3 ms·

The real injustice is that “news” can do what Fox did, and it doesn’t constitute a crime. At a minimum, They should lose their broadcast license if they are goi

The real injustice is that “news” can do what Fox did, and it doesn’t constitute a crime. At a minimum, They should lose their broadcast license if they are going to manufacture truth that threatens democracy.

anigbrowl 4y ago
Minor nitpick: FNN is a cable channel and thus does not require a license. however they're in the middle of renegotiating their fees with the cable companies, so if you are a cable customer and hate Rupert Murdoch, now is a good time to get on the phone with your cable company and whine about how you don't want to pay for Fox News as part of the basic package.
- ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
  So none of the BS was broadcast over public airwaves by Fox?
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Correct.
runnerup 4y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. I said exactly this to my friend earlier today. However, I immediately followed it up noting that any law like this will eventually be used maliciously. E.g. Party in power will say “CNN LIES!” and get DOJ to set up a sham trial. But even if it shouldn’t be possible for the ruling political party to infringe on free speech, it should also not be tenable to lie to millions of Americans this blatantly.
- conductr 4y ago
  It should be a law that’s hard to prove, like libel or something similar (not a legal expert). Or, laws specifically regarding elections (and maybe a few other matters). Even if they were forced to disclose their known misstatements (lies) publicly in someway that might help them collectively keep each other in honest. It might be similar to how public companies are required to have audits and report their results and whatnot. We in the public get information to help us determine what the truth is regarding stocks. Honestly just like the deregulation of finance introducing risks to banks and resulting Great Recession, the deregulation of fairness doctrine and other things are equally at fault for things like this happening IMO. We’re letting history repeat when we forget why such regulations were instituted to begin with.

anigbrowl 4y ago

Minor nitpick: FNN is a cable channel and thus does not require a license. however they're in the middle of renegotiating their fees with the cable companies, so if you are a cable customer and hate Rupert Murdoch, now is a good time to get on the phone with your cable company and whine about how you don't want to pay for Fox News as part of the basic package.

ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
So none of the BS was broadcast over public airwaves by Fox?
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Correct.

runnerup 4y ago

I wholeheartedly agree. I said exactly this to my friend earlier today. However, I immediately followed it up noting that any law like this will eventually be used maliciously. E.g. Party in power will say “CNN LIES!” and get DOJ to set up a sham trial. But even if it shouldn’t be possible for the ruling political party to infringe on free speech, it should also not be tenable to lie to millions of Americans this blatantly.

conductr 4y ago
It should be a law that’s hard to prove, like libel or something similar (not a legal expert). Or, laws specifically regarding elections (and maybe a few other matters). Even if they were forced to disclose their known misstatements (lies) publicly in someway that might help them collectively keep each other in honest. It might be similar to how public companies are required to have audits and report their results and whatnot. We in the public get information to help us determine what the truth is regarding stocks. Honestly just like the deregulation of finance introducing risks to banks and resulting Great Recession, the deregulation of fairness doctrine and other things are equally at fault for things like this happening IMO. We’re letting history repeat when we forget why such regulations were instituted to begin with.