multiple times due impartiality rules[0]. In the US, some are advocating for a return of the fairness doctrine. [0] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-news-stops-airing-uk-a-look-at-ofcom-rulings-1033789 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-news-stops-airing...
  • drogon2020 6y ago
    So do all the news networks. What’s your plan for that.
  • cgrealy 6y ago
    Most countries have a broadcasting standards authority of some sort. If you claim to be a news channel, then some measure of accuracy is not an unreasonable imposition. That said, given the increasing irrelevance of broadcast TV, I don't see how removing their licence would achieve much.
  • greatgirl 6y ago
    This is literally how it used to work before the FCC removed the FCC fairness doctrine in 1987. Fox news was then founded in 1996.
    • zerocrates 6y ago
      The fairness doctrine never applied to cable channels, nor did they have FCC licenses that could be revoked.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  • rorykoehler 6y ago
    Jail time for execs.
  • runawaybottle 6y ago
    Just so everyone knows, this is the type of stuff that aired of Foxnews days before the riot: https://youtu.be/oV97eEFJ4xI https://youtu.be/oV97eEFJ4xI A rallying call like that simply doesn’t work on Democrats, but god does it work on Republicans. I just don’t see any of this dying down at all, and the Republicans are always prepared to tap into this demo around election time (in two years time at the mid terms). They live for this. Banning them just validated their world view. This is all going to get even bigger now, and they will head into the catacombs.
    • rewq4321 6y ago
      For the time-pressed: The relevant "call to action" starts at about 2 mins. He's basically screaming a few minutes later. I don't think democrats are immune to this sort of thing, but I agree that this has really gone way too far at this point. Need to remind myself that this is Fox News - not some Peertube alt-right commentator. Quite scary.
    • lostlogin 6y ago
      Can someone explain why this is downvoted?
      • jstummbillig 6y ago
        Not downvoting, just observing: Likely the opinionated and unprovable claim (that his can not happen to democrats), stated as an absolute fact.
        • runawaybottle 6y ago
          It’s inferable if you look at micro-timeline of modern American history. Sanders coalition is about the only grassroots group that came from the left and was swiftly rejected (twice). The grass roots movements of the tea party took the Obama era super majority away, and fortified a Trump outsider run. The boots on the ground every-man on the left is harder to rally, and thus far have not shown any ability to even dominate their own party (their platforms don’t even get taken up by the broader party, just parroted). Plus, if it were possible, there would be a voice in the mainstream media stoking this contingent (as in business has identified an obvious market).
  • wtfiswiththis 6y ago
    >Should Fox News have their licenses removed, and be taken off the air & internet? Sounds like a good start. They have been involved in laundering terrorist rhetoric and incitement to mass attacks. Take the case of Fox employing Tucker Carlson. Tucker owns Daily Caller. Daily Caller published an article extolling the virtues of ISIS-style ramming attacks against protestors. Fox News republished this article. The result was a spike in ramming attacks against protestors. Fox gracefully pulled the article after complaints, no blow back since it wasn't their own article anyways. Nothing to see here, just entities paying each other and relaying each other's incitement. There has to be at least a dozen people at Fox News that need to be imprisoned for their role in pursuing death and violence against political and cultural opponents. So yes lets do the steps you mentioned then move on to discovery so we can find out how execs at Fox measured success when publishing incitement.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • abnkl 6y ago
      Tucker Carlson has also interviewed Glenn Greenwald and called for the pardon of Assange. Something you would have expected from the "liberal" media pre 2010.
    • ourmandave 6y ago
      Tucker Carlson was ruled to be not a credible news source in a court of law when he was sued for slander. US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network "persuasively argues" that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes." https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case... It's the "any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism" part that seems to be the problem.
  • TLightful 6y ago
    Yes.
• kumarvvr 6y ago
  One would argue that reasonable people be reasonable. Of course, 1% of trump voters may be giving the 99% a bad name.
  • throwawaysea 6y ago
    This is very true. Tens of thousands of Trump supporters showed up to DC this last week, attending one of several fully-legal, fully-permitted protests. Almost all events and participants were peaceful. A few hundred walked into the capitol complex, and I am guessing most did not initially plan to do so but got caught up in the moment, following those in front of them. Of those few hundred, an even smaller group was engaged in violence. It seems that Trump and the entire GOP will be labeled, censored, and banned for the actions of those few while the same standard won't be applied to those on the political left despite hundreds of riots being held across 2020.
    • dieortin 6y ago
      You say it like “getting caught in the moment” and assaulting the Capitol is something completely reasonable that anyone in that situation might do.
