It does not matter. Even for broadcast tv&radio, the licensees are not categorized by the FCC based on content. Cable is not regulated by the FCC at all.
Replies
We should put that on the to-do list.
aug 30, 2025, 4:17 pm • 2 0 • view
There is a legal reason that the FCC can't regulate cable.
aug 30, 2025, 4:19 pm • 0 0 • view
Maybe they should! Duh! Which goes back to my original point. You shouldn’t be able to call yourself news if you’re not going to be totally honest
aug 30, 2025, 4:33 pm • 0 0 • view
They can't! Duh! I wish you the best of luck in repealing the 1st Amendment.
aug 30, 2025, 5:16 pm • 1 0 • view
I’m just saying if you call yourself news… you shouldn’t be allowed to lie. Period. I’m not saying you should get rid of the first amendment. You just shouldn’t be able to call yourself news
aug 30, 2025, 5:22 pm • 0 0 • view
That would require the government to regulate speech. Which would violate 1A.
aug 30, 2025, 5:31 pm • 0 0 • view
I don't think the Founding Fathers anticipated what we are seeing today. Just a thought
aug 30, 2025, 5:35 pm • 1 0 • view
Sure. There was no propaganda in the 1700s. www.americanrevolution.org/propaganda/
aug 30, 2025, 5:39 pm • 1 0 • view
www.amrevmuseum.org/boston-massa...
aug 30, 2025, 5:39 pm • 0 0 • view
www.neh.gov/article/benj...
aug 30, 2025, 5:39 pm • 0 0 • view
I would argue that they literally created propaganda… when they realized that if poor whites and black people came together, the leaders would lose… they gave poor whites land (so they could vote) and spread propaganda about black people. We really have an atrocious history.
aug 30, 2025, 5:57 pm • 0 0 • view
We regulate what’s taught to our kids. We can regulate what is news. We used to. It’s sad that it was tossed… not that the old law would cover everything nowadays. They can easily call it something else and say whatever they want. Should we be careful, sure. But news should be facts
aug 30, 2025, 5:52 pm • 1 1 • view
You can do that because you are a private citizen. 1A says CONGRESS shall make no law. It does not restrict what private citizens and companies can do. We never regulated "what is news." And again, who is going to decide what is fact and what isn't?
aug 30, 2025, 5:55 pm • 0 0 • view
We never used to "regulate what is news". Are you being horribly confused about the Fairness Doctrine again? Or is this some new made-up thing?
aug 31, 2025, 3:27 am • 2 0 • view
What would the legal definition of "news" be?
aug 30, 2025, 5:23 pm • 0 0 • view
PBS? NPR?
aug 30, 2025, 5:25 pm • 0 0 • view
PBS has far more entertainment content than news content but it doesn't matter because there is no legal distinction between news, entertainment, and news+entertainment.
aug 30, 2025, 5:33 pm • 2 0 • view
Those are networks: a legal definition of "news" is what would be required. (There probably isn't one that wouldn't violate the 1st Amendment, allow the government far too much power to regulate content toward its own aims, or likely both)
aug 30, 2025, 5:28 pm • 1 0 • view
I never said cable was regulated. Fox does have local broadcasting. That does fall under the law for news stations. (Which is probably why those don’t lie like the cable bs) They did also make the statement in court about not being news.
aug 30, 2025, 4:23 pm • 4 0 • view
They do have some local affiliates that are broadcast but the Fox News Corp is not and does not. There was a petition to the FCC to deny renewal to a local broadcast affiliate on the basis of what Fox News Corp was doing. A huge stretch. I will see if I can find out what happened to it.
aug 30, 2025, 4:29 pm • 1 0 • view
No, they did not make that statement. Fox News host Tucker Carlson was sued for slander in 2020 by Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who sold the rights of the story of her affair with Donald Trump to the National Enquirer. Carlson claimed that McDougal attempted
aug 30, 2025, 4:29 pm • 2 0 • view
to extort money from Trump—though she never asked Trump for money or even approached him. McDougal sued, and in response Fox’s legal team argued that his comments “cannot reasonably be interpreted as facts.”
aug 30, 2025, 4:29 pm • 2 0 • view
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil—district judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York—heard the case and agreed, finding that “given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statements he makes” and that “this
aug 30, 2025, 4:29 pm • 2 0 • view
overheated rhetoric is precisely the kind of pitched commentary that one expects when tuning in to talk shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight, with pundits debating the latest political controversies.” “The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended
aug 30, 2025, 4:29 pm • 0 0 • view
to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation,” wrote Vyskocil in her ruling. Carlson isn’t the only opinion show host to win a lawsuit with such a defense: Rachel Maddow’s lawyers used a similar argument to convince a judge to dismiss a libel
aug 30, 2025, 4:29 pm • 0 0 • view
lawsuit brought by One America News Network. The judge ruled that Maddow’s comments about an OANN reporter being “on the payroll for the Kremlin” could reasonably be understood to be opinion.
