Trying to shut down news agencies you disagree with is FASCISM

[Kurska]

Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

At minimum it is authoritarian in the extreme. That is why the petition being floated around here to shut down fox news is so asinine. No I don't like fox news, but I'm perfectly capable of simply not watching fox news. The right has just as much right to put out their message as the left does, that is how a free society works.

What really amazes me is that some people here think that this would be viewed as anything but a tyrannical overreach by the federal government to silence critics. If the FCC did this tomorrow, the democratic party would essentially cease to exist as a political entity in the next election. We'd be viewed as tyrants and censors for shutting down the main opposition news hub. Nearly every news paper, website or channel would be howling about the dictatorial overreach, left and right. Any reasonable person not absolutely choking on partisan fervor should be able understand that.

The F (Fascism) word gets thrown around a lot in politics, but this would be actual down to the bone fascism.

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."

--Harry S. Truman

[RKP5637]

1. IMO you make some very good points. n/t

[ErikJ]

95. Except she forgot to mention that Fox tells truth only 18% of the time.

according to Politifact, and tells lies 60% of the time. True fascism depends on false propaganda. http://www.forwardprogressives.com/fact-checking-site-finds-fox-news-tells-truth-18-percent-time/

[yuiyoshida]

100. Someone was arguing with me that

to shut down Fox news is not letting the other side have their say, even if their say is Sexist, Racist, misogynistic or anti the 99%. They even went so far to say that Nazi propaganda should be allowed on our modern airwaves...

Please, for give me for saying.. WHAT THE FUCK?

[JaneyVee]

101. Govt shutting it down would be Fascism, people doing it = free speech

[riversedge]

112. Perhaps what is needed is a StopRush like campaign. ? It was be slow

but maybe in the long run--a massive amt of folks boycotting their advertisers might begin to put a dent in their lies which are so harmful to America

[Fred Sanders]

2. "Opposition news hub". Fox? A "news hub"? Not. Really, really not. Fascists have free speech, too, we get it.

[Kurska]

4. You don't have the right to shut down news organizations you disagree with

Only dictators and authoritarian brutes shut down opposition news organizations. That is the brutal fact of the matter. You may not like fox news (and for the record neither do I), but they have the same freedom of speech that you do.

I find it hilarious you're slinging the insult of fascism while saying the 21st century equivalent of "SMASH THEIR PRINTING PRESSES".

No Fred, when you start ripping channels off the air, because you disagree with the way they present the news, that actually is fascism.

[rainy]

37. What if that "news" channel called for the overthrow of the

government or the assignation of a sitting president? What degree of inciting hate with pure lies that lead to harm in different ways should we tolerate? when do the lies become treason? I'm thinking Venezuela.

[Kurska]

59. Is Venezuela really the road we want to go down?

The two most popular opposition leaders in Venezuela are in jail.

[rainy]

114. You missed the point. Fox is dangerous

to our country and needs to be recognized as not factual and not news. No press passes etc for them.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. True, but...

while it ain't gonna happen, all sides have this fascination with windmill tilting.

Yes, it does make the organizers and signers look clueless, but who really pays any attention to such petitions anyway?

[madokie]

5. Fox is NOT news

This is where your train of thought came off the tracks. Fox is not news and won a court battle concerning that

"Google is your friend

[Kurska]

14. You really think people would support this?

Be honest with me, you really think the American people would see the federal government taking fox news off the air and go "oh they weren't a real news organization anyways".

No, they would see a massive government overreach and classify as an attempt to silence critics. It would literally destroy the democratic party, we wouldn't win another election for a 100 years, if the party survived at all.

[madokie]

20. That is your opinion

not necessarily the opinion of the majority. Fox noise is not news and that should be screamed loudly from every roof top between here and both oceans. Facts are facts and facts can be news but fox is not in the facts business. They make shit up and thats how the majority see them. IMHO

[Kurska]

22. You really think the majority of American people would be cool with this.

Most people are not that politically informed. They would see the federal government shutting down a major news organization that criticizes them. No matter how loudly you scream "not actually news", it would be skewered.

