It can be pretty easy:
FOX issued a correction later in the show but that came nowhere near the time given on the bogus number.
Deliberate misdirection. Deliberate lying.
Getting that right is not hard.
You say lie , they say mistake. Good luck proving they lied deliberately rather than screwing up. The correction never gets as much airtime or prominent space as the original error, but Fox did run a corrected graphic and Kilmeade said on air that he’d gotten it wrong. It’s a dumbass error if it was an error, but all you’ve proved is that they’re bad journalists, not that they are liars.
Absolutely not true. I was around before it was scrapped. All it did was allow a time for an opposing view to be presented. The idea being that airways are the property of the people , all the people. They are not owned by the corporations who control them.
Sometimes a view that I as against presented a good argument. How can that be wrong. Educating the people to other opinions is a good thing.
Yes, it can be. But most of the time it isn’t. And how would an example from Fox News impact a law aimed at broadcast stations?
Some people want right wing lies. Even if you are successful preventing them on broadcast channels, you will simply move those who seek such lies towards cable TV and satellite radio.
So in essence, all support for the Fairness Doctrine will be is corporate welfare for Comcast and Time Warner.
Apparently correct information is not working as you would like it to:
If FOX broadcasts on satellite or Over-the-Air then it applies (using public airwaves).
If they want a different show on cable then not much to be done about that.
They’ll just have to split their news broadcasts to cable and everything else or give up on the broadcast spectrum. I doubt they would do that.
This is the big problem, and it sucks. More than ever, people want their news to tell them whatever they want to hear. Good luck fixing that, along with the proliferation of blogs, podcasts, and satellite channels, with FCC rules.
Are you sure broadcast rules (such as Red Lion) apply to satellite providers?
You’re sidestepping the issue here. Der Trihs is making the claim that the media have a right wing political bias, absent controls from the government, as they are owned by members of the wealthy elite, who tend to be conservative, who use their influence as owners of the media to see that their political views are advanced, and those of others are not. So if there is no government control, the default bias of the media will be conservative, liberal viewpoints or even moderate ones will not get a fair shake. I can see a number of possible responses to his argument that might answer it or at least require him to further support his position, but your argument is not one of them.
Actually no, I am not now I think more about it.
They use public airwaves but the signal is encrypted so only available to subscribers.
Given that they do allow nudity and swearing on satellite channels I suppose they are not regulated in this fashion.
I’d have to look it up.
I would say that more than ever people are influenced by massive media campaigns run through right -wing “news” programs to believe certain things. To deny this is to deny the power of modern advertising techniques.
They’ve admitted to being liars; IIRC they were denied a broadcast license in Britain because they lost a court case where they claimed they had a right to lie; the court disagreed.
Fox News isn’t considered an actual news organization anywhere outside of the US as far as I know. It’s the American, Republican version of Pravda.
I don’t need to. I find it unconstitutional. I don’t care if nothing horrible happened when the FD was in place. I don’t want my news to have a government filter attached to it.
This is an excellent point. Our political environment is already polarized. It’s hard enough for opinions not on the left-right axis to get media time. An enforced “fairness” between “the two sides” would prevent them from getting any airtime at all.
Let the people say what they want, and let them listen to who they want.
I think you could prove a pattern of falsehoods.
It is one thing to get something wrong once a year.
It is another when there is a consistent pattern of lies and misdirection which I think should be considered (if sanctions were possible).
Look at the link I just gave for that cite. There is a laundry list of misdirection on there.
I also would be happy with a rule that any correction be given at least as much time as discussion of the original mistake entailed. If you must issue a correction give it equal time.
I just want to add that Fox and its ilk isn’t telling people what they want to hear so much as they are telling people what they want to hear. Shout the lie and whisper the truth, then claim balance-this works for them.
Then you should be against regulations that mandate media give climate-change-deniers fair media coverage. I don’t want fair and balanced coverage, I want the media to be biased against ignorance.
So instead you have a Republican, corporate filter. This is an improvement how?
It’s not, in and of itself…
But (isn’t there always a but) if you have government censorship of news it will be censorship by whoever controls government. Which is corporate America. If you have no government censorship, then while mainstream media is seen through a corporate filter, it at least creates the possibility of independent, grass roots media.