Supposedly, the media was supposed to play a similar "watchdog" role. But the media is owned by the Robber-Barrons, just like the rest of our government.
Replies
The death of the fairness doctrine which Murdoch campaigned Reagan to do is another thing that led to all of this. The media are not held accountable for spreading lies anymore.
aug 24, 2025, 2:51 pm • 6 0 • view
The Fairness Doctrine never applied to “media” and never prevented lies.
aug 24, 2025, 4:05 pm • 8 0 • view
Lies masquerading as news is however against the law -- faux got around that by exploiting the stupidity of federal judges.
aug 24, 2025, 4:16 pm • 2 0 • view
Nope. Most lies are protected speech. Defamation and fraud are exceptions, but they have very specific elements.
aug 24, 2025, 4:18 pm • 6 0 • view
Not when they're claiming to be news. Opinion is, but news is not. One of faux' tricks is to show actual news... At night when no one watching, and in court claim that it's all bullshit anyway. Literally
aug 24, 2025, 4:32 pm • 1 0 • view
-- faux used "no reasonable person would believe anything our anchors say" as a defense in court... And since american judges are mostly chosen for their stupidity, that worked in court.
aug 24, 2025, 4:32 pm • 0 0 • view
No - they said reasonable people know Carlson is an opinion show. MSNBC used the same defense of Maddow. And it has nothing to do with judicial “stupidity” and everything to do with the actual law.
aug 24, 2025, 5:30 pm • 3 0 • view
Wrong, on both counts. Are you a republican? Faux news junkie? That's about the only kind of person who would attempt such an idiotic bit of both sidesism.
aug 24, 2025, 8:00 pm • 1 0 • view
Yes - there is only one kind of person who cares about facts - and it’s not Republicans, Fox News junkies, or you.
aug 24, 2025, 8:17 pm • 2 0 • view
You know, these are objective facts which are trivially-findable with a web search and if you actually cared about facts and thus did so, you would find both quotes from the judge's decision in the Carlson/Fox case saying exactly what you're denying 1/
aug 24, 2025, 8:23 pm • 3 0 • view
and articles about the Maddow/MSNBC case that quote the judge in *that* case saying basically the same things as the judge in the Carlson/Fox case. But since you so obviously don't care about the facts or the truth I expect you never actually did so. 2/2
aug 24, 2025, 8:24 pm • 2 0 • view
FOX News is a **cable channel**, not a broadcast station. They do not carry an FCC license and are not subject to FCC regulations or oversight.
aug 24, 2025, 8:13 pm • 2 0 • view
Going forward any company calling itself "news" should be enforced to share facts only. Opinions are like beliefs to ppl like me irrelevant. Unless it's from a professional in the related field. That's the only opinion I'll gaf about.
aug 24, 2025, 8:17 pm • 1 0 • view
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;…”
aug 24, 2025, 8:22 pm • 2 0 • view
Such a mandate would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment....
aug 24, 2025, 8:21 pm • 3 0 • view
The 1st amendment was not intended to be a permission slip to say whatever 1 wanted. It was to protect us from holding our reps accountable for their actions. The intent is what matters.
aug 24, 2025, 8:26 pm • 0 0 • view
That...is a profoundly weird interpretation of the first amendment. Or you mistyped something. Because the intent of the first amendment is to protect speech from government overreach
aug 24, 2025, 8:33 pm • 3 0 • view
And the only time government overreaches is when that speech makes the government look bad.
aug 24, 2025, 8:34 pm • 0 0 • view
Uh, no. It's when the government decides to censor speech it doesn't like, regardless of whether it makes the government look bad or not.
aug 24, 2025, 8:36 pm • 2 0 • view
Does it say anything about how the First Amendment regulates NEWS in any way??
aug 24, 2025, 8:31 pm • 1 0 • view
1st off, "News" is a word the FFs likely didn't know or use. Trying to compare today's age with wording from 250yrs ago is like trying to run a NASCAR race while riding in a 250yo horse drawn wagon. And now we argue semantics... With a language barrier preventing ppl on the l being able to..
