5 ms·

This feels like an overreach, maybe. The FCC does have the strange task of regulating "false information" [1], but in practice I don't think that gets invoked v

This feels like an overreach, maybe. The FCC does have the strange task of regulating "false information" [1], but in practice I don't think that gets invoked very often (I'm sure morning DJs would be fired en masse if they were actually held to the standard of proven, objective truth!) I'm hoping that this is just the high watermark, and not the new standard. [1] - https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcasting_false_information.pdf https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcasting_false_i...

kccoder 1y ago
It’s absolutely an overreach and there’s no chance this is the high water mark. Things are going to get much, much worse before there’s any hope of things calming down.
foogazi 1y ago
> feels like an overreach, maybe How can it not be an overreach ?
zzzeek 1y ago
that "maybe" could power a medium sized city
ggregoire 1y ago
The chair of the FCC went live on Fox News, of all channels, to argue that ABC is alienating his audience. [1] You can't make this stuff up. [1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/fcc-chair-brendan-carr-defends-abc-affiliates-pulling-jimmy-kimmel-show-after-monologue-mocking-charlie-kirk https://www.foxnews.com/media/fcc-chair-brendan-carr-defends...
- sigwinch 1y ago
  Almost sounds like a canned reaction to, say, threatening a network over covering leaked Epstein details. Other late night hosts better watch themselves or the FCC might accuse them of “alienating their audience”.
daveguy 1y ago
It feels like an overreach because it is.
mslt 1y ago
“Maybe?” Regulating “false information?” There was no false information and the substance of the clip is just video of a person responding to a question.
- plusmax1 1y ago
  If regulating false information is actually a part of the FCCs job, Fox "News" should have been shut down long ago.
  - kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
    FCC doesn't regulate cable stations. Local municipalities do have contracts with cable companies for enforcing community standards. Would be funny if blue cities just started forcing Faux News to be dropped as a matter of preventing dissemination of harmful lies and distortions.
    - abustamam 1y ago
      As much as I dislike Faux News (I dislike CNN too, and I lean left), I feel like silencing "fake news" is a slippery slope because for one reason or another, the US population doesn't understand what "facts" are, so red cities would probably just drop CNN on the pretense of it being "fake news," and then everyone just gets forced into their little bubbles and everyone loses.
jacquesm 1y ago
> The FCC does have the strange task of regulating "false information" https://progressive.org/op-eds/weve-always-known-fox-news-isnt-news-whitney-230309/ https://progressive.org/op-eds/weve-always-known-fox-news-is... I guess Fox is next then. After all, the FCC is definitely not going to be found anything less than even handed.
uncircle 1y ago
> I'm hoping that this is just the high watermark, and not the new standard. I’ve been hearing a variation of this for at least 9 months. Can’t help but see Americans as frogs in the boiling water. Surely it can’t get hotter than this, can it?
LeafItAlone 1y ago
> I'm hoping that this is just the high watermark, and not the new standard. How long until Fallon and Myers after the president all but threatened them? Guess we’ll find out how high this water will go.
bitshiftfaced 1y ago
If I'm understanding it correctly, the FCC didn't actually do anything here. The FCC chairman made, at worst, a threat. ABC immediately pulled the show, and news article's link this to license approvals and such. But if the FCC actually strong armed the media due to political reasons, would it stand up in the courts? Disney has more than enough money to fight it. One possibility is that they're using this as an opportunity to cut the show, which maybe they were leaning towards anyway. It effectively redirects blame to the FCC instead of the company that actually made the decision.
- justin66 1y ago
  This reads as if you're unaware of the upcoming merger some of the parties involved would very much like the FCC to approve.
  - bitshiftfaced 1y ago
    How often is there not some upcoming deal with some media company that has political content? It's not unusual at all, yet ABC is completely absolved of any responsibility in this case apparently.
- Smeevy 1y ago
  They "didn't do anything" in the same way that a mob boss saying that someone should be "dealt with" didn't mean for that someone to be murdered.
mcintyre1994 1y ago
Have you read that document? > The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired. > FCC rules specifically say that the “public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.” > Broadcasters may air disclaimers that clearly characterize programming as fiction to avoid violating FCC rules about public harm. It’s very obvious that Kimmel didn’t cause, and couldn’t have caused, any public harm.

