They didn't "incite violence" legally under the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard. Further, I assume you are referring to Fox News, other cable channels, and maybe social media. However, the FCC doesn't regulate those mediums and can't apply that policy which applies to "broadcast stations."
Actually, some faux hosts did, and probably other extreme right wing media as well. Not that they'd ever be held accountable in the Idiocracy in any case, because the best outcome is that they buy their way out of it.
No, they did not under the Brandenburg standard, which is a very high standard that requires that it was the intent of the speaker to incite imminent (i.e. immediate) harm and that speech was likely to cause such imminent harm. SCOTUS has interpreted that very narrowly over the years.
Per my other posts re: Red Lion v. FCC, Miami Herald v. Tornillo, and Netchoice v. Moody, Congress cannot give FCC such authority to regulate cable channels as they are protected by 1A and aren't subject to the "unique" issues that led SCOTUS to allow the Doctrine for "broadcast stations."
Yes, cable media have been abusing that loophole to become propaganda machines. Given how corrupt the supreme court is, having given permission to politicians to accept bribes from anyone they feel like taking money from, that loophole is not surprising. Neither are the results.
It's not a "loophole." As I've shown, regulation of the media has ALWAYS been prohibited under 1A. Regulation of "broadcast stations" was a limited exception based on the "unique" nature of that medium. AND it's the liberal Justices that have made this clear. Red Lion and Miami Herald ...
were decided unanimously when SCOTUS was at its most liberal. And the Moody decision was led by the liberal Justices, including Kagan, who wrote the opinion. The most corrupt Justices, Alito and Thomas, did not sign on to that opinion. You are misinformed on the legal aspects here.
Further, every private entity, even "news media" has a right to be a "propaganda machine" if they so choose. Propaganda is merely information disseminated to promote a specific cause, often a legal one. It's often biased and/or misleading but the expression of a political opinion is propaganda.
And as has been made clear in SCOTUS precedent, including by Kagan last summer in Moody, every private entity has a right to express their opinion without interference from the gov't by being compelled by the gov't to carry other viewpoints. And that's not even getting to the larger intrusion ...
that would be regulations requiring them to publish accurate facts, which as shown, which would be against 1A principles except for those limited and long-standing 1A exceptions.
To be clear on this matter. Regulation of "broadcast stations" was not the rule. It was a narrow exception to a very long-standing rule that prohibits regulation of the media. That rule is 1A.