“Regulators invited public comment on whether the US broadcast license for Fox Corp.’s TV station in Philadelphia should be renewed after a grassroots organization asked that it be denied, saying Fox knowingly broadcast false news about the 2020 election.”

  • TehPers@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, this should be a no brainer. Aren’t there regulations in place, regardless of amendment-this-or-that, on what can be broadcasted in the US as “news”? I’d have to go check, but regardless, knowingly spreading lies to manipulate your audience isn’t really something I’d consider news, just propaganda.

    • flipht@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      There used to be. It was called the fairness doctrine. It was introduced in 1949 and was abolished in 1987. It required news broadcasters to present controversial issues to fairly reflect differing viewpoints - in other words, you can’t have overt, blatant, “This will cause liberals to eat your babies” propaganda.

      There are some issues with it, but it’s clearly better than what we’re allowing now. The crux, though, is that it only matters for FCC-aligned issues, so actual broadcasting. Cable and internet sources would still be able to lie with impunity, and they make up a huge portion of our disinformation compared to what existed even in the early 2000s.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        When anything bad is introduced, 90% of the time the dates and data will point to The Reagan Administration. Truly the downfall of politics, environmentalism, and representation of the citizens in america.

        • TQuid@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          He’s the answer to the question in Mad Max: Fury Road. Obviously he had and has a lot of help, but so much comes back to him.

      • Omegamanthethird@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So, if one of the viewpoints of a controversial issue is based on falsehoods, would they be forced to present it as equal to the other viewpoint? Because if so, I don’t really see that as better.

        • flipht@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not exactly. The fairness would include allowing the other side it’s refutation on the facts.

          News companies have never been required to report falsehoods just because someone famous said them. They’ve chosen to do that since the fairness doctrine was upended, because it aligns with their corporate interests.

        • ArtZuron@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If the viewpoints are based on blatant falsehoods, then they really shouldn’t be presented at all IMO. That is to say, ideally that’s how it would be. It doesn’t really work like that IRL

      • TehPers@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Seems like now more than ever is a good time to bring back something to regulate these companies. At the very least, there should be a strong penalty to companies spreading misinformation.

        The article pointed out that there was a defamation lawsuit caused over lying about voting machine rigging. That should honestly be criminal, especially knowing what happened after that election.

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There are no special regulations on what constitutes a “news” broadcast in the US.

      If you lie in public, whether on TV or Facebook, you can be sued for defamation. Which is exactly what happened to Fox.

      In specific circumstances, you can be prosecuted for criminal libel but those circumstances do not apply to Fox.