kccoder 1y ago

It’s absolutely an overreach and there’s no chance this is the high water mark. Things are going to get much, much worse before there’s any hope of things calming down.

foogazi 1y ago

> feels like an overreach, maybe How can it not be an overreach ?

zzzeek 1y ago

that "maybe" could power a medium sized city

ggregoire 1y ago

The chair of the FCC went live on Fox News, of all channels, to argue that ABC is alienating his audience. [1] You can't make this stuff up. [1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/fcc-chair-brendan-carr-defends-abc-affiliates-pulling-jimmy-kimmel-show-after-monologue-mocking-charlie-kirk https://www.foxnews.com/media/fcc-chair-brendan-carr-defends...

sigwinch 1y ago
Almost sounds like a canned reaction to, say, threatening a network over covering leaked Epstein details. Other late night hosts better watch themselves or the FCC might accuse them of “alienating their audience”.

daveguy 1y ago

It feels like an overreach because it is.

mslt 1y ago

“Maybe?” Regulating “false information?” There was no false information and the substance of the clip is just video of a person responding to a question.

plusmax1 1y ago
If regulating false information is actually a part of the FCCs job, Fox "News" should have been shut down long ago.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
  FCC doesn't regulate cable stations. Local municipalities do have contracts with cable companies for enforcing community standards. Would be funny if blue cities just started forcing Faux News to be dropped as a matter of preventing dissemination of harmful lies and distortions.
  - abustamam 1y ago
    As much as I dislike Faux News (I dislike CNN too, and I lean left), I feel like silencing "fake news" is a slippery slope because for one reason or another, the US population doesn't understand what "facts" are, so red cities would probably just drop CNN on the pretense of it being "fake news," and then everyone just gets forced into their little bubbles and everyone loses.

jacquesm 1y ago

> The FCC does have the strange task of regulating "false information" https://progressive.org/op-eds/weve-always-known-fox-news-isnt-news-whitney-230309/ https://progressive.org/op-eds/weve-always-known-fox-news-is... I guess Fox is next then. After all, the FCC is definitely not going to be found anything less than even handed.

uncircle 1y ago

> I'm hoping that this is just the high watermark, and not the new standard. I’ve been hearing a variation of this for at least 9 months. Can’t help but see Americans as frogs in the boiling water. Surely it can’t get hotter than this, can it?

LeafItAlone 1y ago

> I'm hoping that this is just the high watermark, and not the new standard. How long until Fallon and Myers after the president all but threatened them? Guess we’ll find out how high this water will go.

bitshiftfaced 1y ago

If I'm understanding it correctly, the FCC didn't actually do anything here. The FCC chairman made, at worst, a threat. ABC immediately pulled the show, and news article's link this to license approvals and such. But if the FCC actually strong armed the media due to political reasons, would it stand up in the courts? Disney has more than enough money to fight it. One possibility is that they're using this as an opportunity to cut the show, which maybe they were leaning towards anyway. It effectively redirects blame to the FCC instead of the company that actually made the decision.

justin66 1y ago
This reads as if you're unaware of the upcoming merger some of the parties involved would very much like the FCC to approve.
- bitshiftfaced 1y ago
  How often is there not some upcoming deal with some media company that has political content? It's not unusual at all, yet ABC is completely absolved of any responsibility in this case apparently.
Smeevy 1y ago
They "didn't do anything" in the same way that a mob boss saying that someone should be "dealt with" didn't mean for that someone to be murdered.

mcintyre1994 1y ago

Have you read that document? > The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired. > FCC rules specifically say that the “public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.” > Broadcasters may air disclaimers that clearly characterize programming as fiction to avoid violating FCC rules about public harm. It’s very obvious that Kimmel didn’t cause, and couldn’t have caused, any public harm.