Screaming fox news is not news is perfectly fine, it is how you counter bad speech with good speech. Shutting them down would doom our party for the next 100 years. No one would trust a Democratic president again. Honestly, there would have to be a new left-wing party just to regain credibility.

[GGJohn]

23. All well and good,

but how do you think the public would view the govt shutting down the opposition?
Yeah, it would validate every thing the looney RW has said about the Dems.
Besides, the FCC has no authority over cable networks.

[babylonsister]

24. Love you, madokie, and agree! nt

[blkmusclmachine]

6. Nah. On the other hand, THIS is Fascism: 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism:

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm


Or, what I call the GOP Party Plank.

[Kurska]

11. Shutting down opposition news sources is a characteristic of Fascist regimes.

Name one that didn't do that.

[m-lekktor]

16. it sounds like something that would happen under Putin

that everybody here would be OUTRAGED over.

[Kurska]

17. You'd be surprised

Putin has plenty of fans on DU. It is clear even on the left we sometimes clamor for a "strong leader" who will silence anyone who doesn't share our opinions.

It is something that the likes of Mussolini and Hitler actually did, but again, because it is fox news that somehow makes it okay.

[Man from Pickens]

12. Interesting list

we check off 11 of the 14 boxes easily

[Dr. Strange]

48. Um...

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

[octoberlib]

7. I'd much rather see a petition in favor

of reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

[RKP5637]

8. Definitely!!! n/t

[Skittles]

9. people need to stop treating Fox News as if it is a legitimate news station

STOP APPEARING ON FOX NEWS SHOWS IF YOU WANT ANY CREDIBILITY

[MADem]

31. People are free to reach out to any audience out there. Just because Fox sucks doesn't mean that

their audience is unreachable.

In northern Maine, if you don't have cable, it's Fox or (sometimes) CBS. Why sometimes? They SHARE the same studio. Some days you get the Fox feed, some days the CBS feed.

Not everyone up in northern Maine is a wingnut--they're just (often poor) people without options, if they don't have cable.

[Takket]

10. turning Fox into a martyr for the First Amendment will only drive the country to the right

that being said, the petition is absurd from the standpoint of its futility. Does someone really intend to walk into FCC HQ with a petition that says "could you please just ignore the constitution for a bit and do this for us?"

the best way to combat Fox News is through AWARENESS of its lies and misinformation, and though it seems hard to believe, it is working. Fox is widely viewed as what it is, a joke, and we have entities like SNL and John Stewart to thank for that for reaching out to Americans youth and showing this hypocrisy when the M$M won't.

if you want fox to go away you have to do it the hard way.... by making people understand that they are a disgrace until they chance the channel

[Kurska]

13. Yup

The solution to bad speech is good speech, not attempting to silence bad speech.

When you start shutting down new organizations you're the bad guy, end stop.

[Rex]

15. Wow...that was fast!

[Kurska]

18. Yeah, got a comment? eom

[RandiFan1290]

113. It keeps them busy

and stops them from bothering people taking part in serious threads...



They've been at it all night! Post after post of butthurt!

[Oklahoma_Liberal]

19. Agreed OP. Some of the ideas around here like this petition are certainly insidious.

They're created by trolls trying to make us look like looney toons. No real democrat with a functioning brain could logically conclude that shutting down Fox would be beneficial for our party.

Just quacks and trolls.

[Kurska]

21. It would be the greatest gift to the right we could ever give

It really wouldn't surprise me if this was made by trolls. What shocks me (only a little) is that there are people stupid enough to buy this hook line and sinker.

[DeSwiss]

25. K&R!

- The answer to liars is not to shut them up, but to tell the TRUTH louder. Although I do agree that Fox News (and all others) should be sued for lies that caused actual damage to people, just like I would be for doing the same thing.

Any nation secure in its ideology of freedom of the press and of expression would shrink away from such a Fascist move as to try to silence the ignorant. Because where do you stop? And when? And with whom?




The same sword that cuts to the right, can cut to the left.......

[Wella]

26. The First Amendment: ain't it grand.

K & R Kurska.

[MADem]

30. Yeah, someone putting up a petition saying FOX NEWS SUCKS AND I WANT YOU TO SHUT IT DOWN is the

living, breathing example of the First Amendment in action. That's a very direct way of expressing an opinion about Fox News.

