4 ms·

This has come up before for Fox News in the courts. They won. Because they are not a news channel and only air opinion pieces they aren't subject to the Fairn

This has come up before for Fox News in the courts. They won. Because they are not a news channel and only air opinion pieces they aren't subject to the Fairness Doctrine. Also, Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine so it doesn't really matter. Basically Fox is free to lie as much as they like and it's perfectly legal because some politicians found it to be beneficial. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-... https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-host-shepard-smith-opinion-commentators-entertainment-dont-really-847106 https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-host-shepard-smith-opinion... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-the-whole-newspaper_n_5c651a10e4b0233af971861e?guccounter=1 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-the-whole-newspa... Any time a Fox News host is pressed about their lies they fall back to the "nobody would believe these obvious lies" defense, and it works. Accountability is dead.

treeman79 6y ago
Ah, so glad that only one side lies. So nice of the other side to keep telling us constantly. Wonderful how we can trust big brother on everything.
- jandrese 6y ago
  The whatabboutism sure came quick. Dude, you messed up the playbook. Deny first then deflect. Or were there too many sources posted and you thought the denial would look silly? Also, put up or shut up. Find a legal case where an NBC, ABC, PBS, Washington Post, NYT, etc... reporter uses the "I only broadcast opinions so the truth doesn't matter" defense. I'm waiting.
  - barbacoa 6y ago
    No intension to get caught in a partisan flame war. I think both sides are pretty biased. MSNBC was sued for slander a little while back when Rachel Maddow said OAN (a right wing news organization) “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” That turned out not to be factually correct. MSNBC lawyers successful argued that what she said was just her opinion and didn't actually represent a factual statement.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      So did Rachel Maddow devote hours and hours of air time repeating her conspiracy theory over and over and bring on multiple supposed experts to also reassert the claim even after it was debunked? Or did she say it one time?
      - barbacoa 6y ago
        >>So did Rachel Maddow devote hours and hours of air time repeating her conspiracy theory over and over and bring on multiple supposed experts to also reassert the claim even after it was debunked? Yes, literally. https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/ https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-see...
        spacemanmatt 6y ago
        What I am willing to believe from a researching like Maddow is quite a different set of conclusions than what I think could be proven in court. Sources, evidence standards, procedures, etc. all designed to preserve rights are not the same environment as academic investigation.
gwbrooks 6y ago
It's questionable whether the Fairness Doctrine was ever an issue. It was originally established because the government owned the airwaves and leased them to broadcasters -- like a landlord, they could have standards. But the doctrine never applied to print publishers because the government didn't have a similar stake in that medium. Given that cable companies and the wires they use are all private, it seems unlikely they could be restricted under a revised Fairness Doctrine without running into 1A issues.

treeman79 6y ago

Ah, so glad that only one side lies. So nice of the other side to keep telling us constantly. Wonderful how we can trust big brother on everything.

jandrese 6y ago
The whatabboutism sure came quick. Dude, you messed up the playbook. Deny first then deflect. Or were there too many sources posted and you thought the denial would look silly? Also, put up or shut up. Find a legal case where an NBC, ABC, PBS, Washington Post, NYT, etc... reporter uses the "I only broadcast opinions so the truth doesn't matter" defense. I'm waiting.
- barbacoa 6y ago
  No intension to get caught in a partisan flame war. I think both sides are pretty biased. MSNBC was sued for slander a little while back when Rachel Maddow said OAN (a right wing news organization) “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” That turned out not to be factually correct. MSNBC lawyers successful argued that what she said was just her opinion and didn't actually represent a factual statement.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    So did Rachel Maddow devote hours and hours of air time repeating her conspiracy theory over and over and bring on multiple supposed experts to also reassert the claim even after it was debunked? Or did she say it one time?
    - barbacoa 6y ago
      >>So did Rachel Maddow devote hours and hours of air time repeating her conspiracy theory over and over and bring on multiple supposed experts to also reassert the claim even after it was debunked? Yes, literally. https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/ https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-see...
      - spacemanmatt 6y ago
        What I am willing to believe from a researching like Maddow is quite a different set of conclusions than what I think could be proven in court. Sources, evidence standards, procedures, etc. all designed to preserve rights are not the same environment as academic investigation.

gwbrooks 6y ago

It's questionable whether the Fairness Doctrine was ever an issue. It was originally established because the government owned the airwaves and leased them to broadcasters -- like a landlord, they could have standards. But the doctrine never applied to print publishers because the government didn't have a similar stake in that medium. Given that cable companies and the wires they use are all private, it seems unlikely they could be restricted under a revised Fairness Doctrine without running into 1A issues.