aug 30, 2025, 4:29 pm • 1 0 • view
It was literally argued by their attorney. It was insane
aug 30, 2025, 4:38 pm • 0 0 • view
It wasn’t this court case. Pretty sure it had to do with the election lies. Which ended up being settled. But I will share it when I find it.
aug 30, 2025, 4:37 pm • 0 0 • view
OK but yes, it was this court case.
aug 30, 2025, 4:38 pm • 1 0 • view
It actually was that case. They have also used the same argument in others…
aug 30, 2025, 5:47 pm • 0 0 • view
hogwash. if that were the case we'd all be rich.
aug 30, 2025, 5:49 pm • 0 0 • view
As I said, feel free to find others and post the names of them. Maddow used it a year earlier. But that's MSBNC, not Fox.
aug 30, 2025, 5:50 pm • 1 0 • view
Honestly finding conflicting information… it seems that things changed when they got sold in 2019… So let me rephrase… If you are going to call yourself news… you shouldn’t be allowed to lie. And there should be a law for this, again. This was the basis of my original statement.
aug 30, 2025, 5:34 pm • 2 1 • view
Who decides what is a lie and what is truth? Do you really want the government to have that power? Think about it. Do you really want THIS government to have that power?
aug 30, 2025, 5:37 pm • 3 0 • view
Not sure why you would assume that I would put it in the hands of government alone. Sure, congress would pass a law… courts would uphold the law/standards. What’s the other option? Everyone says whatever they want with no standard? That’s crazy
aug 30, 2025, 6:21 pm • 1 0 • view
Yes, that is exactly what 1A says, with limited exceptions.
aug 30, 2025, 6:25 pm • 0 0 • view
With exceptions! Exactly! There are things you can’t say… and could get you arrested.
aug 30, 2025, 6:28 pm • 0 0 • view
Those exceptions are very narrow. For instance, if the speech is incitement to imminent violence. Defamation, which is clearly defined.- and for which you can't be arrested. True threats. Obscenity. Child pornography. Speech integral to criminal conduct. Fighting words. Fraud (legal definition,
aug 30, 2025, 6:35 pm • 0 0 • view
just untruth). There is no exception for "feeding bullshit to people."
aug 30, 2025, 6:35 pm • 0 0 • view
You kinda made my point. I wasn’t saying you can be arrested for defamation… But as you pointed out, there are things you can’t say without consequences.
aug 30, 2025, 7:38 pm • 0 0 • view
Congress is also government and I don't want them having that power either.
aug 30, 2025, 6:24 pm • 0 0 • view
There should be a law against lying? That would be a blatant violation of 1A.
aug 30, 2025, 5:36 pm • 0 0 • view
Facts. It’s pretty simple. Example: How’s the stock market? Report the numbers. President’s approval? Numbers and who they came from. What happened in congress today? Report the facts… they signed a bill that covers xyz. Our “news” has become opinion based. Just report the facts.
aug 30, 2025, 6:15 pm • 0 0 • view
I can't disagree vehemently enough. How's the stock market is a totally reductive piece of information. President's approval - there are numerous polls. Should they have to report all of them? Or is being selective misleading? Most news is not that minimal in nature or that clear-cut.
aug 30, 2025, 6:21 pm • 0 0 • view
Moreover, news can be and often is distorted by omission - by what they choose not to say. But the much bigger picture is that I do not want the government to decide what is true and what is not.
aug 30, 2025, 6:21 pm • 2 0 • view
That’s not what I proposed. Go ahead and state your better plan for the fuckery we deal with today. Otherwise you’re being contrary just to be contrary
aug 30, 2025, 6:27 pm • 0 0 • view
I actually have a proposal but I know it is also violates 1A per SCOTUS. It is also probably unworkable as a practical matter. We might emulate what Finland is doing, though considering what is going on with public education in our country, I can't imagine it would be allowed.
aug 30, 2025, 7:01 pm • 1 0 • view
I think this is great. My first day of college we went over the importance of credible sources and how to find them. (Haven’t read the article yet but I will later when my eyeballs aren’t throbbing)
aug 30, 2025, 7:16 pm • 0 0 • view
My second idea runs smack into 1A. Compelling speech violates 1A.
aug 30, 2025, 7:32 pm • 0 0 • view
The other idea is to have basically a real-tjme, in person fact checker who is told the stories that will air in advance, so they will have time to fact-check and gather sources. They would either review the stories with the reporter and station/paper in advance or fact-check on air. The second
aug 30, 2025, 7:30 pm • 0 0 • view
I'm old, but my first exposure to identifying propaganda was in 5th grade social studies. I don't know why we're not still doing that.