      • throwawaysea 6y ago
        I don't think it is reasonable - I am just explaining the psychology of how people can get swept up in the fervor of crowds. I am fully in support of arresting all who participated. But my point is that it is not reasonable to conclude that Trump's speech incited people to illegally invade the capitol, commit theft/vandalism, and assault officers. His speech literally had a line saying "peacefully protest". The vast majority of people hearing his speech did not break the law. So how can there be a conclusion that he incited people to break the law? Those who broke the law are independent humans who hold personal responsibility for their actions. Unless Trump explicitly urges them to commit crimes, charging him with incitement is wrong.
        • deleted 6y ago
• Darmody 6y ago
  Do you believe Fox News should be banned/censored? What about CNN? They are as biased as Fox News.
  • Griffinsauce 6y ago
    Yes but only one of those two lies more than it tells the truth and incites violence.
  • cgrealy 6y ago
    This is the fundamental problem in the US. There is a large group of people on the right that think that pointing out the objective issues with Trump is being "biased". Sometimes, there just aren't two sides to a story, or more accurately one side is true and the other believes they had the biggest inauguration crowd ever. The rest of the world clearly sees this. I'll openly admit to being a left-leaning liberal, but even my friends who vote right wing think that Trump is an embarrassment.
    • jeofken 6y ago
      > The rest of the world clearly sees this. I’d encourage speaking for yourself Kind regards (Part of) The rest of the world
    • AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      One of the most interesting things cable news networks do is compile clips of their competitors caught in acts of hypocrisy, self-contradiction, breathless hyperbole and blatant lying. They can all do this to each other because they are all guilty of it. Cable news is a tower of partisan propaganda.
      • creato 6y ago
        Social media has the exact same problem magnified 100 fold, because there is so much more content to cherrypick from. People only see the actions of extremists and attribute that behavior to everyone that doesn't agree with them. Traditional media definitely has flaws, but rejecting them in favor of social media because of it is an absurd and incredibly destructive reaction.
• ffggvv 6y ago
  what about all the lies that led to majors cities being looted and burned down all summer and the 19 deaths?
• ecommerceguy 6y ago
  I'd argue the reason these type of people are pissed off is because they have been incessantly attacked for 4 plus years while watching the media turn a blind eye to anything that disparages any minority or "protected class." We spent 10 MONTHS watching riots every day. DC was BURNING in July.
  • dboreham 6y ago
    No, they're pissed off due to whatever in their psychology. However, they're choosing to resort to violence due to lies being spread by Fox News et al. Other people were rioting due to truth about police actions. While all rioting is to be condemned, there isn't some symmetry between a scenario driven by lies and one driven by truth.
    • donatj 6y ago
      MLK said that violence was the language of the unheard. The silenced will turn to violence. That's not surprising in the least.
      • pmiller2 6y ago
        Oh, please. The people who elected the man who was President for the past 4 years are "the unheard?"
        • amanaplanacanal 6y ago
          To an extent they are, in that they elected him hoping to get something out of it, and he didn’t deliver much of anything useful. He conned them. Such is the way of politics sometimes.
          • pmiller2 6y ago
            Well, they saw that over the past 4 years and then voted for him again, so, I have no sympathy, and neither should anyone else.
• zozbot234 6y ago
  The underlying problem with this whole idea of banning "seditious lies/libel" is that it's not strategically consistent. If you ban people (especially political leaders!) from complaining that the election was stolen, what happens is that the next election will definitely be stolen, and no one will be able to do anything about it. Then that whole political side throws their support behind some military figure instead of a reality TV star, and that's how the real coup happens and how democracy dies. Game Over. This stuff has been thought over very thoroughly, a long time ago. It's not nearly as trivial as y'all seem to think it is.
  • spodek 6y ago
    > what happens is that the next election will definitely be stolen, and no one will be able to do anything about it People were open to evidence for some time, but none emerged. I expect people would react differently to claims backed with evidence.
    • crazign 6y ago
      > People were open to evidence for some time When was this, exactly? I tried posting what I believed was evidence of at least some ballot-counting fraud on HN once not so long ago, and my account was downvoted and flagged straight to hell. Your expectations appear to be out of sync with reality. Go look for the evidence. At least to convince yourself that there isn't any, because all of the evidence has been banned. (And in the time it took me to reply to your comment, it was downvoted for having the gall to suggest that evidence could even theoretically exist! JFC. That should change your mind if nothing else.)
    • zozbot234 6y ago
      I do agree that people react differently based on the strength of evidence, including via careful debate and deliberation. But the law (both actual law and the privatized law of Community Policies by the likes of Twitter) is a far blunter hammer. Attempts to ban "making false and malicious statements" will always come with plenty of collateral damage.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• camhart 6y ago
  Both sides have media working for them. Both are bias. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings The issue is people only ever consuming one side.
  • newacct00 6y ago
    No, no, no. I literally made an account to comment on how wrong this is. Both sides are biased ignores the little matter of degree. One side is completely unmoored from reality in a way that the other simply isn’t. One side promotes conspiracy theories and lies from the top down. Both sides is a way to make yourself feel smart without critically examining on a deeper level what those biases are, how widely they’re consumed, and how seriously they’re taken.
