So the FCC chair is threatening networks that broadcast unfavorable news

[WorldWatcher]

No the first amendment doesn't give anyone the right to a broadcast license.

No one is saying that there is a right to broadcast license. What the first amendment protects is being punished by removal of a license for not carrying the administrations water.

Big difference.

WW

 

[struth]

Not at all. He’s unaccountable to anyone, so he’s no reason to agree to a truth he doesn’t like.

It’s weird that’s how you think

But telling

 

[BlindBoo]

Because the Fairness Doctrine shows this has been an ongoing issue for decades. The Fairness Doctrine tried to force media compliance or they could lose their FCC license, which was government regulating free speech. The left was all for it because the radio airwaves were primarily right wing politics and they wanted to neutralize what they called propaganda, the same thing we have going on today. Except the roles are reversed.

Rabid Right Radio had not made it's mark when Raygun scraped the Fairness Doctrine. Scraping it was one of the reasons for RRR's ascension.

Why did we have it. No cable!

"American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people."

— Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927
A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a…frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

Despite plenty of opportunity, the left never reinstated the fairness doctrine.

Because of the eclectic nature of Cable and now Streaming News, most. if not all, of which are not broadcast networks.

I don't we need it back. But here is some real history about it

The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost It and Why We Need It Back

American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a…

sisyphuslitmag.org

 

[airplanemechanic]

No one is saying that there is a right to broadcast license. What the first amendment protects is being punished by removal of a license for not carrying the administrations water.

Big difference.

WW

No, it doesn't. The first amendment has NOTHING to do with FCC licenses.

Nice try.

 

[Marener]

No, it doesn't. The first amendment has NOTHING to do with FCC licenses.

Nice try.

Absolutely wrong.

 

[BlindBoo]

Well they have to determine what the facts are, when they are determining if the network was or is distorting the news

Broadcast News Distortion

Broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC states that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest."

www.fcc.gov

The FCC has had a policy against "news distortion" in over-the-air broadcast (local TV and radio stations) news for over 50 years. Cable news networks, newspapers or newsletters (whether online or print), social media platforms, online-only streaming outlets, or any other non-broadcast news platform are outside of the FCC's jurisdiction with respect to news distortion.

News distortion "must involve a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news report." In weighing the constitutionality of the policy, courts have recognized that the policy "makes a crucial distinction between deliberate distortion and mere inaccuracy or difference of opinion." As a result, broadcasters are only subject to enforcement if it can be proven that they have deliberately distorted a factual news report. Expressions of opinion or errors stemming from mistakes are not actionable.

Like intentionally lying, on air, about voting machines. Faux Not News doesn't have an FCC broadcasting license, so they can, and do, air distorted news and outright lies to millions.

 

[Zincwarrior]

It’s weird you think that
Yes I am

But we are discussing Fox News which is a cable news network

And those affiliate stations, which is what the FCCC is threatening.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, it doesn't. The first amendment has NOTHING to do with FCC licenses.

Nice try.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a…frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

 

[WEATHER53]

And who determines what his “actual occurrent (sic) events”?

The gubment?

Reality of occurrence determines that and figures Leash would not know that

 

[struth]

Like intentionally lying, on air, about voting machines. Faux Not News doesn't have an FCC broadcasting license, so they can, and do, air distorted news and outright lies to millions.

They aren’t in the jurisdiction since they aren’t a broadcast network

 

[WEATHER53]

No one is saying that there is a right to broadcast license. What the first amendment protects is being punished by removal of a license for not carrying the administrations water.

Big difference.

WW

Just report what actually occurs
Very easy to do
They don’t

 

[Lesh]

Fox News is not at broadcast network you idiot.

Yes the FCC certainly has the power and right to do fact checks, in fact that's their job

Fox News is part of Fox the broadcast network

Just like any other

 

[struth]

And those affiliate stations, which is what the FCCC is threatening.

News distortion is against the law for broadcast networks and they can lose their licience if they do it

 

[struth]

Fox News is part of Fox the broadcast network

Just like any other

Fox News is a cable network and not subject to the same rules as broadcast stations

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, it doesn't. The first amendment has NOTHING to do with FCC licenses.

Nice try.

It does have to do with an attempt at government retribution/punishment.

I know, it's a very good point.

WW

 

[Rawley]

Fox has broadcast news shows also.

On local level, sure.

 

[struth]

It does have to do with an attempt at government retribution/punishment.

I know, it's a very good point.

WW

When a lisensee violates the law they get punished

It’s not a first amendment issue, nobody is saying they don’t have a right to distort the news if you want

People do it all the time on here, but you don’t have a right to a broadcast license

 

[WorldWatcher]

When a lisensee violates the law they get punished

It’s not a first amendment issue, nobody is saying they don’t have a right to distort the news if you want

People do it all the time on here, but you don’t have a right to a broadcast license

Welp, we are at the point of repeating ourselves.

Actually, I'd love to see Trump try to pull the licenses. He'd get ***** slapped by the courts in a hot minute.

You have my persmission to repeat you view as the final word.

WW

 

[Zincwarrior]

On local level, sure.

Admittedly I haven't watched the local Fox station much in decades. However, they used to show national news and other shows.

 

[struth]

Welp, we are at the point of repeating ourselves.

Actually, I'd love to see Trump try to pull the licenses. He'd get ***** slapped by the courts in a hot minute.

You have my persmission to repeat you view as the final word.

WW

Not if they were distorting the news

You have no right to a broadcast license