3 ms·

Fox [News] lurches further to the right to win back ‘hard-edge’ Trump supporters

1 points by samizdis 6y ago

aurizon 6y ago
Snakebit - doomed to die - or change by dumping the far right dead-wood
samizdis 6y ago
In the UK, we have a state "media watchdog", Ofcom, with regulations governing news output. Section Five of the Broadcasting Code, for instance, concerns "due impartiality and accuracy" for news outlets: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-five-due-impartiality-accuracy https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-co... Does the US have anything like this? I've tried searching for similar regulations covering news (via the Federal Communications Commission), but can't find anything. Indecency seems to figure in regulations, but not accuracy in news, which I suppose might be some First Amendment precedent. Any info/pointers to info etc would be appreciated.
- jfengel 6y ago
  We definitely do not. It pretty much all gets lumped under the First Amendment: you're allowed to say any s### you want. About the only limits are inciting people to violence and libel, but both of those are held to really strong scrutiny and it's very hard to prove. There used to be a thing called the Fairness Doctrine[1], but it disappeared a long time ago, and it was very limited. It only applied in the domain of public airwaves (the government could make your license contingent it), and it never applied at all to cable or the Internet. It's still "illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news"[2], but cable news isn't broadcast. There is an often cited case[3] that the media is legally allowed to lie. That's not what happened, but the story doesn't make the media look great. (The fact that it's a Fox affiliate is also conflated with Fox News Channel, which it isn't; the two are related but this story as generally reported is wrong.) What they did eventually say is that the editors have the right to do pretty much whatever they want, including firing journalists trying to blow the whistle. So basically there's nothing in the US preventing outright lying. That's octuply true when it comes to something they can consider "opinion", but it's up to you to notice when something is opinion. As the judge put it recently[4]: "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable." Note that the only reason this came up at all is because it would be considered slander against a person. But since it's "opinion" it can't be slander. Other falsehoods just don't even get subjected to that level. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine [2] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadcasting-false-information https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadcasting-false-info... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre [4] 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-...
  - samizdis 6y ago
    Much appreciated, I am far clearer on the state of play for having read the links that you supplied. Clearer, but still thinking "wut?"; maybe even more so than before. In your second link, to FCC consumer guides re broadcasting false information, it says, "It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge." And yes, I understand that this is for broadcasters - as in airwaves, the ether - but not for cable. What I do not understand, though, is why programming labelled and presented as "news", regardless of medium of transmission, distribution or platform, can't just be brought under that umbrella. Look where things have got to now; or I should say that from this side of the pond it doesn't look too healthy. As a metaphor (not a good one, I'll admit), if I go to a supermarket and buy a steak pie, and its label tells me that it is steak, then I have consumer rights guaranteeing that it is steak. If I were to go to a petrol (gas) station vending machine and buy a pie labelled steak, I would still expect it to be steak - and to have some right of redress if it were horse [1]. The outlet shouldn't affect anything. Food - and media products - presented for me to consume are available in many more places, outlets, delivery methods and via different technologies nowadays than when legislation was written. Thanks again for your time and trouble. Apologies for the metaphor, but it comes all too easily, if queasily, to us Brits: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal
    - jfengel 6y ago
      The only reason they're able to regulate broadcast at all is because it's a scarce resource. Since only a few people could use it, they were able to get away with regulating them. Even they don't really use it: AM radio is full of outright hate speech, which is also legal as long as it can have any kind of fig leaf as "opinion". Other than that, there's really no limits at all. The First Amendment is pretty clear about that. They were more afraid of having the government clamp down on legitimate dissent than they were on illegitimate dissent. They had, after all, just fought a revolution, and one of the complaints was about newspaper and pamphlet publishers being suppressed. So you get to say anything you want, and if anything "news" gets even more leeway. It does feel like false advertising to say "Here is the news: grass is purple, llamas are a kind of tulip". I don't know if anybody has ever tried to apply false advertising to news media. It's kind of remarkable that false advertising is regulated at all, given the sacred place they give the First Amendment[1] -- and here[2] is a right wing think tank saying it's wrong. Yeah, that's pretty horrifying. As far as the Cato Institute is concerned, it should be perfectly legal to sell you horse meat labeled as beef. They'd probably tell you that it's up to you to do genetic testing on your meat, or maybe sign a contract with the grocer so that you can sue them for breach of contract. If you don't have a contract with Fox News to tell the truth, it's your problem. And if you live in a country where half the people believe a conspiracy theory promoted by freely-available news, that's also your problem. [1] https://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html https://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html [2] https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/contrived-distinctions-doctrine-commercial-speech-first-amendment-jurisprudence https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/contrived-distinctions-...

