• NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    108
    ·
    1 year ago

    Title is a little clickbaity seeing as this is specific to a local Philadelphia station. Would be nice if this was true though. There are really no consequences at all for making shit up.

    • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      They literally won a court case about being able to lie as a news organization, they made that possible so don’t hold you breath

    • kool_newt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’ve unfortunately decided as a society to leave consequences to the state. The state is by and for capitalists only (i.e. capital owners, not you). When Fox is a threat to capitalist’s money and power, they’ll see real consequences, until then, probably not.

  • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes please. Go after OAN and RT too, these are all intelligent propaganda machines that need to be stopped. It’s really hard to believe we just let it go.

    • NegativeNull@lemm.ee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      OAN and RT are not on FCC airwaves. They are on cable TV and internet. These lawsuits are for Fox affiliates that use licensed FCC tv frequencies.

      • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Edit: I just found out that that’s not true for political broadcasts.

        (a) The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit –

        (7) for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station, other than a non-commercial educational broadcast station, by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.

        Huh, weird rules and what does “bona-fide” mean in this instance?:

        Q: Does the FCC regulate the content of cable programming?

        A: Cable television system operators generally make their own selection of channels and programs to be distributed to subscribers in response to consumer demands. The Commission does, however, have rules in some areas that are applicable to programming – called “origination cablecasting” in the rules – that are subject to the editorial control of the cable system operator. The rules generally do not apply to the content of broadcast channels or to access channels over which the cable system operator has no editorial control.

        Q: What is the “equal opportunities” rule of political cablecasting?

        A: Once a cable system allows a legally qualified candidate to use its facilities (by identifiable voice or picture), it must give “equal opportunities” to all other legally qualified candidates for that office to use its facilities. The cable system can not censor the content of the candidate’s material in any way, and can not discriminate between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities or services rendered pursuant to the equal opportunities rules.

        Candidates must submit requests for equal opportunities to the cable system within one week after a rival candidate’s first use of the cable system. If the person was not a legally qualified candidate at the time of the rival’s first use, he or she may submit a request within one week of the rival’s next use of the cable system after he or she becomes a legally qualified candidate.

        Q: Does a legally qualified candidate’s appearance on a newscast trigger the equal opportunities rule?

        A: No. Candidate appearances that are exempt from the rules include appearances on a bona fide newscast, bona fide news interview, bona fide news documentary, or on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event.

        https://www.fcc.gov/media/program-content-regulations

        • Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          My guess is that there is no set standard in law. When you deny someone else “equal opportunity “ they can challenge the denial to the FCC and in court. Whoever loses the FCC appeal files a federal lawsuit. Then it would be based on case law for the definition of bona fide in similar cases and, barring that, similar usage of the term. You duke it out with $1000/hr lawyers in federal court for 2-3 rounds until the most recent loser appeals to the Supreme Court where they turn youdown or you argue if the FCC even has the power to compel such an “equal opportunity “ based on the law which allows the rule to be written.

          At least that’s my layman’s understanding of the process.

  • MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We should require PSAs at the end of all TikTok/Instagram/Youtube social media videos like they had at the end of cartoons when I was a whee PĒB.

    And FOX newscasters should have to dress up as Hanna Barbera characters while on screen.

  • Yepthatsme@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    When George W Bush stole the election in 2000 with the Brooks Brothers Riot I knew the conservatives days were numbered.

    • ThwaitesAwaits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s Fox “News” and 20c Fox/Fox Sports etc.Technically started in the same place, but the non-news side got sold off.

    • cloudpunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, the fox news channels and fox business was not part of that acquisition. Channels like FX and National Geographic films that were made by 21st Century Fox were part of the acquisition.

  • Piye@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Or

    Just change the channel and lets not destroy the freedom of the press in our lifetime

    • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      And the people who don’t change the channel, believe the lies, and attack others because of it? The people who are emboldened in their racism because of Fox and those they support? The people who have an inaccurate world view because they believe the lies passed off as “entertainment” and opinion, but are called news? Tucker Carlson argued and won with the argument that no reasonable person would believe a thing he said and yet, he was one of their most popular segments. You really think we can just bury our heads in the sand with something like that?

    • roofuskit@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      By their own admission, they are entertainment not press. They are the television equivalent of screaming fire in a crowded theater.