aug 30, 2025, 7:43 pm • 2 0 • view
I stated my "plan." Do not give the government the authority to control our speech (or any other 1A freedom). I am not being contrary. I believe this.
aug 30, 2025, 6:29 pm • 0 0 • view
Yes, if you’re reporting on polls from that day and there are 3, you would report all 3. Obviously. Stock market…It was literally just an example. There is a number. Yes, it changes all the time. But it closes everyday at one single number. State the facts.
aug 30, 2025, 6:25 pm • 0 0 • view
My example: If an article reports on funding cuts, I want to know more than what agency and how much. I want to know why and if it is legal and what impact it will have. None of those things are clear-cut. There is also distortion inherent in truncating a story, which is almost always the case
aug 30, 2025, 6:44 pm • 0 0 • view
with TV & broadcast news, which has limited time for each story. Back when I watched TV news I would often yell at the TV "tell the whole story - you left out XYZ wjhich is really important to the story." Not deliberate distortion, but distortion nonetheless. So what they said might be true,
aug 30, 2025, 6:44 pm • 0 0 • view
but not the whole truth.
aug 30, 2025, 6:44 pm • 0 0 • view
So you just want headlines, maybe subheads, and ledes. Nothing else. That would make it hard to report a story on the availability of covid vaccines, as an example.
aug 30, 2025, 6:39 pm • 0 0 • view
Well again we just disagree. Most news is not simple like that. And either way, I do not want the government to have the power to control speech.
aug 30, 2025, 6:26 pm • 0 0 • view
While it was like 40 years ago 🫣… I remember the 11 o’clock news being essentially this. I’m sure it’s not a perfect assessment but it just seems like everything is so opinion based now and I would like to see that gone. It muddies and influences and I don’t think that’s the job.
aug 30, 2025, 7:21 pm • 0 0 • view
I think that started to change in the 60s. I was pretty young but I remember stories about Vietnam seemed to start reporting the negative stories more and more often, leading up to Cronkite's editorial piece. I could be mistaken. Again, I was pretty young. I don't watch TV news anymore (not since
aug 30, 2025, 7:31 pm • 0 0 • view
2015) so I can't say if it is different or not. I do think they should do as print media usually does - label pieces as analysis or opnion, as appropriate. But they can't be forced to do that for the same reason I was about to explain in my other reply. Compelled speech violates 1A.
aug 30, 2025, 7:31 pm • 0 0 • view
“How’s the stock market?” isn’t even that reductive! Sure, “what index X closed at” is. But there’s a lot more to “how’s the stock market”.
aug 30, 2025, 7:37 pm • 0 0 • view
I agree, but I was responding to her specific example, which was just "report the closing numbers."
aug 30, 2025, 7:46 pm • 0 0 • view
I was just trying to give easy examples. I’m not saying don’t report that there was a big drop or rise… or why they happened.
aug 30, 2025, 7:52 pm • 0 0 • view
I read it in the transcripts… I will see if I can find it again. (And share it)
aug 30, 2025, 4:35 pm • 0 0 • view
www.phillyvoice.com/fcc-dismisse...
aug 30, 2025, 4:37 pm • 0 0 • view
They have never been a news network.
aug 30, 2025, 6:12 pm • 0 0 • view
They do have straight news segments. They do skew it in the sense of not reporting some things. It is like an alternative universe sometimes; it always shocks me when they report something that indicates that the admin is fucking up and fucked up. Nonetheless, they are straight news segments.
aug 30, 2025, 6:16 pm • 0 0 • view
Alternative facts.👍
aug 30, 2025, 6:17 pm • 0 0 • view
Fox concentrates on ideological guidance to the republican Party focusing on extremely conservative views. Rather than impartial news coverage. Dominion highlighting that aspect is how it won that outstanding settlement.
aug 30, 2025, 6:21 pm • 1 0 • view
They won it because they uncovered documents that proved that the on-air personalities knew they were lying. That's how they got past the NYT v. Sullivan standard. It wasn't because of ideological bent. That is not defamation.
aug 30, 2025, 6:22 pm • 0 0 • view
👇🏾 'ln the Dominion defamation lawsuit systems case they highlighted the networks practices, practices that indicated that it's hosts were aware that the information that the claims they were broadcasting were false, but they chose to promote conservative views for ratings.' Hence my point.
aug 30, 2025, 6:33 pm • 0 0 • view
Correct. That's what I said. That they knew the statements were false. It would have been defamation regardless of the political views of the personalities. The same thing would have been defamation had liberal news outlets done it.
aug 30, 2025, 6:36 pm • 1 0 • view