Or is the opinion that Fox News Does NOT Suck the only opinion allowed?

Just because someone expresses a personal viewpoint doesn't mean that the government has to "obey" them once they hit "x" number of signatures. This isn't the American Idol contests....that isn't how these foolish things work.

That First Amendment door swings in a great big circle--people CAN exercise their free speech rights to say pretty much anything they want--even "Here's my petition that says Fox News sucks."

We need to be clear on the concepts, here. Regrettably, I don't think we are.

[Wella]

107. Attempting to censor speech is NOT free speech

You can say "Fox News Sucks!" all you want, but once you attempt to shut it down--ie censor it--you are actually working against free speech.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Exactly.

Fox sucks, no question. But the remedy for bad speech is more speech, not shutting them down - not that the FCC could do that in the first place, since they are a cable channel over which the FCC has no jurisdiction. So this petition is not only very poorly written, with spelling and grammar errors worthy of a Tea Party rally; it's both anti-free speech and futile.

[MADem]

28. Then don't sign the thing. Sheesh, the drama! Tyrannical overreach? Hyperbolic, much?

Personally, I don't regard Fox as a "news" outlet--they trade in propaganda and lies. I'd love to see them shut down, because they're ASSHOLES who tell FIBS. BIG fibs, too!!!

That said, this is the 2nd angst-ridden post I've seen about the stupid petition, it almost makes me want to sign it just to be a contrarian. The reason I don't bother is because the whole thing is a big honking waste of time!

Live and let live. Stop throwing around the "F" word when it's just an OPINION and a REQUEST. You don't like? Don't participate--now THAT's a free society, right there!!!!

If "the government" acted on every stupid petition they got, they'd spend all day dealing with them to the exclusion of running the country.

When I see the Fauxsnooze crew showing an iota of care for the MSNBC crowd, then I'll give a flying poop how they "feel" about this little petition. Until then, I just can't muster any love or care for them and if any of them expresses any whiney-hurt, that will make me LAUGH.

[Kurska]

34. Nope sorry, people advocating shutting down opposition voices is a big deal.

It is just a stupid petition, but to pretend it isn't inspired by some very scary desires on the part of some people isn't right either.

[MADem]

40. Trying to shut people up by stopping them from petitioning the government is CENSORSHIP.

If you can't see that, you've got some "figuring" to do.

Speech, you see, isn't just the speech that YOU like. And calling the speech you don't like "Fascism" doesn't fly either.

You don't like the petition? Fire up another one that says "Please ignore that first petition" and try to get people to sign it.

Pulling out the "F" word, though? Trying to scold/shame/shut people up?

You're "unaware of the concept" -- sorry. The answer to stupid petitions is more stupid petitions!

[Kurska]

42. No I'm saying it is a stupid thing to do.

I'm not saying they don't have a right to do it (as pointless as it may be).

[MADem]

44. Your lead off post accused them of "fascism." Petitioning the government for redress of grievances

(even if the grievances are dumbass) is not "fascism."

It's a cornerstone of our system. You'd probably be better off just abandoning the premise you posed in this thread. It's a real loser of an argument.

[Kurska]

45. Trying to shut down opposition voices you don't agree with is fascism.

People saying things you don't like it not a redress of grievances.

[MADem]

46. You don't seem to understand how our system of government works. nt

[Hutzpa]

51. MADem, you're wasting your time with that one

they've got their position and they're sticking to it.

[MADem]

56. It's kind of hilarious in a weird way!

The argument can be distilled to the following:

"I believe in free speech, so YOU over there, with the opinion I dislike... SHUT UP!!!! You facist!!!!!"

The most astounding bit is that there's no irony--not even a trace.

[Kurska]

60. Let me explain what freedom of speech means

Freedom of speech is the right to not have your speech censored by the government. It does not include the right to be free of criticism when you do or say something stupid.

Am I the federal government? Have I called for the federal government to take down the petition?

No, I just said it was stupid and authoritarian. I didn't say it was illegal or that it should be made illegal.

[MADem]

68. No, you don't need to--the founding fathers already imparted that lesson.

You need to go and revisit the lesson.