aug 24, 2025, 8:39 pm • 0 0 • view
... communicate with ppl on the R. When both sides want the same thing. So please explain to me how your retorts are helpful?
aug 24, 2025, 8:39 pm • 0 0 • view
Jesus tap dancing Christ on a cracker. You don’t think the Founding Fathers knew what “news” is?
aug 24, 2025, 9:21 pm • 2 0 • view
This is a JOKE, right??
aug 24, 2025, 9:40 pm • 1 0 • view
You're out of your mind. Or just ignorant. www.etymonline.com/search?q=news 'The meaning "tidings, intelligence of something that has lately taken place" is from early 15c. '
aug 24, 2025, 9:37 pm • 1 0 • view
Well we need something that does. We need to stop allowing politicians to mince words cuz it's become a language barrier now due to how long it's been going on for. The FD at least made it so the other side was presented. Or supposed to be anyways.
aug 24, 2025, 4:07 pm • 3 0 • view
Your issue appears to be with the First Amendment.
aug 24, 2025, 4:10 pm • 5 0 • view
Our FOS was never a permission slip to say w/e we wanted. It was to protect us from holding our reps accountable for their corrupt actions. Now we have to use it along with our Freedom of protest to fix it all.
aug 24, 2025, 4:12 pm • 0 0 • view
1A is certainly NOT limited to speech regarding corrupt actions of government officials. Speech pertaining to the actions of the government (whether corrupt or not) is only one form of speech protected by 1A.
aug 24, 2025, 4:22 pm • 1 0 • view
In order to understand everything you have to understand the purpose behind it. The purpose behind the freedom of speech was to hold our elected officials accountable. Because they hated politicians.
aug 24, 2025, 4:25 pm • 0 0 • view
James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, was a politician.
aug 24, 2025, 4:32 pm • 2 0 • view
Whatever the original motive, it is absolutely not limited to that. There is no judicial ruling that says it does not apply to anything other than speech about the government. To the contrary, many 1A cases have not involved speech pertaining to the government.
aug 24, 2025, 4:31 pm • 2 0 • view
Lying to ppl on the street very rarely leads to ppl having to fear dor their lives. Holding politicians accountable can bring threats to ones lives. Forget what the courts have argued over the last 250yrs. It was to hold our politicians accountable. I'm aware of Madison btw. If alive today he'd...
aug 24, 2025, 4:40 pm • 1 0 • view
....agree that the fix to all of this is a seperation of beliefs and state. Beliefs being anything not proven by good science. It was him who professed the seperation of church and state. That got muddled and because of that we have to seperate beliefs out. In order to clean it all up.
aug 24, 2025, 4:40 pm • 1 0 • view
No. The purpose of freedom of speech was so you can speak freely. Do you think lies didn’t exist when the First Amendment was written?
aug 24, 2025, 5:27 pm • 0 0 • view
Lying to other people doesn't really bring about life-threatening consequences though. So why would we need protection from that? I understand not everyone is going to understand what I know and that's okay. The fact is politicians were supposed to hold their words true and they didn't. Then...
aug 24, 2025, 5:35 pm • 0 0 • view
Really? Have you heard of MAHA? Of course it brings about life-threatening consequences. Anti-vaxxers? Of course that brings about life-threatening consequences. We don't understand what you think you know because what you think you know is flat-out wrong. Never were "politicans supposed to hold
aug 24, 2025, 5:48 pm • 1 0 • view
... We allowed them to get away with it. Now the system is the monster that's making us all sick. It's why we have all that we do. My question for you along with everyone else is are you going to keep letting it kill us?
aug 24, 2025, 5:35 pm • 0 0 • view
If you think politicians held their words true in the days of the Founding Fathers you should go back and read what they were saying about each other.
aug 24, 2025, 6:54 pm • 2 0 • view
Freedom of speech and the press is absolutely permission to say what we want with a few very narrow exceptions. And yes - we can use it to hold elected officials accountable but it is a little wild to think they should be passing laws about what they can and cannot say.
aug 24, 2025, 4:17 pm • 2 0 • view