No, the government hasn’t ordered such a thing, but some (including in this thread) are proposing that they do. Here is the constitutional issue:
At least as of this article from 2013, they also broadcast over the air.
Fox News Channel, where the debate occurred, doesn’t broadcast over the air.
You’ve heard of cable channels, right?
So I didn’t know that Fox News is kept carefully insulated from broadcast rules.
Big, fucking deal.
You are still confusing compelled speech with compelled broadcast.
No one can legally compel another o speak.
Once a speech has been arranged for the purposes of being broadcast, compelling an agency to make that broadcast available to the nation does not appear to be covered by the Constitution. No one is suggesting that any candidate be compelled to speak. The question is whether Congress could establish an organization that would be compelled to broadcast speeches that were already being made. Private organizations would be exempt from such a law, but there is nothing to prevent the government from creating such an organization.
It’s a perfectly good analogy. The (cable) network is not in the business of making sure that everyone has access to news. The bandwidth argument might hold for over-the-air broadcasts, but with cable and internet streaming, there is no “limited bandwidth” claim to make. If they have to provide their premium product for free, then you are forcing them to give away a service that is worth a certain amount of money. Making them provide cash is the same thing.
Besides, the network can simply decide NOT to host the debate at all. If they can decide to do that, they can decide to provide it in limit amounts.
If I’m understanding this site correctly, the debate is freely available to watch over the internet now.
If a cable channel is going to allow free access to the debate a day or two later, it’s a lot harder to make the case that they an obligation to also allow free access to it in real time.
But this thread has me curious: is this the first major presidential debate that has not been broadcast over the air (in the TV era)?
It’s not my fault that you apparently live in a self-induced bubble. :smack:
Yes, the government can create such an organization. Why would anyone trust them, though?
Could as well be an issue of private property. Though whether Fox News is the private property of the Republican Party or the other way round is a bit problematic.
Well that settles that!
Ooh. Snap.
Okay, my mistake. I was thinking about the news division of the Fox network. But you’re right - the OP said it was a cable network.
CNN hosted one of the 2012 general election debates.
The 2012 Republican primary debate schedule is awash with cable news networks as sponsors- Fox News, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC. There’s an NBC co-sponsor with MSNBC in that list so presumably that one was broadcast OTA.
It certainly doesn’t look like the first, let alone uncommon, unless all of those cable network sponsors had a deal to simulcast with unnamed network sponsors. Normally a primary debate before Labor day is hard to characterize as major since few pay attenion. This debate was major in terms of those that tuned in even in comparison to general election debates. That might have more to do with the perception that it was somehow unique in being a cable event. People actually knew it was happening and actively sought out how to watch.
So another poster doesn’t know the difference between broadcast and cable.
Smartest people on the internet!
I think that’s a bit disingenuous. That’s not reasonably within the parameters of what a broadcaster does. It also would not be practical for a whole host of reasons, whereas allowing other broadcasters to simulcast, or even just putting it on Fox’ own OTA channels (where they would retain at least some of the ad revenue) seems like a minor concession to the public good.
Just to follow up on a few posts regarding availability on-line
When I found, to my surprise, that the local Fox affiliate wasn’t carrying the debate, I googled, trying to find it online. It was officially available only to subscribers. I found a few questionable sites claiming to stream it (illegally, I believe) but none were working. I see where Miller says he found one, but I had no such luck.
God Damn. FNC is not the same as local affiliates. This isn’t rocket surgery.
Why don’t you dial back the attitude? I am well aware that they are separate entities. I am also well aware that FNC is a cable channel. I presume that there is some relationship, however, and I had expected they would simulcast on the Fox network affiliates. They did not.
Why you think you’re so much smarter than anyone else is beyond me, since the basis of this conceit seems predicated on my not understanding something that I do, in fact, understand.
The attitude is unwelcome and unwarranted.
ETA: Looking it up, there is in fact a relationship. Both are owned by Fox Entertainment Group, as I had expected.
Good to see you’re focused on the important issues.