"STFU, FASCISTS!!! I will PREVENT YOU from petitioning your government for redress of grievances because I don't like what you are saying!!!" is NOT "freedom of speech."

It doesn't matter if you are the federal government or a pot bellied pig--if you're trying to shut someone up, and you're calling them stupid names like "facist" while so doing, you're the one who is in the wrong.

[Kurska]

73. Again, where did I say I was going to prevent anyone from doing anything.

You're free to petition the government about getting the little green men taken out of your teeth. I can think that is stupid without my position instantly being "well you ought not be able to do that".

Criticism is not censorship. The fact you can't grasp this fact is bewildering to me.

[Throd]

75. Petition them all you want.

That's how freedom of speech works.

[MADem]

78. How nice that you agree with my initial point. nt

[Hutzpa]

71. smh -- then it'll be best for fox to serve their audience as

a propaganda machine than to pass themselves as News which they're not.

[Hutzpa]

65. Well yeah, fascism is being over used these days

by those that do not understand the meaning of fascism. I find it fascinating that people are defending the withdrawal of News from Fox as it has been pointed out by others, fox is not a news organisation but an entertainment company better yet a propaganda agency that specializes in generating hate among Americans. Why would anyone want to defend the stripping of the empire is beyond me.

[MADem]

74. As those freaky Republicans would say, let the market decide!

Those old idiots staring at the bleached hair, ruby lips (and that's all the anchors, save the ones that go for the darker hair dyes) and cleavage (that's pretty much just the women) beaming across their screens won't live forever. Fox can't grow their market--younger people don't watch much TV, they think they're idiots, and the market share of old folks is on the shrink.

[Throd]

57. You don't seem to understand how freedom of speech works.

[MADem]

58. Yes I do --and if you don't get that what the OP is advocating is censorship, I can't help you. nt

[Kurska]

61. Please explain to me how I am advocating censorship.

I said it stupid, not that it should be banned or that people didn't have a right to say it.

[MADem]

76. You wrote this!!!

What really amazes me is that some people here think that this would be viewed as anything but a tyrannical overreach by the federal government to silence critics. If the FCC did this tomorrow, the democratic party would essentially cease to exist as a political entity in the next election. We'd be viewed as tyrants and censors for shutting down the main opposition news hub. Any reasonable person not absolutely choking on partisan fervor should be able understand that.

You apparently confused "petitioning the government" with "the government granting a petition." That was your Big Fail. You put the cart before the horse, AND you used the "F" word.

[Kurska]

79. Jesus, I'm saying what would happen if the government DID do what the petitioners want.

How is that unclear to you?

Even then, where am I advocating that the petition should be DISALLOWED? I'm saying that it shouldn't be GRANTED for reasons obvious to anyone with 2-cents to rub together.

Now that is grasping at straws.

[MADem]

80. You're conflating a request with a granting of a request, and screaming FASCIST.

Sorry--you can't get rid of all those edits to your post unless you delete the thread. We can see what you're saying.

It's a lame thread, and I think you know it.

[Kurska]

84. So... where is the censorship again?

I'm saying what would happen if the request WAS granted. I'm not conflating anything, my premise was clear from the beginning.

How am I censoring or advocating for censoring anyone?

[MADem]

88. You didn't succeed at it--it was the ATTEMPT that was lame.

You conflated the request with approval of the request, and then you hollered FASCIST and predicted dire results over something that wouldn't ever happen. You created a big honking strawman and misused the "F" term to drive your point home.

Your first two sentences: Trying to shut down news agencies you disagree with is FASCISM
At minimum it is authoritarian in the extreme.

It's neither. It's a bunch of people with a POV petitioning their government for a redress of grievances. Get over it.

I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself.

[Kurska]

96. I still have no idea where you are getting this idea I tried to censor people from.

How am I censoring anyone? You accused me of not respecting the first amendment, that is a very serious charge, yet you haven't backed it up one iota.

[MADem]

98. I'm just quoting you. Have a nice night. nt

[Kurska]

108. Your quote doesn't at all provide any kind of the evidence you think it does, but okay n/t

[cui bono]

111. I don't see where you are advocating censoring anyone.

Not sure why MADem is going after you so rudely.