1 points by samizdis 6y ago

Snakebit - doomed to die - or change by dumping the far right dead-wood

In the UK, we have a state "media watchdog", Ofcom, with regulations governing news output. Section Five of the Broadcasting Code, for instance, concerns "due impartiality and accuracy" for news outlets: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-five-due-impartiality-accuracy https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-co... Does the US have anything like this? I've tried searching for similar regulations covering news (via the Federal Communications Commission), but can't find anything. Indecency seems to figure in regulations, but not accuracy in news, which I suppose might be some First Amendment precedent. Any info/pointers to info etc would be appreciated.

jfengel 6y ago
We definitely do not. It pretty much all gets lumped under the First Amendment: you're allowed to say any s### you want. About the only limits are inciting people to violence and libel, but both of those are held to really strong scrutiny and it's very hard to prove. There used to be a thing called the Fairness Doctrine[1], but it disappeared a long time ago, and it was very limited. It only applied in the domain of public airwaves (the government could make your license contingent it), and it never applied at all to cable or the Internet. It's still "illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news"[2], but cable news isn't broadcast. There is an often cited case[3] that the media is legally allowed to lie. That's not what happened, but the story doesn't make the media look great. (The fact that it's a Fox affiliate is also conflated with Fox News Channel, which it isn't; the two are related but this story as generally reported is wrong.) What they did eventually say is that the editors have the right to do pretty much whatever they want, including firing journalists trying to blow the whistle. So basically there's nothing in the US preventing outright lying. That's octuply true when it comes to something they can consider "opinion", but it's up to you to notice when something is opinion. As the judge put it recently[4]: "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable." Note that the only reason this came up at all is because it would be considered slander against a person. But since it's "opinion" it can't be slander. Other falsehoods just don't even get subjected to that level. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine [2] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadcasting-false-information https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadcasting-false-info... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre [4] 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-...
- samizdis 6y ago
  Much appreciated, I am far clearer on the state of play for having read the links that you supplied. Clearer, but still thinking "wut?"; maybe even more so than before. In your second link, to FCC consumer guides re broadcasting false information, it says, "It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge." And yes, I understand that this is for broadcasters - as in airwaves, the ether - but not for cable. What I do not understand, though, is why programming labelled and presented as "news", regardless of medium of transmission, distribution or platform, can't just be brought under that umbrella. Look where things have got to now; or I should say that from this side of the pond it doesn't look too healthy. As a metaphor (not a good one, I'll admit), if I go to a supermarket and buy a steak pie, and its label tells me that it is steak, then I have consumer rights guaranteeing that it is steak. If I were to go to a petrol (gas) station vending machine and buy a pie labelled steak, I would still expect it to be steak - and to have some right of redress if it were horse [1]. The outlet shouldn't affect anything. Food - and media products - presented for me to consume are available in many more places, outlets, delivery methods and via different technologies nowadays than when legislation was written. Thanks again for your time and trouble. Apologies for the metaphor, but it comes all too easily, if queasily, to us Brits: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal
  - jfengel 6y ago
    The only reason they're able to regulate broadcast at all is because it's a scarce resource. Since only a few people could use it, they were able to get away with regulating them. Even they don't really use it: AM radio is full of outright hate speech, which is also legal as long as it can have any kind of fig leaf as "opinion". Other than that, there's really no limits at all. The First Amendment is pretty clear about that. They were more afraid of having the government clamp down on legitimate dissent than they were on illegitimate dissent. They had, after all, just fought a revolution, and one of the complaints was about newspaper and pamphlet publishers being suppressed. So you get to say anything you want, and if anything "news" gets even more leeway. It does feel like false advertising to say "Here is the news: grass is purple, llamas are a kind of tulip". I don't know if anybody has ever tried to apply false advertising to news media. It's kind of remarkable that false advertising is regulated at all, given the sacred place they give the First Amendment[1] -- and here[2] is a right wing think tank saying it's wrong. Yeah, that's pretty horrifying. As far as the Cato Institute is concerned, it should be perfectly legal to sell you horse meat labeled as beef. They'd probably tell you that it's up to you to do genetic testing on your meat, or maybe sign a contract with the grocer so that you can sue them for breach of contract. If you don't have a contract with Fox News to tell the truth, it's your problem. And if you live in a country where half the people believe a conspiracy theory promoted by freely-available news, that's also your problem. [1] https://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html https://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html [2] https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/contrived-distinctions-doctrine-commercial-speech-first-amendment-jurisprudence https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/contrived-distinctions-...