It isn't really a precedent; from [1] "When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal

It isn't really a precedent; from [1] "When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The FTC enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses" There already is a precedent for federal law mandating truth in information carried over media channels in specific situations. "That decision" you reference doesn't have to be a decision to drop/silence the media channel outright. The previous administration made continuous claims about fake news and media lies; if the current administration is talking about media disinformation and lies as well, that sounds like there's scope for a bi-partisan agreement[2] to hold media companies more accountable for "truth in reporting", like there are "truth in advertising" rules. Your position doesn't have to be "I agree these channels are garbage but in the interests of avoiding Facism all media should be allowed to lie without being held to account in any way". [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advert... [2] lol