[Throd]

63. Decrying censorship is censorship?

[MADem]

77. I'll send you along to post 76. nt

[Throd]

82. That really doesn't help your case.

All the semantics and hair-splitting aside, you really really hate FOX News and wish the government would shut them down. I fear a government with such a capacity.

[MADem]

89. Yes, it does. nt

[yuiyoshida]

104. hugs you MADem

[Jamastiene]

29. I would just be happy if they offered us an alternative that had the high level

of backing and support that Faux Noise has. As it stands right now, the right is the ONLY voice a lot of people are even able to hear. Why not allow more liberal networks to be as mainstream just to put the ideas out there? People will either like it or not, but at least there will be a choice in that case.

[Throd]

32. Let us pause a moment and consider giving the government this kind of power.

[Doctor_J]

33. plus this has ZERO chance of accomplishing anything

I don't get it

[cyberswede]

35. "Vote" with your remote

I took Fox News off our channel lists on all our satellite receivers. We can't even accidentally click on that channel.

[Scootaloo]

36. Your concern is duly noted

Maybe you can go back to your regular style of posts, if you're finished here?

I strongly suggest other readers to have a look at Kurska's post history. it's... interesting.

[MADem]

41. What it is! nt

[Kurska]

47. Glad to see you're back

If you want to talk about posting history. How bout the fact you've spent around half of the last 6 months in time out, because you can't play well with other duers.

Ever heard the phrase that starts with "Let he who is without sin".

[Scootaloo]

64. No you're not, but thanks for the sentiment anyway

Seriously, people should look up the stuff you've posted. It's all very, very interesting. Some of it is even - dare I say - illuminating.

[Kurska]

70. Thats the funny thing

I do genuinely miss you when you get yourself into a situation where you can't post for awhile.

You bring a decent amount of pop and sizzle into the conversation. Although you not always being around to post might be a function of that attribute, but thats just life ain't it.

Take care, scoot.

[moondust]

38. Would you call

denazification fascism?

[chknltl]

39. No, not Fascism. Not Communism nor Democracy nor Dictatorship nor Monarchy....

I am fairly sure Mr. Giovanni Gentile is rolling in his grave about now. Accdg, to the last poll I saw, the average DUer has a Masters Degree. I barely qualify with a BA in Anthropology but even I know that Fascism is a form of government, not a tool for censorship of the media. While it is true that there are lots of governments that censure the media, (as you well know, our supposed democracy-the corporatocracy/oligarchy insists on a lot of censorship), it is not true that media censorship is any specific type of government or even a property of a specific one.

It is bad enough when the right calls President Obama a Marxist, Fascist, Communist dictator and etc, oftentimes all in the same sentence but this is DU! I hope you don't take my pointing this out as being disrespectful Kurska, I get and actually agree with where you are going with this, I just don't agree with the method you chose to get us there.

That all said, I do agree that the call for media censorship by fellow DUers is wrong. I will recommend your OP for that reason. I might add to your list: sponsorship. When it became growingly popular to call for the censorship of Rush Limbaugh via boycotting his sponsors, it had a ripple effect that brought about a drop in sponsorship for all political talk radio. Stephanie Miller, the progressive host of the show by the same name screamed to high heaven pleading with the left to stop with all this boycott Rush talk. The ripple effect drop in sponsorship hurt her show too! Fox News has a boat load of sponsors and should it become unpopular (read unprofitable) to sponsor these so called 'news' services then where will we be? One might find oneself relying on You-Tube to get one's news should that happen

I have no problem with the citizenry requesting that FOX NEWS be relabeled as other than 'news'-hell they can even keep their name FOX NEWS as long as it is understood somewhere in their labeling that they are entertainment instead of a fully reliable news service. The great Thom Hartmann is quick to tell any who care to hear that his show is political opinion and discussion as opposed to news-to not take his show as being news.

IMHO it would be nice if the government could step in and redefine what exactly constitutes news, separating news from entertainment/infotainment. Earlier I pointed out that we have our own form of censorship. This is due to the fact that we have for profit 'news' services. There is much that our news services are not allowed to report on. Even on MSNBC for instance, there are things Rachel Maddow would love to talk about, actual news that should be important to the voting citizenry but MSNBC would fire her in an instant should she even try.

btw in case you were wondering who he was: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/229340/Giovanni-Gentile

[B Calm]

53. Joseph Goebbels was considered as a news source too!

[chknltl]

103. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't he state run?