    • camhart 6y ago
      I'm 100% in favor of criticality examining on a deeper level. I'm confused about how you disagree with me or how my comment is wrong. I'm trying to encourage people to listen to both sides.
      • ModernMech 6y ago
        I think what the above poster is reacting to is the distribution of news sources on this chart. It makes it seem like MSNBC and OAN are equal and opposite. I consume news from a great many of these sources. The only actual leftist news source I recognize on here is Jacobin. The New Yorker and MSNBC don't have a lot of content espousing the ideals of socialism and communism. Meanwhile, you'll be hard pressed to find any daylight between the news sources in the "Right" column and Trumpism.
        • camhart 6y ago
          They describe how they come to their ratings at https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-methods https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-method.... They also describe what it means to be "left" vs "lean left" vs "right" vs "lean right", etc. See https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/left https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/left and https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/right https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/right (there are also ones for lean l/r, and center). Now I'm sure these ratings aren't perfect, but I believe they're more accurate than most people's hunches.
• antifreeze0 6y ago
  And CNN always tells the truth, right?
  • dang 6y ago
    We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. Please don't create accounts to do that with. Yes, the rules are the same regardless of which side an account is battling for. There's nothing worse for HN than accounts which have abandoned curiosity and entered here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • antifreeze0 6y ago
      I assume then you banned the poster who I was replying to as well. Since all I did was replace “Fox News” with “CNN” in his statement.
• KorematsuFred 6y ago
  I am Fox news viewer. Fox news has much greater diversity of opinion compared to CNN or MSNBC and some of it like say Tucker happens to be more on the loonie side but then some of the best criticism of GOP I have seen is from the Fox news. The progressive media all appears to be singing a very common elitist tune all the time. While I think, all platforms should have the right to censor whatever content they wish to, it always goes other way, platforms should also be free to have all sort of content including what I might think as a "lie". All this mess will result into a better internet where people will figure out more "uncacelllable" solutions to propagate what people call "lies".
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
  As much as people rail on Fox News, OAN is much more concerning and rising in popularity.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• Grustaf 6y ago
  Only unbiased, truthful sources like CNN should be allowed, right?
  • baq 6y ago
    and this is how russian psyops win: people either stop believing anything or call for permanent free for all disguised as free speech.
    • Grustaf 6y ago
      Yes the Russians tricked people into thinking CNN was biased, while all reasonable people know that it's completely neutral. Just like Komsomolskaya Pravda. People who thought they were biased were clearly indoctrinated by capitalist lies.
      • baq 6y ago
        nope, the russian agenda is for west democracy citizens to stop believing in any source of information. it works spectacularly well.
  • e40 6y ago
    Of course not. Are you trolling?
• ChrisRR 6y ago
  As a brit, Fox news fascinates me. Because every clip of it I watch is so clearly opinion piece propaganda, they don't even pretend like they're reporting the news Even our "equivalent", the Murdoch owned Sky News channel is nowhere near as bad as Fox news
  • cortexio 6y ago
    That's naive, it's litterally every big news org in america. CNN, MSBC, NYT, WAPO, HUFPO, FOX, CBS. Their level of propaganda is insane. At this point im convinced they are paid to do so. Then you have NBC, they are also biased, but not that much And im not sure about ABC yet, i havent read their news much, but if i read their headlines, it seems they are actually reporting news. As in neutral. But i could be wrong.
  • pmyteh 6y ago
    We're about to get our own: News UK News (from Murdoch) and GB News (fronted by Andrew Neil) are starting, expressly on the Fox News model. It was thought until quite recently that the requirements for 'due impartiality' and 'due accuracy' in the Broadcast Code precluded expressly partisan TV news (unlike newspapers). But these two have been licenced anyway, so clearly not.
    • intended 6y ago
      Wow. There’s 300 mn people in the UK and 66 mn in the UK. Id worry that polarizing people would take no time at all.
    • M2Ys4U 6y ago
      Ofcom explicitly can't take pre-emptive action around content issues - the offending content must be actually broadcast before they can do anything. They can decide that a person is not "fit and proper" to hold a broadcast license, but that's a fairly large hurdle to overcome (and it is, of course, judicially reviewable). To be honest, this is how it should be. A presumption in favour of broadcasting, but with the ability to shut a broadcast down for repeated and/or egregious violations.
  • 6y ago
• narcissismo 6y ago
  I sometimes wonder how I would feel if my deliberate lies caused so many deaths. Maybe the profit would make up for the pain - or one could indulge in a fantasy that the destruction would ultimately improve the human condition. If my illusions were broken - even for a second - I would certainly die of shame.
  • MisterTea 6y ago
    > If my illusions were broken - even for a second - I would certainly die of shame. Its hard to think about such dreadful things when you're on your yacht or golf course.