I can only imagine the hell We The People would be put through if we had a state run news service! What if it were run by Congress? Maybe put Speaker Boehner in front of a microphone an hour each day before he has a chance to get a few drinks in him... The words 'boggles the mind' is somehow inadequate for me right now.

If I am not mistaken Goebbels even had the title of Minister of Propaganda or something like it, not only was he paid to lie, it may very well have been in his job title! Yeah, I am sure what Goebbels spewed was considered news by many of his listeners but think about it, what alternative did they have when it came to news services? Anything contrary to what was sanctioned state news was well....censured! See how that works?

Look, the argument I make here is not about Fox News producing lies, propaganda and etc. My argument so far has been in regards to censorship. I would like to depart from that argument to point out that ALL of our major news services and this includes Fox 'so called' News (as Thom Hartmann calls them), are NOT giving us the real news necessary to sustain our democracy.

Democracy requires an enlightened electorate and our new services are corporate owned so any news 'enlightenment' we get is corporate filtered. I used this example elsewhere here but it illustrates best what has happened to our news services: A news channel can not run a news story about the evils of fracking when they have as major sponsors corporatists who are doing the fracking! Rachel Maddow would dearly love to do an in-depth reporting on how corporate news has redefined how the citizenry view important issues in our country but she can't do this because MSNBC won't allow it-they would lose their lucrative sponsors (but Rachel would be looking for a job long before she could air such a story, true as it may be).

What needs to be done is not censorship of one of our news providers, and yes again I fully get that what Fox provides qualifies more as propaganda than it does as news, what needs to be done is a restructuring of all of our news services so that We The People have access to the actual news needed to run our country from local to nationwide. We say here in DU that we need to get the money out of our politics, well we need to get it out of our news services too!

[B Calm]

116. and Fox news is an extension of the republican party. It is

funded by the same group who fund the GOP.

[chknltl]

119. Yes it is but even worse than that, FAR WORSE:

As I and others here at DU have been saying, all of our major news services are corporate owned which translates into our news being corporate filtered and corporate biased. One of the major stockholders of Fox News is Saudi Sheik Alwaleed: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2010/08/24/115285/fox-stewart-alwaleed/
One has to ask oneself, how much of this guys needs for his family and then for his country translate into what Fox News analysts report as smart foreign policy avenues for the U.S. to be thinking about?

Consider this: The Saudi government controls one of the top 5 most advanced military powers in the world today. http://www.ibtimes.com/saudi-arabias-advanced-powerful-military-faces-isis-threat-wake-king-abdullahs-death-1792962 So why is it when you talk to Fox News viewers that they want OUR military to take a bigger hand in dealing with ISIS/L? It's not like Fox News viewers are totally siding with John McCain here, their persuasion comes from elsewhere. (As does $enator John McCain's I've no doubt).

When you say that Fox News is an extension of the Republican Party you are only part right, both the Republican Party and Fox News are team-mates working against our very democracy-working against it for the highest bidders! In a very real sense, not only is our government bought out from under us but so are our news services. As I pointed out in the Fox News case above, one doesn't even have to be an American to spread propaganda out to the citizenry through our News Services so one has to ask, how much foreign money is being spent on our politicians as well!

This has never been about removing a specific politician or shutting down a specific news propaganda outlet. Remove one and ten more spring up because the system is in place that allows for it to continue on. Bluntly: This is a cancer and treating one of the symptoms will not cure the cancer! If the damage is to be repaired, money MUST be removed or at least heavily regulated from/with all of our politics and it MUST be removed or again heavily regulated from/with all of our news services as well. Unregulated capitalism* is being used in both these areas and arguably it is harming our democracy equally.

*by unregulated capitalism I am not using capitalism in it's literal sense: 'using money to make money' instead my use of unregulated capitalism means: using money to purchase power to do with such power as one will.

[DeSwiss]

55. ''Fascism is a form of government, not a tool for censorship of the media.''

- A form of totalitarian government, which includes controlling the media.

[center]

[/center]

[chknltl]

93. Of course it is.

I've never said otherwise. My only disagreeing point with the OP is labeling censorship as fascism. There are forms of censorship going on right here in the good ol' USA but that doesn't make censorship democracy either. I'm not trying to be nit-picky here but I am reminded of our poking fun at righties for saying silly things like: 'Keep your government hands off of my Medicare'.

FWIW other than that I actually agree that we should not be calling for censorship of Fox News. I DO STRONGLY think that they need to be rebranded/rebrand themselves as something other than news. I would also like to see our government defining what news truly is. Democracy requires an enlightened electorate and we currently are not getting the enlightenment we need to sustain our democracy from ANY of our major news services, including Fox News. If one wants to argue that Fox should be censured, equally valid arguments can be brought to bear against NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and etc because they practice corporate censorship.

I get this opinion from Thom Hartmann. He feels pretty strongly about the corporate run media being a source for corporate propaganda these days. It is hard to run a story about the evils of fracking for instance when your sponsors are the ones doing the fracking! Most of our media is corporate run which translates to: most of our so called 'news' is corporate run!

You and I can agree that the propaganda the corporatists run through Fox News is bad for America but we really should be agreeing on more than that. We need to be agreeing that the corporatist takeover of most of our key news services is bad for our democracy.

You speak of totalitarianism. It makes sense that for it to take over a government it must along the way take over that nations news services.

[cui bono]

109. Well said. I would like to see them have to take "News" off of their name.

And if they wish to call themselves news then I would like to see fines in place for any news agency/organization that tells lies. I know Faux went to court and was able to get the court to decide that it was okay for them to lie, but the FCC grants a license to use the airwaves, does it not? I don't know if it's the same for cable, but we have public airwaves that the corporations are allowed to use. Why can't there be some regulations/restrictions?

Why are corporations/banks, etc. always allowed to do whatever they want when if you or I did the equivalent in our lives we'd be locked up in a heartbeat.

[Ed Suspicious]

43. If they offered news . . .

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

49. if they were news I might agree but it's FOX, so it is akin to shutting down Joseph Goebbels

[relayerbob]

50. Authoritarian yes, stupid yes

Fascism? no

Governments that are very far from fascist have done it also. Would it hurt the GOP! Hell no, the "martyrs" would have a heyday and the left would be hung out to dry and probably destroyed for a generation or more..

[elleng]

52. IF they were truly NEWS agencies, that might be correct.

Faux is NOT a news agency, however.

A big and serious problem is that many apparently think they present news, when they don't, consequently significantly skewing our political discourse.

[JDPriestly]

54. K&R.

We should not try to get Fox News banned.

But we should start boycotting right-wing news and the companies that sponsor right-wing news but don't sponsor our alternative and left-wing and centrist media.

To run a media station or network or to print a magazine or newspaper, you have to sell advertising.

Advertisers are not supporting the media that speaks to and for Democrats. And that is wrong. They are in a sense banning media that many of us on DU would listen to or watch. That's stupid. We buy products.

Don't buy from businesses that advertise on the right-wind media. We need to make a list and let those companies know that we want more than one point of view heard and seen and broadcast in the media.

The US news agencies are too right-wing.

[stonecutter357]

62. So fox is

so fox is a victim now

[Kurska]

66. If the government were to shut them down, yes they would be.

And I say this a a gay person who has had their fair share of hate thrown at them by fox news.

I may not like fox news, but that doesn't mean they ought to be shut down.

[Throd]

67. No. They just have the right to say the stupid shit that they do.

[KT2000]

69. Cannot agree with this

The petition will not work because it is a cable station. If it was a station that used the airwaves, the FCC requires the station to serve a greater good and the public is encouraged to comment to the FCC. That station is damaging to society as it stokes anger with lies. It is changing the way people relate to each other and the way people behave.

If it could be proven through research that the station intentionally lies to viewers with the goal of agitating them to hate other Americans, side with corporations, practice bigotry, etc., we would call it propaganda. That is what I believe they are - not opposition.

[Moostache]

72. Uh-huh....and cigarettes are perfectly safe, climate change is NOT happening, Earth IS 6,000 yrs old

When the "news" is invented and not simply reported, then the argument for fascism rings a bit hollow.

I do not advocate shutting them up or even making them stop, but I DO advocate for truth and accountability for them. I DO advocate for sunshine to scatter them as the dung beetles of the news industry.

When false equivalency is a memory...
When comments made have consequences that are retained again...
When 30 minutes consecutive run on the Faux air that are NOT fabricated, slanted or hideously propagandized...

THEN I will join the argument that says they have the RIGHT to broadcast "news"...otherwise, call it what it is and be done with them - The Fox Conservative/Republican Propaganda Network...or just call them Right Wing Pravda.

[Joe Johns]

81. What if the "news" org you're trying to shut down is ITSELF fascist?

Fox "News" would certainly meet my definition of the word.

[GGJohn]

83. Your definition of the word means nothing in accordance with the law.

But that's irrelevant, the FCC has no authority or jurisdiction over cable networks and Fox has no license to broadcast.

[Kurska]

85. Our country protects speech, even from Fascists.

There is a long list of court rulings saying that even the most vile and despicable of opinions have a right to be spoken if the person so desires to.

The solution to bad speech is good speech, not government censorship.

[Joe Johns]

86. I agree with your last sentence

But do they really need a nationwide TV network? Let them be heard in already-available forums!

[Kurska]

87. If the stations are willing to carry them and they can draw an audience

Thats just the way things are sadly. The only way to change that is to change something about this country that I find beautiful and important, the right to free speech.

[Joe Johns]

90. The country cannot change...

...as long as we have 18th-century views being promulgated by a "news" network.

[quakerboy]

91. Id be fine with conservative news

But I have a problem with purposeful factual incorrect things being broadcast on public airwaves. They have every right to exist. They do not have a right to access public airwaves.

[sabrina 1]

92. When did Fox become a News Agency?

[Half-Century Man]

94. this is the same ploy as "Flush the Rush", but on a grander scale.

A petition with 5000 signatures, or 1 million, or even 5 million signatures will not convince the FCC to shut them down.
What it will do is notify the advertisers who use Fox, the extent of potential customers who could organize to boycott their products. What it does is keep attention focused on the acts of Fox which are so detrimental to the USA

[Kurska]

97. Yup, this is a much better strategy.

Go after this advertisers, don't try to get the government to shut them down.

[Half-Century Man]

99. The petition to the government will never work as stated.

Not without something like 100 million signatures. Long before we could reach the nearly 1/3 of the population, which might cause the government to act, every capitalist connected to Fox will shit there collective pants.

[nomorenomore08]

102. I agree that shutting Fox News down would be counterproductive, and very likely unconstitutional.

On the other hand, I wouldn't lose any sleep if they were forced to add disclaimers of the "for entertainment purposes" variety. That goes for all cable news networks, mind you.

[KingCharlemagne]

105. Actually it would be 'authoritarian,' but not necessarily 'fascist.' (Not all authoritarianism

is fascism.)

[Marr]

106. "The right has just as much right to put out their message as the left does."

Sure, but the right is backed by massive moneyed interests who can pay for 24/7 flat-out false propaganda on cable and radio. The playing field is not at all level.

Also, fuck Fox "News".

[malaise]

110. Fox is not a news agency

It is a propaganda station that promotes both right wing lies and the right wing agenda.
Please examine the entire premise of terrorists and get back to me because America and the West have no problem silencing any view that disagrees with their current position that anyone who does not promote their lies is a terrorist.

[phoenixpcrod]

115. Fox News? Disagreeing with the opposition?

News is not supposed to be the opposition. News is a factual report of events. Anyone believing fox is news loves their koolaid!

[LanternWaste]

117. It's simply the market and its concomitant viewership realigning ratings through various, legal mean

"Trying to shut down news agencies you disagree with is FASCISM"

It's simply the market and its concomitant viewership realigning ratings through various, legal means of approval and disapproval.

If it were the FCC doing so, you might have a precarious point. Any rational person not choking on the bile of his own idiocy would see that.

[mmonk]

118. A free press doesn't mean a corporate run press under corporate influenced rules.